Jump to content

Andrei Rublev (1966)


Recommended Posts

  • 6 months later...
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Last week it was Ivan’s Childhood. This past weekend it was Andrei Rublev, and I’m genuinely stunned. I can’t even describe how it made me feel, or what it (for lack of a better word) means--I just know it’s sublime, both aesthetically and spiritually. In particular, I keep thinking about the conclusion of the bell sequence, with Rublev embracing Boriska in the mud and finally breaking his vow of silence…just, wow. All during that section, I’d kept thinking, “Okay…but what does this have to do with anything?” But of course it all makes sense right there in that moment. Honestly, I was this close to tearing up.

Aside from that moment, all that I can articulate right now is that there’s something about Tarkovsky’s aesthetic that creates a very uneasy sense of reality. I get the feeling that he doesn’t want us to be “spectators” or “viewers” as much as witnesses to something. I wish I could describe what I mean better than that, but for now that will have to do.

Well, in a sense, Rublev himself is a witness. And one of the questions that arises, once you witness something, is whether you will then do or say anything in response. Maybe it's that a spectator or a viewer's role is merely passive. You watch. You're entertained. Or you're not entertained. And then you go back to real life. Tarkovsky's films demand more than that from the viewer. He's not interested in merely entertaining us.

In an interview on the film, Tarkovsky says -

We wanted to show that Andrei Rublev's art was a protest against the order that reigned at that time, against the blood, the betrayal, the oppression. Living at a terrifying time, he eventually arrives at the necessity of creating and carries through all of his life the idea of brotherhood, love for peace, a radiant worldview, and the idea of Rus's unification in the face of the Tatar yoke. We found it extremely important, both from the historical and the contemporary viewpoints, to express these thoughts. Unfortunately we succeeded in relating only a portion of what has been written about the epoch in historical sources. It was so blood-drenched that literally every page of the chronicles and of historical studies tells us about betrayal, desertion, treason, blood, arson, Tatar raids, destruction, death and so on and so forth. In our picture we were able to show not even half of that for our story was also about a lot of other things and it is necessary to preserve a certain proportion in order to avoid distorting the truth. Our historical consultants who read the screenplay did not find any departures from the historiography.

The recreated epoch interested us not only in our search for an answer to the question concerning the meaning of true art. Our Andrei Rublev passes through the narrative not as the main protagonist. For us he provided the occasion and ground for speaking about what is most important ...

There is really something sacred about the film Andrei Rublev, and yes, it is hard to put into words. But it's affirming something that, in spite of all the pain and suffering around us, is worth holding onto, making extravagant vows for, is capable of inspiring the witness to creativity and action that can, perhaps just a little, be redemptive in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my response is better off in this thread.

Aside from that moment, all that I can articulate right now is that there’s something about Tarkovsky’s aesthetic that creates a very uneasy sense of reality. I get the feeling that he doesn’t want us to be “spectators” or “viewers” as much as witnesses to something. I wish I could describe what I mean better than that, but for now that will have to do.

I think that, generally speaking, this aesthetic is found more in Eastern European, and Russian cinema than the West. But yes, it's especially prominent in this film, and I can't offhand think of another film where this is so apparent. It's almost as if Tarkovsky wants the screen to become like a time maching of sorts, where we look back into time upon these peoples very real lives. It is a fantastic film, and I've never seen anything quite like it.

I expect that's where the sacredness in the film comes from, being a very palpable sense that one is looking in on the lives of very real people who are made in the image of God. If one was to want to argue that art and film can be "mystical" then this would be a good film to support their case.

Edited by Attica
Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought: There was something about the bell sequence at the end that reminded me of the opening sequence of There Will Be Blood. I'm sure it could just be a coincidence, but something about them both feels very similar. Maybe it's the camerawork, or possibly the tense wait-and-see tone they share. Has anyone else ever had this feeling, or am I alone here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

just a heads up that this film is up for free at Hulu for the next 8 days.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/265819?playlist_id=1302&asset_scope=movies

Edited by Justin Hanvey

"The truth is you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin Ringo, I'm tryin real hard to be the shepherd." Pulp Fiction

Justin's Blog twitter Facebook Life Is Story

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...