lesamourai

The last film I watched was Andrei Rublev (1966)


Andrei Rublev marked the full emergence of Tarkovsky's style, only briefly visible in his previous film Ivan's Childhood. Throughout his career, Tarkovsky concerned himself with man's quest for spiritual growth. Andrei Rublev chronicles the life of the titular iconographer as he wanders across the desolate landscape of medievil Russia. To call the film a biopic would not do it justice however--it isn't a biopic at all. In fact Rublev serves as a periphery and even absent character throughout much of the film. Although we bear witness to the ups-and-downs of Rublev's life, we never connect or identify with him. The film's focus lies more in identifying the viewer with Rublev's struggle to find inspiration amidst the turmoil of medievil Russia.

Andrei Rublev opens with an thematically related prologue, though unrelated plotwise to the remainder of the film. Yefim, a peasant searching for a means to physically release himself from the confines of the barren Russian landscape, takes flight in a patchy air balloon. His bliss at being airborne is quickly transformed into panic however, as his vehicle hurls towards the ground. Yefim and his aspirations are crushed by the austere terrain. This breif segment introduces a central theme; the artist's struggle again those forces, both natural and human, that seek to inhibit artistic freedom. As the following vignettes introduce us to Andrei Rublev and the major events shaping his life, this theme becomes more defined. As an artist, Rublev must draw inspiration from the most feral circumstances.

Throughout the film we are introduced to many characters representing the hopeful, the creative, and the visionary. Yefim's hopes are crushed by the ground, the Jester's and Marfa's by a group of brutal soldiers. Not until the final vignette do we see the triumph of the artistic spirit over the tyrannic and brutish. The Grand Prince commissions the casting of a bell, but the town's bellmaker has died. The bellmaker's son, Boriska--our final creative character, insists that his father has passed to him the secrets of bellmaking . Boriska begins the arduous task of casting the bell, relishing in his control over the workers but laboring to cast the bell correctly against the punishment of death. Rublev witnesses the event from the peripherary and from a self-imposed vow of silence. The bell rings beautifully at the inauguration ceremony and Boriska collapses to the ground in tears. As Rublev embraces him, Boriska reveals that his father did not pass down the secrets of bellmaking. Boriska's unwavering faith in his own skill was soley responsible for the bell. The beauty of this moment inspires Andrei to break his vow of silence and resume his art.

The final moments of the bell-casting sequence represent not only the triumph of Boriska over the Grand Prince but also the triumph of Rublev over all of the events and persons throughout the film that have led him to doubt himself and his abilities. His encounter with the pagans and tempation for the naked pagan woman, his slaying of a Tatar to save the life of a mute woman, and his abandonment by that woman led Andrei to give up painting. Boriska's supreme achievement restores Rublev's faith. Rublev's ability to overcome the adversity present in medievil Russia is evident by the survival of his greatest icons, which the camera glides over in the film's epilogue.

-lesamourai

cardboard adolescent

Amazing, beautiful film. I watched that and Mirrors recently, which was also visually stunning.

lesamourai

Yes it is, I consider it my favorite Tarkovsky, just ahead of Stalker.

cardboard adolescent

I really can't rank them, they're all so good. I now also really feel the need to read Solaris.

lesamourai

I've not read the book, but Stanislaw Lem was really disappointed with Tarks take on the story. Tarkovsky took the source material and made it his own as opposed to a direct adaptation. Soderberg's version is closer to the book (but obviously greatly inferior to Tarkovsky's version).

adidasss

Why?

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

lesamourai

Why what? Why isn't Soderberg's version as good as Tarkovsky's? That's like asking why Rembrant is better than Norman Rockwell.

adidasss

I'm gonna need a little more clarification on that.

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

lesamourai

Have you seen Tarkovsky's Solyaris? He was a master of cinematic form. Beautiful long takes, some of the most beautiful imagery ever committed to film. Tarkovsky was an out-and-out genius of the medium, Soderberg is a Hollywood director who forfeits artistic intergrity to appeal to a mass audience. Tarkovsky took the source material and made it something of his own, ruminations on faith and self-discovery, Soderberg did a by-the-numbers book adaptation to film. Tark's version runs nearly three hours because nothing is rushed, he is taking the time to explore Kris' world and the environment of the space station. Soderberg's version runs a short, sweet 99 minutes (so as not to offput anyone). Frankly your question is ridiculous, Tarkovsky is one of the greatest film directors of all time, Soderberg is the guy who gave us Oceans 11.

adidasss

I don't think my question was ridiculous, I merely asked you to try and elaborate why Tarkovsky's version is "obviously" better, and as I suspected, it appears that it's mostly because Tarkovsky has a better reputation. :|

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm