34 Andrei Rublev

[jmj713]

This will surely be a 3-disc effort, akin to Seven Samurai.

CANNOT WAIT!!!

[zedz]

Since this *is* going to be rereleased at some point, per mention in On Five (I couldn't care less about the other two mentioned, but that's me) maybe there should be some talk about what we're expecting? Versions, docs, commentarists, scholarly writings, and interviews, since they guiltily admit to reading the forum, some public recomendations on material is in order.

I think this was briefly discussed during a previous false alarm. Any definitive edition would have to include both cuts, especially since the director's intention probably lies somewhere in between the two.

If they're quick off the mark, there are still key figures around who could talk about the project (Konchalovsky, Burlyayev and Nazarov, for three - I don't know how happy Irma is to discuss Andrey, but she's still alive too, according to imdb - actually, Yusov is still hanging in there as well, apparently).

Personally, the kind of commentary I'd find most useful for this film is one which went into more detail about the historical and cultural background to the events depicted, rather than a stylistic analysis (been there, done that), but maybe that's just me. It is a film that thrives on contextual information, though, as the current disc acknowledges, so something more developed in that line would be desirable.

[Steven H]

Also, aren't there about a dozen docs about Tarkovsky? Which one of them be the most appropriate for this film? I really want to see the Sokurov one, but that seems the most appropriate for The Mirror (not that it really matters.)

It seems like there's a lot of interview material available on other editions waiting to be subtitled. I could really see a Fanny And Alexander size package coming out of this, though I wonder how much they want to invest in something they probably had a hard time selling more than a few thousand copies of. Then again, screw worrying about cost, this is Tarkovsky and if they can lavish the King of Kings with a glorious two disc package, they owe Andrei Rublev at least three or four.

[zedz]

And I wonder how much this whole deal is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rublyov is not that obscure or difficult, and it's not that hard a sell even to an audience that's never heard of it (historical epic! artist biopic! action! nudity!). Turning a glamorous rerelease into Criterion's "next Seven Samurai" in terms of profile and publicity would presumably bring a large audience to the film who would shell out for such an "event."

[colinr0380]

Perhaps they could do a booklet with reproductions of the paintings maybe with a few essays by art historians?

[ellipsis7]

They could reprint the OOP Faber edition of the script, fetching high prices on the used book market...

[jbeall]

Perhaps they could do a booklet with reproductions of the paintings maybe with a few essays by art historians?

This would be a good idea. There was an exhibition of Byzantine art at The NY Met a few years ago that included two church-door paintings (around eight feet tall) that were attributed to Andrei Rublev. Those two icons led me to watching the movie when I came across it several months later.

This wouldn't even need to be a 3-disc set like Seven Samurai; a 2-disc set with several extras would do the trick.

[HerrSchreck]

Personally, the kind of commentary I'd find most useful for this film is one which went into more detail about the historical and cultural background to the events depicted, rather than a stylistic analysis (been there, done that), but maybe that's just me. It is a film that thrives on contextual information, though, as the current disc acknowledges, so something more developed in that line would be desirable.

Verily seconded. Tarkovsky's embellishments to mise en scene are to me best processed in a part of the head and heart that the English language (or any language for that matter) routinely fails to illuminate via descriptive attempts. Dry structural analyses of his choices (i e in the collegiate sense, i e to "learn from him" presumably to apply these strokes in one's own work) can't go forward without tying in again and again into the deep interior life of Tarkovsky, which was a hazy, foggy world cross pollinated with religion, childhood memory, nostolgia for a lost age he himself never even lived in but fetishised in illustrated manuscripts, music, with a deep deliberate attention to the way these elements crashed into and morphed one another. And attempting to render these hazy dreamworlds which flowed across his minds eye, onscreen.

Attempting to prognosticate the cinema of AT in dry terms a la "take note of how AT uses a mobile camera here to offset the staging of..."/ or "observe the unusual editing of two seemingly-unconnected..."-style commentary always leaves me feeling like I just screwed with wrought-iron condom on my schtoink. So many of his choices are at the behest of the gloomy Russian miasma bubbling deep inside his mind, so much of which he didn't understand (and the mystery and feeling of which I'm sure pleased him greatly), that strict analysis of onscreen elements leaves me feeling hi & dry.

Example: (from STALKER, for instance) how would one teach a student rules of application & scene embellishment for burying symphonic music in the sound of a passing, unseen freight train? On one hand it makes total sense (I remember as a little kid sleeping on the floor between seats of the family station wagon, and the sound of the engine mixed with the vibrations of the road used to mix with the music on the radio and become morphed as I drifted out into the soup of childhood sleep.. to this day I hear "SONG SUNG BLUE" by Neil Diamond in my head the way I heard it back then)... but on the other hand why there and not in the sounds of so many other churning peieces of machinery throughout the film? So much of this stuff is random, deeply personal, and unanswerable even by AT himself, who used to laugh at a lot of the assignation of various superdeep symbol-orders to much of that sort of stuff in all his films. He was duplicating the sea of his mind. Hearing it all "explained" by folks he'd probably (and did) laugh at, it's a waste of disc space for all but the newcomer.

On the other hand, tying in elements that repeat themselves from film to film-- also for the benefit of the newcomer-- to illuminate the nature and vocabulary of the conversation that AT was having with that side of himself, is also helpful.. but also, for me, as zedz sez, "Been there, done that."

As for the historical side of RUBLEV, I'm not sure enough is known to fill up half of the length of the shortened version of the film... at least as regards the person of Rublev himself.

And as I was saying earlier, anything less than a three to four disc ARKADIN type box would be a dissappointment.

[Soothsayer]

Resurrecting this thread to see if anyone has any possible info on Criterion giving this film the luscious re-release that nothing less than necessary. This is my all-time favorite film.

Also, anyone know if the original screenplay for this film is online? I want to see Tarkovsky and Konchalovsky's take on the battle at Kulikovo field...

[ellipsis7]

Faber and Faber published a now OOP edition of the screenplay of ANDREJ RUBLEV... Available used from about $60 on Abebooks etc...

[AK]

How do you do.

This is easily my all-time favourite film. So my anticipation for a re-release transcends mere eagerness. Hope they make it for this year, although Ivan detstvo would compensate slightly. (And Sanshô dayû and Berlin Alexanderplatz that's possibly '07 do)

But gosh, I'd like to have a new Rublev. By the way, the original Criterion has the most amazing artwork I know. I wonder how the cover for the new edition will turn out. And as for the screenplay, it is a must-have for the curious.

With best regards,
AK

[Nothing]

Yes, this re-release is so essential, unlike, say, The Third Man. Come on Criterion, stop messing around...

[blindside8zao]

slightly off-topic, I got to visit the Tretykov gallery in Moscow and the Russian Musuem in St. Petersburg where they have many of Rublev's icons (mostly at Moscow). It was really amazing to see them, including the Old Testament Trinity. Even though I loved the Rublev I found myself going back over and over again to Feofan the Greek's Transfiguration, a painting I'd never seen before. Very amazing stuff.

[RevRick]

Hi, all

My (current) favorite film as well, and I was filled with hope at the prospect of an anamorphic reissue that the Criterion Blog seemingly promised, although to be fair they used Shock Corridor and Andrei Rublev simply as examples of needed re-masters.

Unfortunately, it appears that the remaster will not be here anytime soon, as this update of The Forthcoming Criterion List notes: "no one is currently assigned to to these, so we shouldn't expect them anytime soon, earliest over a year from now."

In a letter from The Friends of the Andrei Tarkovsky Institute (found herein PDF format courtesy of nostalghia.com), an upcoming restoration of the "Director's Cut" of Andrei Rulev is described, for possible release in 2010. The letter implies that it's neither the "Scorcese Print" of the Criterion release nor is it the 185 minute version of Artificial Eye, Lizard and others . . . anybody else heard about this? Is it really a third version? I hope we don't have to wait that long for a Criterion re-issue.

[jmj713]

Yeah I wish we don't have to wait 3 years for the definitive Andrei Rublev from Criterion.

[RevRick]

Waiting 3 years would indeed be bad . . .

The analysis of Andrei Rublev on the internet as well as in print (admittedly, I haven't read it all) points out a curious thing . . . analysis of the film it seems to me goes out of its way to avoid the obvious dimension of faith and spirituality and religion. Tarkovsky was a deeply spiritual being, albeit not in a simplistic, Western way.

