34 Andrei Rublev

[Svevan]

The Criterion booklet (you may not know this since it's been stolen from you twice) includes a short passage from Bergman on Tarkovsky and, I think, Rublev itself.

[HerrSchreck]

From Nostalghia.com, the same quote from Bergman that's in the Rublyov CC insert:

Ingmar Bergman on Andrei Tarkovsky
My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle.

Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease.

I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how.

Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.

More quotes on AT by IB on the same page linked.

[nostalghic]

The Criterion booklet (you may not know this since it's been stolen from you twice) includes a short passage from Bergman on Tarkovsky and, I think, Rublev itself.

Yeah I did remember it I was just hoping he'd said a bit more on it, because I seem to hear/read him dropping the film's name in interviews so often, something with a bit of depth would be interesting.

[miless]

and that quote from Bergman relates to Ivan's Childhood, not to Andre Rublev.

[HerrSchreck]

Are you sure? I always wondered about the "first film" appellation myself, but CC's placement of the statement in the Rublyov disc, and the extreme kinship of the subject matter and themes in Rublyov vs those in Bergman always led me to believe that Bergman was simply mixed up regarding what his first film was. Of course Ivans Childhood was AT's "first" film (at least in terms of Official Features beyond the school experience i e Steamroller), and-- although a thing of incredible beauty-- I see very little in this film that would resonate with Bergman and shake him so profoundly causing him to feel that here was a man expressing the sense of religious mystery, mysticism, and cinematically manifested spirituality that Bergman-- who was not particularly concerned with War Films or WW2 as a topic-- always sought in his films, particularly in that immediately preceding period... whereby Bergman would let down his enormous sense of self and make such a statement about another filmmaker. Notwithstanding a very young one at that time, with Bergman essentially saying "here is a man doing what I've been trying to do for years and doing it better, and with such ease and perfection, I can only sit in awe.." I just don't see, despite its incredibly rich pictorialism and rampant beauty, that kind of Bergmanesque substance in Ivan's Childhood.

I have no evidence either way, but the placement of the quote in the AR disc, and the extreme correspondence between the film and the ongoing themes in Bergan's work cause me to think that he was simply mistaken re what was AT's "first film".

[miless]

I believe Bergman saw Ivan's Childhood before Rublev was made, and he is recalling his initial reaction. I could really see how Bergman would be mesmerized by the transitions between dreams and reality.

[HerrSchreck]

Where did you hear/read that?

[jsteffe]

I don't see why it's so difficult to believe that Bergman was inspired by the use of dream imagery in Ivan's Childhood, as opposed to Andrei Rublev. If you compare the dream sequences in Ivan's Childhood to, say, Wild Strawberries, Tarkvosky's are more fluidly filmed and less "literary" in their symbolism. Also, there's a big difference between the dreams in Wild Strawberries and those in Persona, which was filmed after Ivan's Childhood played the international circuit. Bergman could not have seen Andrei Rublev any earlier 1969, when the film was shown at Cannes.

Also, the fact that Tarkovsky's film opens and closes in dreams, without voiceover narration or some other device to frame them as dreams for the viewer, would seem to fit with Bergman's statement.

[HerrSchreck]

I knew a post like that would come sooner or later-- someone would take my post as a slight at Ivan which it is not at all.

It's not that it's "so difficult to believe", JB, it's that it feels like a quote far more corresponding to AR than Ivan-- I thought I made that quite clear.

Ivan is not "life as a reflection, life as a dream" (which is talking about something very different than use of 'dream sequences', hardly the zone of AT's contribution to cinema. Ivan is a war melodrama tracing the exploits of a very brave young guy. Reality is not treated in the same fashion as it is in AR). I don't see "dream sequences" as the "key" that Bergman is looking for, which Tarkovsky was and is so hugely lauded for-- in fact it's the very opposite, since dreams play such a minuscule part in AT's ouvre, and this may be in fact what IB was discussing... i e IB never felt the freedom to express the dreamlike nature of his cinematic vision of life itself, the sense of the spiritual, or religious, or mystical world breaking in to the world of conversation and bacon & eggs and horses and dirt and sex-- which AT was such a singular practitioner and master of-- and could not correspondingly free his mise en scene of everyday life until seeing the fashion with which AT miraculously treated life.

