Andrei Rublev (1973)

A stunning and thought-provoking film - but not for the faint-hearted or those with ADHD

I watched this movie two days ago and can't stop thinking about it. It is also the first Tarkovsky film that I've seen. I've read quite a bit about his films, but this is the first one that I've watched. I mention this up front so that readers of this review can understand my perspective, I'm still trying to absorb what I saw. In short, this is an incredible, thought-compelling film, probably one of the best ever made. The praise for this film in some of the other positive Amazon reviews is well merited. It is a story about faith and about life, but mostly about figuring out what it is we are meant to do with our lives. Andrei Rublev is a painter of icons and cathedrals in the Orthodox Church in Russia during the late Middle Ages. As a young man he is widely acknowledged as the best at his craft in Russia, and is summoned to work on some of the most important projects. What follows is Rublev's lifelong journey through Russia. We watch his maturity and evolution as he questions the nature of his work and the nature of his faith. He witnesses some of the most brutal, cruel acts and treacheries by both friends and enemies. What really makes this a great film is the timeless nature of it's central theme: will we ever realize what it is we've been put on this Earth to do, even when it is staring us in the face?

This film will definitely take some discipline to sit through for 3+ hours, but you will be richly rewarded. As I was watching the film, I initially had to agree that it was too long, but once you see how everything fits together, I think you'll come to the conclusion that all is part of the whole. Tarkovsky wove a complex story in which the diverse themes presented early in the film are fully and richly developed as the film progresses. There isn't a lot of action in this film nor is there a directly linear plotline. This film is mostly dialog, so if `Lethal Weapon' is your kind of story, you should definitely avoid. There are also a few brutally graphic scenes in this film, so be forewarned. I'm sure that there is a great deal of symbolism in the film about communism, Russia, etc. that are totally lost on me. If I was to make a literary comparison, this film is like the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Elias Khoury - a difficult read but worth the journey if you stick with it. A great film for a thinking man or woman, though, highly recommended. July 6, 2008

THE LOWDOWN ON THE TWO VERSIONS

I have owned the Criterion edition of this film a long time; I recently bought the Ruscico (Russian Cinema Council) edition and think I should try to make clearer the differences. This is not a critique of Tarkovsky's work -- that is beyond my capabilities.

As you may already know, the Criterion edition is taken from Martin Scorsese's personal print and represents the penultimate version of the film, while the Ruscico edition represents the release version, which is about twenty minutes shorter. However, Tarkovsky did more than pare twenty minutes off the film -- it's actually a somewhat different film, though the differences are not major.

To begin with, the Scorsese print (Criterion) has a completely different set of credit titles and intertitles, and at that stage the film was titled "Strasty po Andreyu" (Passion of Andrei). The release version (Ruscico) is titled "Andrei Rublev" and is not merely shorter: it contains shots that do not appear in "Strasty po Andreyu" (Criterion). Commenting on the DVDs themselves, the Ruscico DVD is much better looking. The subtitles (as one might imagine) are written by someone whose native language is Russian, and that is very important to me. When the subtitles are written by an English-speaker they are rendered in English idioms and subtle, specific meanings are often lost. Sometimes one cannot even tell what a scene is about. (There is a scene in Criterion's "Ivanovo Detstvo", for example, where the English-written subs completely obscure the point of a scene, while the Russian-written English subs in Ruscico's version make it perfectly clear.) Russian-written English subtitles are sometimes ungrammatical, use idioms whose meanings are unclear to non-Russian speakers, and sometimes even inadvertantly use a word from yet another language (French, in one case that I saw), but I'll take subs written by someone whose native language is that of the film any day. In fact, if you see a version of any foreign film with English-written subs first, then see a version where the English subs were written in the film's country of origin, it will be like seeing a whole new film. (A spectacular example is the difference between Kino's "Zerkalo" [Mirror] and Ruscico's -- there is NO comparison [Ruscico wins!], except that you have to avoid Ruscico's 5.1 audio remix and select the original mono.)

Additionally, an extra of great interest is hidden away on Ruscico's "Andrei Rublev" DVD. In the individual filmographies certain titles are highlighted: these are accompanied by trailers, four of which are for Tarkovsky films. These trailers are made up largely of shots that are entirely different from anything that appeared in the final film, so should be of absorbing interest to any fan of his work.

To sum up: Although I prefer the long version represented on Criterion's disk ("Strasty po Andreyu"), the Ruscico disk has a superior image, better subtitles (to my way of thinking), and fascinating extras if you can find them. Get both DVDs. May 4, 2008

As a film editor I can appreciate it-but not the story

When you work in the world of film, you start to look at things differently then you may have looked at them before. If I was to say that I loved the "story" of 'Andrei Rublev', I would be a liar. In fact, I hated it vehemently as I just viewed it again for the first time in a few years; BUT as a piece of filmmaking art, I can look at the typical Tarkovsky long and lingering shots and appreciate the work of a man in love with his camera. Tarkovsky's work appeals to me, not for his ability (or lack thereof) to tell a story, but to create mood. Now that is not appealing to many people, and certainly not worth the $ to pay for a DVD or VHS copy of this film. (Note: there are several versions of this film available that vary in length due to various edits this film has undergone.)