It's almost like cinephiles are embarrassed by Tarkovsky's spirituality, almost as if his artistry--visible from the very first student film--exists in spite of his spirituality, when in fact, they very likely are deeply intertwined, inseparable, even.

Reading HerrSchreck's last comment, I got the sense that he gets it, he said analysis can't go forward "without tying in again and again into the deep interior life of Tarkovsky," but then he describes that life as "a hazy, foggy world cross pollinated with religion, childhood memory, nostolgia for a lost age he himself never even lived in but fetishised in illustrated manuscripts, music, with a deep deliberate attention to the way these elements crashed into and morphed one another."

And I think "Wow . . . what insight into the psyche of someone who died in 1986" . . . and I want to know what supporting evidence HerrSchreck has for his assertion of AT's "hazy foggy world pollinated with religion" . . . I want to know how he got into Tarkovsky's head to learn that it's foggy in there . . .

Critical analysis of a film--like critical analysis of any text--is only possible when we leave our prejudices (including those against religionists) at the door, at least as much as possible

[tryavna]

It's almost like cinephiles are embarrassed by Tarkovsky's spirituality, almost as if his artistry--visible from the very first student film--exists in spite of his spirituality, when in fact, they very likely are deeply intertwined, inseparable, even.

In principle, I agree with the point you raise. The same embarrassment also extends to Carl Dreyer and Ingmar Bergman, to cite two other obvious candidates from the world of cinema. With these filmmakers, failing to address their concerns with religion, Christianity, spirituality, etc. is a bit like overlooking the fact that J.S. Bach made his living composing sacred music. Religiosity, in some form or another, is integral to a large portion of these artists' major works. And I, too, find it unhelpful when critics who habor resentment towards organized religion dismiss that facet of their work.

However, I'm not sure why you're taking Schreck to task for his opinions. Critics psycho-analyze artists all the time on the basis of the works they create. In a sense, we get "into Tarkovsky's head" when we study his films -- especially since Tarkovsky was such a personal filmmaker. Likewise, I'd say that Schreck's opinion that Tarkovsky's was "a hazy, foggy world cross pollinated with religion, childhood memory, nostolgia for a lost age he himself never even lived in but fetishised in illustrated manuscripts, music, with a deep deliberate attention to the way these elements crashed into and morphed one another" is actually a fairly apt description of The Mirror. As far as I can tell, that film is basically a collage of Tarkovsky's childhood memories (both actual and imagined/fantasized).

Besides, of all the members of this forum to criticize for their perceived prejudices against religion, Schreck would be very far down my list.

[RevRick]

You're right . . . HerrSchreck's pretty far down on my list of folks prejudiced against religion, as well . . . As I said, I think he gets it, that you can't separate AT's genius from his spirituality.

My problem is that he offers little corroboration for the observation about Tarkovsky's mental state . . . what is it about Tarkovsky's films--Mirror, Stalker, Andrei Rublev, or any of them--that makes him think that his world is hazy and foggy and cross pollinated with religion etc. I'd really like to know his thoughts on that . . .

And he punched some of my buttons in his wording, which seem to me a bit on the provocative side . . . "gloomy Russian miasma" that he didn't understand? Nostalgia for a lost age . . . "fetishized in illustrated manuscripts" . . . hardly neutral language. I'd love to hear why he thinks this.

[bunuelian]

My own reaction was that his statement was a good summary of how I understand Tarkovsky after watching his films, abd reading books. It's not inaccurate to say that religion was one of several important and overlapping influences in his personal world. Consider all the dimensions of the Russian crucifixion sequence, with religion, nation, identity, compassion in the face of brutal war, all these things come across in a coherent whole. It's why Tarkovsky is so endlessly fascinating, because these different elements play upon each other constantly throughout his work.

Part of what confuses consideration of Tarkovsky's religious life is that its character was intensely private and personalized. Sculpting in Time provides an idea of the philosophical complexity of his beliefs. His religion belies quick summary in the way "Bunuel was Catholic" can explain a lot of Viridiana to a lot of people.

[tryavna]

And he punched some of my buttons in his wording, which seem to me a bit on the provocative side . . .

Of course, that's just Schreck's writing style.... I've just noticed that you're a relatively new member here, and so you haven't had the pleasure of a virtual face-to-face encounter with the legend himself. Perhaps when he gets a little free time to revisit the forum, he can explain himself -- certainly, he'd be able to do it much better than I can.

[ando]

Personally, the kind of commentary I'd find most useful for this film is one which went into more detail about the historical and cultural background to the events depicted, rather than a stylistic analysis (been there, done that), but maybe that's just me. It is a film that thrives on contextual information, though, as the current disc acknowledges, so something more developed in that line would be desirable.

I've always found it disheartening that most (so it seems) viewers of Andrei Rublev regard it as a historical epic; hence, the desire for contextual information. Tarkovsky intended nothing of the kind. In fact, I think he would have encouraged the kind of (shall we say) psychological deconstruction that HerrShrek, in his own inimitable way, has attempted. I believe that Tarkovsky created an interior world of an unusually sensitive artist living during a particularly turbulent period in Russia's history. Whether or not any of the events within the narative of the film are historically accurate seems beside the point to me. Anyone who reads Sculpting In Time will learn that Takovsky's principle aim with this film was not to recreate the reality of medieval Russia but to involve the viewer with the experience of living in the tenor of that time. The emotional experience, which necessarily includes emotional memory that comes from the filmmaker him or herself, was of far more importance to Tarkovsky. And, in my mind, Andrei Rublev reflects this.

[zedz]

Whether or not any of the events within the narative of the film are historically accurate seems beside the point to me. Anyone who reads Sculpting In Time will learn that Takovsky's principle aim with this film was not to recreate the reality of medieval Russia but to involve the viewer with the experience of living in the tenor of that time.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, as Tarkovsky's remarkable achievement in the film is to evoke "the experience of living in the tenor of that time" through "recreat[ing] the reality of Medieval Russia", as opposed to the sanitised world-of-epic-cinema seen in so many other period films.

What's particularly remarkable about the film as both historical epic and biopic is that Tarkovsky and his collaborators tackle the problem of a dearth of biographical information by following Andrey as a bystander to major historical events (e.g. the invasion of Vladimir), so it becomes a historical epic in which nation-shaping events are observed from a detached, largely passive perspective (a major departure for this sort of big Russian production) and a biopic in which the main character 'action' is radically internalized.

You should be cautious about swallowing whole what Tarkovsky might have written about Andrey Rublyov 20 years after he made it. His comments of the time, and the testimony of collaborators, suggest that he did engage with the historical elements of the filmmaking and cared about the details, specifially about trying to recreate a sense of everyday life, though he was always careful to note how little was actually known about Rublyov and his times, and to emphasise that he had bigger philosophical and cinematic fish to fry than 'mere' historical recreation.

But don't take my word for it, here's Andrey:

We shot our film in Vladimir, Suzdal', on the Nerl river, in Pskov, Izborsk, Pechery, and among architectural monuments from that era of the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries. But at the same time we always tried to avoid a museum-like attitude towards history. That is to say we did not seek to present these architectural monuments in any special way, we treated them in the manner in which, if we were shooting a film about modern life, we would treat regular buildings like those on the street. It was the same way with everyday objects; we wanted to avoid treating them as props or something exotic; we wanted the objects of material culture to be perceived from the screen just as the things that surround us in daily life are perceived. In this respect everything in the film is absolutely precise. [. . .]

We wanted to show that Andrei Rublev's art was a protest against the order that reigned at that time, against the blood, the betrayal, the oppression. Living at a terrifying time, he eventually arrives at the necessity of creating and carries through all of his life the idea of brotherhood, love for peace, a radiant worldview, and the idea of Rus's unification in the face of the Tatar yoke. We found it extremely important, both from the historical and the contemporary viewpoints, to express these thoughts.

Unfortunately we succeeded in relating only a portion of what has been written about the epoch in historical sources. It was so blood-drenched that literally every page of the chronicles and of historical studies tells us about betrayal, desertion, treason, blood, arson, Tatar raids, destruction, death and so on and so forth. In our picture we were able to show not even half of that for our story was also about a lot of other things and it is necessary to preserve a certain proportion in order to avoid distorting the truth. Our historical consultants who read the screenplay did not find any departures from the historiography.

