Andrei Tarkovsky's second feature offers an episodic, largely invented look at the life of a 15th century icon creator amidst an unsparing depiction of the oft brutal world in which he lived.
I was lucky to see this projected a year before COVID. The Bell had me absolutely spellbound and the color epilogue elicited an audible gasp from me. I didn't know much of anything about the film going into it which I think made the ending quite potent for me.
The movie has so much closing speed. It really does build toward its biggest and most important setpieces and pays them off with incredible grandeur and emotion.
It’s been almost exactly one decade since I caught a repertory screening of this. As I wrote at the time, it’s the kind of film that humbles and ennobles the viewer in equal measure.
For those who subscribe to the Criterion Channel, there is a lot of great supplemental material about Andrei Rublev, including a wonderful interview with the late film scholar Robert Bird.
I considered a quick rewatch of the film this afternoon, but I need time and an appropriately slowed-down but active mindset to experience this one. I’ve seen it years ago, perhaps twice.
I recall being awe-struck by some of the shots. Per my imperfect memory, there’s one wide shot with a group walking along the top of a high grassy incline, and much lower and far away on the screen’s far side, there are groups of people with other interactions. I found it hard to fathom all the coordination: how to prepare the people for this shot to do their thing from a far distance, how to get the timing of their movements correct to stay in the shot, the location scouting to find the perfect place for this and the timing of just the proper sunlight. In this scene, there is a level of “epic filmmaking” that brought me shivers.
Of course, there were aspects of the story I just did not understand in the historical context, but I was able to see the nature of the character’s relationships, which can be enough to maintain an interest in the film. It’s wonderful that we now have access to Wikipedia, or even the wicked A.I., which can help assist the viewer in understanding historical context, and even help the viewer understand the film’s connective tissue.
Separately, the view from the sky in the balloon in the prologue seemed similar to me to the beginning of Fellini’s 8 1/2. Are these some sort of dream-correlated imageries that we’re expected to refer to Freud for translation?
Anyways, I appreciate this monumental film came up, and your writing really encourages thoughtful reengagement with this Tarkovsky achievement.
I was lucky to see this projected a year before COVID. The Bell had me absolutely spellbound and the color epilogue elicited an audible gasp from me. I didn't know much of anything about the film going into it which I think made the ending quite potent for me.
The movie has so much closing speed. It really does build toward its biggest and most important setpieces and pays them off with incredible grandeur and emotion.
It’s been almost exactly one decade since I caught a repertory screening of this. As I wrote at the time, it’s the kind of film that humbles and ennobles the viewer in equal measure.
For those who subscribe to the Criterion Channel, there is a lot of great supplemental material about Andrei Rublev, including a wonderful interview with the late film scholar Robert Bird.
I considered a quick rewatch of the film this afternoon, but I need time and an appropriately slowed-down but active mindset to experience this one. I’ve seen it years ago, perhaps twice.
I recall being awe-struck by some of the shots. Per my imperfect memory, there’s one wide shot with a group walking along the top of a high grassy incline, and much lower and far away on the screen’s far side, there are groups of people with other interactions. I found it hard to fathom all the coordination: how to prepare the people for this shot to do their thing from a far distance, how to get the timing of their movements correct to stay in the shot, the location scouting to find the perfect place for this and the timing of just the proper sunlight. In this scene, there is a level of “epic filmmaking” that brought me shivers.
Of course, there were aspects of the story I just did not understand in the historical context, but I was able to see the nature of the character’s relationships, which can be enough to maintain an interest in the film. It’s wonderful that we now have access to Wikipedia, or even the wicked A.I., which can help assist the viewer in understanding historical context, and even help the viewer understand the film’s connective tissue.
Separately, the view from the sky in the balloon in the prologue seemed similar to me to the beginning of Fellini’s 8 1/2. Are these some sort of dream-correlated imageries that we’re expected to refer to Freud for translation?
Anyways, I appreciate this monumental film came up, and your writing really encourages thoughtful reengagement with this Tarkovsky achievement.