As far as dreams go-- Every ambitious filmmaker since Murnau gets loose in dream sequences-- they're dream sequences, they've been poetically abstracted since the silent era: one doesn't need Tarkovsky to signal that dream sequences are a place where a filmmaker can render with a lack of formality.. it's not what AT is "known" for. It's the oldest thing in arthouse, perfected upon it's invention by FW Murnau in his dream sequences.

In fact its the opposite! Look at Nostalghia, Mirror, Andre Rublyov, hell all of his films-- it's not the world of dreams that AT is engaging you in, but the extremely poetic and free treatment of the real world, and the profound impression it creates and leaves which colors the physical.. which seems to have inspired Bergman to feel more carte blanche outside of the world of dreams. It truly sounds like Bergman is saying the opposite of what you think he's saying-- that any filmmaker can revert to dream sequences to dabble in abstracted poetics and a more impressionist mise en scene.. i e it's their license to get wild. But Tarkovsky didn't need the "permission" of using dream sequences to express this side of life in his mise en scene: he treated the everyday, the mudnane, in this fashion. He was comfortable enough (and extremely confident) in his unique conception of the cinema to do so.. whereby the radical nature of his unique treatment of reality seems totally natural and free.

Neither do I see "dream sequences" as occupying such a central role in Bergman's mise en scene that seeing the dream sequences in Ivan would constitute the tradecraft epiphany for Bergman that it did. There's very little of Bergman's narrative substance in the world of Ivan-- but it's everywhere in Rublyov.

But again, I'm stating that these are my hunches. I'm merely looking to know where if anywhere you guys are getting your certainty that the statement was not, in fact, about Rublyov, but Ivan.

[jsteffe]

HerrSchreck, I fully see what you're saying about Tarkovsky's aesthetic on the whole, versus the mere use of dream sequences. It's true that Rublev is the more advanced film, but that doesn't mean that some of the "straight" passages in Ivan's Childhood don't also have that hallucinatory, heiratic intensity that Tarkovsky was able to capture more consistently later on. I think you're giving Ivan's Childhood short shrift in terms of what it accomplished and the impact it had on international audiences.

But the real point, HerrSchreck, is that Bergman's quote refers unambiguously to Tarkovsky's "first film." As a general principle, the clearest, most straightforward interpretation is the one that should be chosen first unless there is a very good reason to suggest otherwise. (Unless you're a Comparative Literature student, in which case a reference to Lacan will suffice in lieu of argumentation.) So the burden of proof in this case is yours--to demonstrate that Bergman was altogether unaware of the existence of Ivan's Childhood at the time he made the statement but had already seen Andrei Rublev, which seems unlikely. Or that he was mistakenly referring to Andrei Rublev and meant to say "second film" instead of "first film." You could bolster your argument in that regard by digging up some parallel quotes that are clearly about Andrei Rublev. But Bergman was not John McCain--that is, as far as I know, he wasn't prone to making gross misstatements.

So go hit the library, dig up some quotes and background information, interview some of Bergman's assosciates, and prove your hypothesis correct! If you can prove that your interpretation is more plausible--and I'm willing to entertain that possibility--then kudos to you!

[Zazou dans le Metro]

This from Face to Face site-

Bergman on Tarkovsky
"When film is not a document, it is a dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should be explained anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media."

"Late one evening in 1971, Bergman and his friend and director Kjell Grede by pure coincidence stumbled upon a copy of Andrei Rublov in a screening room at Svensk Filmindustri. They saw it without any subtitles. He ranks it to be one of his most startling and unforgettable movie experiences ever."

