★ 7 / 10
Later canonised (in 1988!), this tells the story
CinemaSerf
Later canonised (in 1988!), this tells the story of the renowned Russian iconographist and fresco painter. His actual life, as you might expect from the early…
Later canonised (in 1988!), this tells the story of the renowned Russian iconographist and fresco painter. His actual life, as you might expect from the early 15th century, is not well documented so Andrei Tarkovsky has, forgive the pun, a pretty blank canvas on which to draw us a portrait of the trials and tribulations of this inspired, misunderstood, suspected and troubled soul. It has an octuple, episodic, narrative that marries his own development as a man and an artist with the quite literally revolutionary goings on as his country is, frequently quite brutally, coming into some some semblance of cohesive existence. It focuses on the role of the church in this most religious, and superstitious, of nations and offers us a much less aggressive correlation between the communist Soviet threads so often prevalent in sate backed movies made at the time and of those iconic figures so prominent in Russian history. The imagery is creatively bamboozling at times; the story doesn't follow any linear a-b-c narrative and we are presented with an oblique interpretation not just of his life, but of life in an embryonic nation that is emerging from an almost primitive existence - and that is fascinating (if not always easy to follow and/or comprehend). It is the vision of the man in the title, but also of the man behind the camera - a startlingly effective sequence of beautifully photographed concepts that offer layers of complexities depicting human nature in pretty much all of it's guises. Surprisingly, for a film in excess of three hours, it flows effortlessly with Anatoliy Solonitsyn conveying an overwhelming sense of humanity with his character. If you can ever see it on a cinema screen, then it is definite a must - especially the last ten minutes or so which demonstrate (in glorious colour) some of his magnificent artistry.
Read full review
★ 9 / 10
A Masterpiece
xmdbx
There isn't much more you can ask of a film. It is more than the story of a painter, it is the story of a time and a people that is underrepresented in cinema.…
There isn't much more you can ask of a film. It is more than the story of a painter, it is the story of a time and a people that is underrepresented in cinema. Everything about it is top-notch. The sprawling landscapes used as the background for much of the movie is as visually stunning as you will see. The epic narrative, though a bit harder to follow because I had to rely on subtitles, is nearly unmatched in scale. The philosophical questions posed (blatantly and subtly) are as thought provoking as any. And the switch to color was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen in a film. Another particular moment that I found incredible was when Foma collapsed into the water after being struck with an arrow and the splash seemed to jump out of the screen. The actor who played Boriska was excellent, I never thought I would care so much about whether a bell worked or not.
Read full review
★ 8 / 10
"You'll cast bells, I'll paint icons"
ackstasis
Just as Andrei Rublev faced doubt about whether or not, having sinned, he could continue his celebrated iconography, I likewise find myself in two minds about…
Just as Andrei Rublev faced doubt about whether or not, having sinned, he could continue his celebrated iconography, I likewise find myself in two minds about Andrei Tarkovsky's film. My experience with the director's other work is, as usual, limited, but I still couldn't shake that persistent expectation that I would love 'Andrei Rublev (1969).' There is certainly much to love about it, but my appreciation for the film can best be described as admiration rather than affection, and, though I can speak with only the utmost praise for Tarkovsky's achievement, it doesn't occupy that exclusive space close to my heart. The film is a deeply-personal religious work, an examination of faith and moral values, and so perhaps it's inevitable that the film didn't leave such a deep impression, considering my preference towards atheism; one unfortunately cannot discard all personal convictions for the mere purposes of appreciating a work of art. I do, however, like to think that the majesty of cinema, in most cases, is able to transcend religious boundaries.
Andrei Tarkovsky released his first feature-length film, 'Ivan's Childhood,' in 1962. Even prior to its release, the director had already expressed interest in filming the life of great Russian iconographer Andrei Rublev, even though very little is actually known about his life. Working with a screenplay written by himself and Andrei Konchalovsky, Tarkvosky began filming in 1964, and a 205-minute cut was screened for a private audience in Moscow in 1966. The critical response, however, was mixed, and sizeable cuts were made to the film's running time, before a 186-minute version screened out of competition at the Cannes Film Festival in 1969. I'm not entirely sure which version I ended up watching; the time counter indicated somewhere around 165 minutes, though my brief research couldn't uncover any major missing sequences. In hindsight, I should probably have held out for longer and acquired the Criterion Collection DVD, which restores the picture to its four-hour glory. In several years' time, when I inevitably decide to revisit Tarkovsky's film, I'll make certain to do just that.
'Andrei Rublev' is divided into nine distinct segments, including a colour epilogue displaying Rublev's weathered icons as they exist today. They each explore a facet of the great painter's life, placing particular emphasis on his faith in God and how it relates to his work on frescos and icons. Interestingly, though Rublev (Anatoli Solonitsyn) himself appears in most of the stories, he is often hidden in the background, a passive observer on the behaviour of others, including Kirill (Ivan Lapikov), who is jealous of Rublev's recognition, and young Boriska (Nikolai Burlyayev), who successfully casts a bell using faith rather than knowledge. One consequence of this narrative format is a lack of cohesiveness in Tarkovsky's storytelling. We adequately follow the plot of each segment, but, as the whole, the film doesn't seem to build towards any notable climactic revelation the completed film is equal to the sum of its parts, which is still very impressive, but pulls it short of being a masterpiece. Once again, however, I must acknowledge that the 205-minute version may potentially correct this problem.
One statement that can not be disputed, however, is that 'Andrei Rublev' really is a beautiful piece of film-making. Vadim Yusov's black-and-white photography captures the exquisite delicateness of nature with almost heartbreaking intricacy; even the raindrops of a midday shower are imbued with the gentle elegance of the Heaven from which they ostensibly fell. Tarkovsky finds simple beauty in the quiver of a tree branch in the breeze, the leisurely flow of a river, herds of livestock fleeing from an aerial balloon. In portraying the complete opposite, the destruction of nature, the director is capable but not quite the master he is otherwise. The raiding of Vladimir by a troop of Tatars was obviously supposed to be the centrepiece of the picture, but Tarkovsky underplays every detail to such an extent that his "chaos" ultimately winds down into a staged conflict. Compare this sequence with Sergei Bondarchuk's burning of Moscow in 'War and Peace (1967),' in which one feels as though he has descended into the fires of Hell, and the contrast is telling.
Read full review
96%
TOMATOMETER
· 47 reviews
93%
AUDIENCE
· 10K ratings
8.0/10
61.4K
•••
falta una hora de pelicula. fix