If you are planning on learning about an religious icon painter named Andrei Rublev, this film will not teach you anything, because what little to nothing is known about him is merely conjecture here on Tarkovsky's part. Tarkovsky's idea of plot is a bell, a jester and tartar hordes which frankly , in my mind, make no real sense; BUT, again, if you are viewing the film to learn about Tarkovsky's work as an artist, by all means rent this. It is, in my view, almost ponderously langorous (if that makes sense!). You must have an attention span that even outlasts mine (which is darned good frankly!). April 18, 2008

The Most Spiritual Film Ever Made

Tarkovsky digs deep into history itself and reveals hidden truths about the religious experience and the mind of the artist in this epic struggle through the wintry wastelands of medieval Russia. A profound, mystical journey of enlightenment which remains perhaps the most spiritual film ever made. April 15, 2008

3 times in a year...I finally can say that I don't like it

I have a habit of returning to films that I don't care for because I am always interested to see if my opinions will change. This is my third time through "Andrei Rublev" since last winter. I have now spent over 10 hours viewing this film from many angles; I have looked at it from the religious, the political, the pagan, the historical; I have read what precious little there is to read about the real 15th-Century Iconographer; I have read about the writer/director Tarkovsky and his symbolism....and, for me, this film does not reach me on any level. Why?

Tarkovsky wanted to make a statement about his beloved Russia and how he saw it's decline during the Soviet Years. He, along with co-writer Andrei Konchalovsky, chose the character Andrei Rublev, considered to be Russia's greatest iconographer (religious images) and wrote a purely fictional account of the iconographer's life and struggle with art and faith and the conditions that prevailed in 15th-century Russia for peasants and artists under The Grand Prince and also under continuous Tatar Invasions. Through using historical Russian History as a backdrop, Tarkovsky portrays this monk through seven chapters of life from 1400 to 1412. Tarkovsky shows us peasants ,pagans, Tatars, Church Priests, inserts tons of Scripture from Ecclesiastes (the vanity of man) and Paul's First Letter to The Corinthians (the great Love chapter), and attempts to tell the "struggle" of an artisan who is to go from Church to Church and commission to commission to paint Icons (religious images). Three hours, Tarkovsky never shows one icon being painted, making it very plain that this film is not solely about the life of an artist. Why choose an iconographer and never show one icon? Wait... at the end of this black-and-white "masterpiece", as it is often referred, we are at last allowed to see, in color, icons that were "attributed" to this obscure monk, Andrei Rublev. The final icon, "The Trinity" is actually the ONLY icon that can be absolutely ascribed to Rublev. In Tarkovsky's words, his choice of black-and-white filming was motivated by his claim that "in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors. Consequently Rublev's life is in black-and-white, whereas his art is in color." I could not personally disagree more with Tarkovsky's assumption about how a person views life. That is why, for me, this film is strictly Tarkovsky, and nothing more. I don't agree with his views, nor do I like his film. My opinion only here!

If you expect to know anymore about the artist than what is known, you will not; Tarkovsky uses this man to show that the Soviet's have ignored The Scriptures and Russian History. This is a sociopolitical film that was intended (through reading Tarkovsky) to "show an artist's maturing and development of his talent" and to show "the connection between a creative character's personality and the times through which he lives." I do not feel that this film expresses this in the least. Sorry....call me a Philistine if you must, but this film was not enjoyable or informative nor plummets the depth of an artist's soul except in Tarkovsky's mind.

The film does contain animal cruelty, which I find offensive. A cow was placed in an asbestos suit and then set aflame for one shot during carnage. Another shot shows a horse stumbling down stairs and impaling itself. Tarkovsky notes that the horse was first shot for the scene and then taken to the slaughterhouse!

On my third time through this ponderous film, I used Tarkovsky's guide that is published on the Internet, to see if I could appreciate the film and understand it any better. I could not. I think this film needs to be viewed solely for the purpose of understanding Tarkovsky's vision as an artist in the Soviet Regime, and not for anything else. You will either get it or not. I admittedly did not and do not. The film contains very long shots which, stylistically, is a Tarkovsky trademark. The narrative is extremely dull and very confusing without the guide. With the guide, you will only understand the confusion. I have honestly tried to get more out of this film than I have been able to get. I find in it nothing inspiring or interesting or artistically or cinematically that should warrant a label of "masterpiece". To each his own. Granted I have loved films that others deplore, but for me, this is the last time for "Andrei Rublev." April 11, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...