It feels like the implication is that AR is Bergman's first Tarkovski...but hey I'm not taking sides here.

[jsteffe]

This from Face to Face site-

Bergman on Tarkovsky
"When film is not a document, it is a dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should be explained anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media."

"Late one evening in 1971, Bergman and his friend and director Kjell Grede by pure coincidence stumbled upon a copy of Andrei Rublov in a screening room at Svensk Filmindustri. They saw it without any subtitles. He ranks it to be one of his most startling and unforgettable movie experiences ever."

It feels like the implication is that AR is Bergman's first Tarkovski...but hey I'm not taking sides here.

Great find! That's precisely the kind of hypothetical thing I had in mind that might bolster HerrSchreck's argument in favor of Andrei Rublev being the subject of the quote, as opposed to Ivan's Childhood. And I agree, it seems to imply that it was his first Tarkovsky viewing.

Does anyone know the actual source of the Bergman-Tarkovsky quote mentioned above? It's used all the time in various books, DVD booklets, websites, etc., but I haven't been able to find an original citation for it.

[Zazou dans le Metro]

The first 'dream' quote is on page 73 of The Magic Lantern.

[magicmarker]

Has anyone seen the Belgian Cineart DVD of Rublev? Just wondering about the quality/cut etc.

[HerrSchreck]

HerrSchreck, I fully see what you're saying about Tarkovsky's aesthetic on the whole, versus the mere use of dream sequences. It's true that Rublev is the more advanced film, but that doesn't mean that some of the "straight" passages in Ivan's Childhood don't also have that hallucinatory, heiratic intensity that Tarkovsky was able to capture more consistently later on. I think you're giving Ivan's Childhood short shrift in terms of what it accomplished and the impact it had on international audiences.

But the real point, HerrSchreck, is that Bergman's quote refers unambiguously to Tarkovsky's "first film." As a general principle, the clearest, most straightforward interpretation is the one that should be chosen first unless there is a very good reason to suggest otherwise. (Unless you're a Comparative Literature student, in which case a reference to Lacan will suffice in lieu of argumentation.) So the burden of proof in this case is yours--to demonstrate that Bergman was altogether unaware of the existence of Ivan's Childhood at the time he made the statement but had already seen Andrei Rublev, which seems unlikely. Or that he was mistakenly referring to Andrei Rublev and meant to say "second film" instead of "first film." You could bolster your argument in that regard by digging up some parallel quotes that are clearly about Andrei Rublev. But Bergman was not John McCain--that is, as far as I know, he wasn't prone to making gross misstatements.

So go hit the library, dig up some quotes and background information, interview some of Bergman's assosciates, and prove your hypothesis correct! If you can prove that your interpretation is more plausible--and I'm willing to entertain that possibility--then kudos to you!

Steffe, I came out of the gate asking, because I said that I don't know, if anyone had any hard evidence either way-- I'm telling you what my hunches were. This why I worded my replies--
--But again, I'm stating that these are my hunches. I'm merely looking to know where if anywhere you guys are getting your certainty that the statement was not, in fact, about Rublyov, but Ivan.

And I can't believe after all the pains I take to keep hammering home my admiration for-- and lack of ill-intention towards-- Ivan's Childhood, you say I'm giving the film short shrift. I am not-- I am (once again) only saying that this is the film which most in terms of style and substance bears profound correspondence with Bergman's medieval, gloomily harsh films dwelling on religion, superstition, death.. in terms of subject matter, in terms of symbol order, in terms of mise en scene, in terms of attempting to capture that which is unspoken both on the screen and in real life.. the sense of mystical atmosphere, of religious gloom, of the world of artistic motives and interior aesthetic, of the spiritual world breaking in on the material world.. of medieval gloom, Andrei R unmistakably bears the full sum of hallmarks and so many more.

Regardless of what Bergman's quote "unambiguously" refers to, my "hunch" (or suspicion) that he may be referring to AR stems from the fact that on the cover of Criterions booklet for the film, there is the title of the film "ANDREI RUBLEV "in large letters, and right next to the title is the opening monograph of the booklet, which is Bergman's quotation. I know people who thought for a time (until Ivan became available in the US) who thought that Rublev was indeed AT's first film, because of this quotation and the way it is positioned and frames viz the film-- are you familiar with the booklet and the way that the quotation is positioned directly next to the title as the opening words in the booklet's articulation of Rublyov's merits?

The fact is at this time Tarkovsky was a filmmaker working behind the iron curtain, was at the beginning of his career and was not a "globally revered master" yet by any means, one who the state authorities had quite a bit of a problem with and who certainly was not enjoying any blasts of world publicity that would make the nature of his canon unambiguous to anyone who saw a film by him or who heard of him. This, and all I've said above about the film's aesthetic connection to Bergman's medieval, mystical, gloomy and religious cinematic worlds, lead me to believe that it is possible that Bergman may simply have been in error.

All this about "proving" my hypothesis, my "burden of proof", "bolstering my argument", "gross misstatements" (versus what would in reality simply be a harmless misattribution about a filmmaker who at that time was still quite obscure) seems wildly adversarial versus someone who is coming into the discussion from the start by admitting he doesn't know for sure either way, and is asking if any sources are available for definite time-attribution. I'm just telling you why I have the hunch that I do-- but I assure you I wont be retaining a lawyer!

And zazou dans-- much obliged... that's precisely what I've been explicitly seeking since asking miless (with whom I was originally conversing) the source of his attribution regarding IB and Ivan.

[neal]

For anyone in or around NYC, Anthology Film Archives will be screening Andrei Rublev in 35mm a week from Saturday (Aug 2, 2008 at 4pm).

It will be followed (at 8pm) by a screening of a 35mm print of The Mirror.

[jsteffe]

Steffe, I came out of the gate asking, because I said that I don't know, if anyone had any hard evidence either way-- I'm telling you what my hunches were. This why I worded my replies--
--But again, I'm stating that these are my hunches. I'm merely looking to know where if anywhere you guys are getting your certainty that the statement was not, in fact, about Rublyov, but Ivan.

And I can't believe after all the pains I take to keep hammering home my admiration for-- and lack of ill-intention towards-- Ivan's Childhood, you say I'm giving the film short shrift. I am not-- I am (once again) only saying that this is the film which most in terms of style and substance bears profound correspondence with Bergman's medieval, gloomily harsh films dwelling on religion, superstition, death.. in terms of subject matter, in terms of symbol order, in terms of mise en scene, in terms of attempting to capture that which is unspoken both on the screen and in real life.. the sense of mystical atmosphere, of religious gloom, of the world of artistic motives and interior aesthetic, of the spiritual world breaking in on the material world.. of medieval gloom, Andrei R unmistakably bears the full sum of hallmarks and so many more.

Regardless of what Bergman's quote "unambiguously" refers to, my "hunch" (or suspicion) that he may be referring to AR stems from the fact that on the cover of Criterions booklet for the film, there is the title of the film "ANDREI RUBLEV "in large letters, and right next to the title is the opening monograph of the booklet, which is Bergman's quotation. I know people who thought for a time (until Ivan became available in the US) who thought that Rublev was indeed AT's first film, because of this quotation and the way it is positioned and frames viz the film-- are you familiar with the booklet and the way that the quotation is positioned directly next to the title as the opening words in the booklet's articulation of Rublyov's merits?

The fact is at this time Tarkovsky was a filmmaker working behind the iron curtain, was at the beginning of his career and was not a "globally revered master" yet by any means, one who the state authorities had quite a bit of a problem with and who certainly was not enjoying any blasts of world publicity that would make the nature of his canon unambiguous to anyone who saw a film by him or who heard of him. This, and all I've said above about the film's aesthetic connection to Bergman's medieval, mystical, gloomy and religious cinematic worlds, lead me to believe that it is possible that Bergman may simply have been in error.