I stand by my original position that this film represents one of the most interesting takes on the 'problem' of historical filmmaking, that Tarkovsky's approach was, at the time, pretty innovative, and that this aspect of the production deserves to be investigated (not that it should outweigh or supplant all other approaches to the film).

[ando]

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, as Tarkovsky's remarkable achievement in the film is to evoke "the experience of living in the tenor of that time" through "recreat[ing] the reality of Medieval Russia", as opposed to the sanitised world-of-epic-cinema seen in so many other period films.

Well, let me repeat: Tarkovsky creates a singular vision of medieval Russia through the eyes of a particularly sensitive artist, namely, Andrei Ruvlev - which is really Tarkovsky himself. He uses his vison of Christ's passion, for instance, in recounting the fate of the Russian peasantry. The entire film is an account of Rublev's emotional/artistic journey. It is not close to a facsimile of a historically accurate medieval Russia. That's clearly not an objective of the film. That's all. I'm not contesting your take on it.

You should be cautious about swallowing whole what Tarkovsky might have written about Andrey Rublyov 20 years after he made it. His comments of the time, and the testimony of collaborators, suggest that he did engage with the historical elements of the filmmaking and cared about the details, specifially about trying to recreate a sense of everyday life, though he was always careful to note how little was actually known about Rublyov and his times, and to emphasise that he had bigger philosophical and cinematic fish to fry than 'mere' historical recreation.

I made no inference whatsoever that Takovsky didn't care for historical details. I merely stated that his primary interests did not involve recreating the details of Medieval Russia. And as for the comment about Tarkovsky's sentiments being published 20 years after the film's creation, here's a portion of an interview from 1962, just before he started filmming Andrei Rublev, conducted by Gideon Bachmann at the Venice Film Festival (from the book, Andrei Tarkovsky Interviews (2006) University Press of Mississippi), where Tarkovsky's intentions are made most clear:

Bachmann: Do you have an idea for your next film? (Tarkovsky had recently finished Ivan's Childhood)

Tarkovsky: I'm planning to make my next film about Andrei Roublev, the great Russian painter of the fifteenth century. Here is the topic that intersts me: the personality of the artist in relation to his times. As a result of his natural sensitivity, a painter is able to more deeply grasp his era and to reproduce it more completely than anybody else.

It is not going to be a historical or biographic film. What fascinates me is the process of the artistic maturity of the painter, the analysis of his talent. Andrei Roublev's art represents the pinnacle of the Russian Renaissance; he is one of the outstanding figures in the history of our culture. His art and his life offer rich material.

Before we started writing the script we researched historical documents and records, mostly to be able to decide what we would not use in the film. For example, we were less interested in historical stylizations through costumes, settings, and language. The historical details are not supposed to divide the attention of the viewer, only to convince him that the action really takes place in the fifteenth century. Neutral set decorations, neutral (yet convincing) costumes, the landscape, the modern language - all this will help us to talk about the most essential aspects, without distracting the audience.

Yet one hardly needs this quote, in my opinion, to recognize that film does not proceed along lines of historical accuracy. And anyway, what would Tarkovsky have used for a benchmark - a historical measure or guide? The timeline that Criterion provides on the DVD special features, although putting Rublev's life ina broad perspective, is far too broad, in my opinion. Russian history is reduced to a handful of dates will have no relevance to what Tarkovsky is attempting to reveal or consider about the humanity of Russian people. They almost seem arbitrary.

With regard to the length of the film, Tarkovsky also reveals (and emphasizes) in the book referenced above that the third (and shortest) cut of Rublev is the one he preferred. I certainly hope that any re-issue of Rublev will not be accompanied with "The Director's Cut" dramatically spaced above the title because any longer version will make it a fallacy.

I realize, of course, that swallowing Tarkovsky wholesale, as zedz put it, may not make a necessarily more discerning interpretation, but isn't interpretation really of secondary importance in any case? The film is always a pleasure every time I decide to sit down to watch it. And I always consider something different with each viewing.

[jmj713]

Have there been any hints if we'd see a reissued AR in 2008 from Criterion?

[miless]

Have there been any hints if we'd see a reissued AR in 2008 from Criterion?

no. they have said that the title is in need of reissue, but they have not yet revealed if it's even in the "pipeline".