All this about "proving" my hypothesis, my "burden of proof", "bolstering my argument", "gross misstatements" (versus what would in reality simply be a harmless misattribution about a filmmaker who at that time was still quite obscure) seems wildly adversarial versus someone who is coming into the discussion from the start by admitting he doesn't know for sure either way, and is asking if any sources are available for definite time-attribution. I'm just telling you why I have the hunch that I do-- but I assure you I wont be retaining a lawyer!

HerrShreck, there's no question that you're extremely well-informed about film history and aesthetics. I was just pushing you to argue more strongly to support your hunch. I still stand by my basic point, which is that if Bergman makes a comment about Tarkovsky's "first film" and you want to argue that Bergman was referring to Andrei Rublev instead, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate, or at least suggest convincingly, that he is doing so. The quote that Zazou found is the kind of contextualization that would help you substantiate your claim.

BTW: I'm using legalese not because you're on trial, but because it's way too easy for hunches, and even flatly incorrect information to get taken as fact when people share them back and forth on discussion boards like this. The Internet promotes bad information equally with the good--just look at all the internet hoax emails that people pass back and forth all the time, to say nothing of all the demonstrably false information on publicly edited sites like IMDb and Wikipedia. Weeding out bad information is a necessary task. At least this site has a lot of smart people on it (including you!) and it has some industry professionals, which gives it an edge over lots of other discussion boards.

On a general note, don't take someone challenging your assumptions as a personal attack. That won't get you very far in life. This is just an anonymous discussion board on the Internet, so one shouldn't invest too much in it. And yes, I encourage you to challenge my assumptions, or even argue with me, in return. It keeps us all on our toes and makes us collectively smarter, I hope.

Now as for the fact that the quote was included in the booklet for the DVD of Andrei Rublev, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The exact same quote was also included on the back of the old Pacific Arts VHS tape of The Sacrifice. It's one of the most widely repeated quotes about Tarkovsky, period. Companies simply like to include blurbs by famous people in their publicity materials, whether it is or isn't directly related to the work in question.

[HerrSchreck]

Look-- just chill already. Nobody needs lessons about how to get far in life, how to discuss on a board, the factual septic tanks that are imdb and wikipedia, or How To Read Booklets. None of this "internet/hoax/bad information" stuff has any relevance here. It's a loose discussion board among cineaste comrades. We don't come on here to declare granite facts, and trot off without interplay. We ask questions, learn from each other. It's the better part of the board here-- my resource becomes your resource, and your taste in film may become mine. It's not an encycopedia (beyond the few primary entries heading off a "filmmaker" thread). When somebody says "I don't know, I'm trying to get at the truth" only a moron would take a stated "hunch" as fact. I'm not an internet White Knight and feel no need to protect the public from their own idiocy-- if someone takes a casual exploration of a topic as encyclopedic statements of categorical fact, they're pretty dumb to begin with, and this kind of conversational prophylaxis wont prevent the infection.

But did you see how nicely it all worked? I asked out loud if anyone knew anything more about Bergman's statement about the film, and another user with access to the materials in question chimed in and provided what I was seeking-- it played out pretty successfully. Board successful!

As for myself, short of declaring Vindication (as I was never invested in an outcome) on the subject at hand, I'm declaring it closed because your vineyard seems to be going sour. If any new info pops up which seems to indicate otherwise, my now-reinforced hunch is for the time being that the statement by Bergman was regarding Rublyov. Sometimes you have to trust your nose when wending thru old cinema history, which notorious for it's heaps of bad and incomplete scholarship. Dont even get me started on silent film. A director mistaking a second film for a first one is nothing compared to the whoppers still lurking out there and being corrected.

[blindside8zao]

Are you all sure he isn't referring to Offret? It is, after all, a Swedish film with lots of Bergman favorites. I heard that it's the film that made him realize he should make movies with Nyqvist and Jospehson.

[miless]

joke?

[bunuelian]

Do you hear the screaming of the thread, Clarice?

I love Bergman's description of his first viewing of Rublev. I recall the first time I watched it with the subtitles off as one of my breakthrough moments as a cinesnob. Highly recommended for this and all his other works (Mirror especially).

[Macintosh]

For anyone in or around NYC, Anthology Film Archives will be screening Andrei Rublev in 35mm a week from Saturday (Aug 2, 2008 at 4pm).

It will be followed (at 8pm) by a screening of a 35mm print of The Mirror.

Just posted the same news a page earlier dude.

[neal]

For anyone in or around NYC, Anthology Film Archives will be screening Andrei Rublev in 35mm a week from Saturday (Aug 2, 2008 at 4pm).

It will be followed (at 8pm) by a screening of a 35mm print of The Mirror.

Just posted the same news a page earlier dude.

My bad dude.

[MichaelB]

The fact is at this time Tarkovsky was a filmmaker working behind the iron curtain, was at the beginning of his career and was not a "globally revered master" yet by any means, one who the state authorities had quite a bit of a problem with and who certainly was not enjoying any blasts of world publicity that would make the nature of his canon unambiguous to anyone who saw a film by him or who heard of him.

I'm not joining in the "which Tarkovsky film did Bergman see first?" controversy because I don't have any more info than the rest of you - but I do have to challenge the "certainly was not enjoying any blasts of world publicity" claim.

In actual fact, Ivan's Childhood had a colossal blast of publicity when it came out of nowhere to win the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival (a doubly impressive achievement for an unknown debutant) - after which it got reasonably extensive distribution in Europe, although not the US.

And it's at least partly because Ivan caused such a huge splash that the controversy over Andrei Rublev became so virulent. Had the international film community not been taking an interest in the production on principle, it might well have suffered the fate of Alexander Askoldov's near-contemporaneous The Commissar - shelved and forgotten for decades, its director never making another film.

So Ivan's publicity-blast not only boosted Tarkovsky's career, it arguably saved it.

[HerrSchreck]

Walk out your door and ask the first ten people you see "who won the Golden Lion at Venice this year"? Ask them-- even better-- who won Cannes Palm D'Or? Ask them who won the academy award for best picture (I don't know the answer to any of these questions myself, btw).

I know about the Venice award, but it's just an award leading to some distribution. It's neither colossal nor a blast, especially back then with the media being so much smaller than it is now. The "media" didn't give much of a crump about any of those awards, which were reported for a day then forgotten. Within the industry is somewhat of another thing in that-- it is hoped-- awards like that will "secure" a filmmaker's future and lead to the minefield of financing and distribution becoming somewhat more relaxed for future projects.

How a first film could "save" a person's career is a bit of a conundrum, don't you think? If it's his first film, his film career began with this film and he thus had no prior to career to save-- no?

Tarkovsky's ongoing skills as a filmmaker, and I daresay the prestige of his father and circle of influence, kept him working... albeit in constant misery and struggle. The majesty of Andre Rublev is what saved Andre Rublev-- not Ivan!

Each film right up to his defection was made with enormous struggle and grief, like the same record being played over and over again. All the Cannes etc awards (far more prestigious than the Golden Lion he won out of the gate) that he won after Ivan never negated this pressure-- his life was a miserable one, and on more than one occasion it's recounted that he broke into tears considering himself a failure and a drag to all around him. Even until the past couple years, Andre Rublev was one of the lowest selling CC's in the catalog.. I don't know which is the lowest seller now but its one of the reasons they couldn't be persuaded to take on The Mirror (a la Sean Wright Anderson).

Tarkovsky was never "colossally" popular. And probably never will be.