34 Andrei Rublev

[hearthesilence]

I think I mentioned this before, but it's definitely one of those cases where I'd be more than happy with a new master that takes the visual from the latest restoration of the 183-minute cut and makes the necessary alterations (additions and substitutions) to make it match the 205-minute version shot for shot. (The soundtrack from the 205-minute version could be left as-is.) I personally wouldn't find the shifts in picture quality too jarring even if they're noticeabe.

[andyli]

Isn’t there one more version prepared by his son that was screened in the festival circuit a few years back? Wonder what happened to it and when a physical release or streaming offering would be possible?

[MichaelB]

I think I mentioned this before, but it's definitely one of those cases where I'd be more than happy with a new master that takes the visual from the latest restoration of the 183-minute cut and makes the necessary alterations (additions and substitutions) to make it match the 205-minute version shot for shot. (The soundtrack from the 205-minute version could be left as-is.) I personally wouldn't find the shifts in picture quality too jarring even if they're noticeabe.

You might if the image quality routinely changed mid-shot as opposed to on a clean cut, which is a constant challenge when attempting things like this. And if the image quality is noticeably different, it can't help but be jarring.

The BFI's reconstruction of the original cut of Alan Clarke's The Firm is a case in point, where unavoidable qualitative differences meant that the previously censored footage might as well be captioned "LOOK! CENSORED FOOTAGE!" as it's so obvious - and therefore distracting. I honestly think it would have made for a more satisfying viewing experience if they'd just presented the 16mm workprint in its entirety.

[M-A]

I think I mentioned this before, but it's definitely one of those cases where I'd be more than happy with a new master that takes the visual from the latest restoration of the 183-minute cut and makes the necessary alterations (additions and substitutions) to make it match the 205-minute version shot for shot. (The soundtrack from the 205-minute version could be left as-is.) I personally wouldn't find the shifts in picture quality too jarring even if they're noticeabe.

MosFilm did do a new restoration of the 205-min version (on their youtube channel) and it does look so much better than the old master on the Criterion blu-ray. Not sure how they accomplished it (whether they used the better source elements that are conformed to the short cut for those parts, or just used the elements for the long cut the whole way through)

[onedimension]

Hopefully both versions will get love when they upgrade the disc to UHD

[Captain Paranoia]

Hopefully both versions will get love when they upgrade the disc to UHD

On a side note, what's a Tarkovsky release from Criterion you'd like to see get a UHD release? I wouldn't be surprised if Stalker got a UHD sometime in the near future.

[hearthesilence]

I think I mentioned this before, but it's definitely one of those cases where I'd be more than happy with a new master that takes the visual from the latest restoration of the 183-minute cut and makes the necessary alterations (additions and substitutions) to make it match the 205-minute version shot for shot. (The soundtrack from the 205-minute version could be left as-is.) I personally wouldn't find the shifts in picture quality too jarring even if they're noticeabe.

You might if the image quality routinely changed mid-shot as opposed to on a clean cut, which is a constant challenge when attempting things like this. And if the image quality is noticeably different, it can't help but be jarring.

The BFI's reconstruction of the original cut of Alan Clarke's The Firm is a case in point, where unavoidable qualitative differences meant that the previously censored footage might as well be captioned "LOOK! CENSORED FOOTAGE!" as it's so obvious - and therefore distracting. I honestly think it would have made for a more satisfying viewing experience if they'd just presented the 16mm workprint in its entirety.

I should stress the *I* in my original statement because I got a similar response when I suggested this before. I have no doubt it's too jarring for some, but for me personally, it's not. I say this as someone who applied the same approach to the circulating bootleg of Demme's original cut of Swing Shift which did indeed need edits mid-shot (most notably for the long Steadicam shots that were hacked up by the studio). The edits may be noticeable, but I also notice that the improved picture quality is a LOT easier on the eyes, literally speaking - it doesn't just look better, I do notice that it's a cumulative strain to watch poor-looking footage over a certain length of time, and cutting to pristine-looking footage is an enormously welcome relief. There's simply no way I could have appreciated the director's cut if I had to strain to make out all the details over the entire length of the film. Granted, the 205 minute cut of Andrei Rublev looks much better than an nth generation dub of a quick and dirty VHS transfer of a work print, but it still plays out in similar fashion where it's a welcome relief to have the picture quality improve for at least a majority of the 205 minute run. I want to say it's not dissimilar to most 35mm screenings I go to where you accept that there will be jarring moments like missing or damaged frames and even reels that clearly look inferior to the other reels being projected (as if they had to swap out a damaged or missing one for whatever else they had) - if anything, those examples are far more jarring, but I'm more than happy to accept that reality and just enjoy the rest of the screening.

[onedimension]

Hopefully both versions will get love when they upgrade the disc to UHD

On a side note, what's a Tarkovsky release from Criterion you'd like to see get a UHD release? I wouldn't be surprised if Stalker got a UHD sometime in the near future.

Ivan's Childhood would be great, or Solaris.

I have a feeling Stalker will go to Kino

[ryannichols7]

Hopefully both versions will get love when they upgrade the disc to UHD

On a side note, what's a Tarkovsky release from Criterion you'd like to see get a UHD release? I wouldn't be surprised if Stalker got a UHD sometime in the near future.

Ivan's Childhood would be great, or Solaris.

I have a feeling Stalker will go to Kino

why would it go to Kino, exactly? neither label is in a position to work with Mosfilm for the foreseeable future anyway, and I don't think Mosfilm has the capital to be legitimately doing 4K restorations at the moment. they've uploaded them in "4K UHD" on their YouTube but that's not particularly credible. from my understanding, most Mosfilm titles were shot on pretty poor quality film stock, which limits them elements wise from having stronger transfers. since Tarkovsky only made two films away from Mosfilm, those are the only two we're likely to see for some time

[MichaelB]

The issues with the film stock were to do with colour rather than resolution. I saw Stalker fairly recently on the big screen in what I assume was the Mosfilm restoration (I'd certainly never seen it looking that clean before), and the picture was absolutely pin-sharp.

But yes, as you say, Mosfilm is off limits for the foreseeable future. I understand Deaf Crocodile only just snuck in under the early-2022 sanctions wire when they licensed their Aleksandr Ptushko and Karen Shakhnazarov titles.

[Zot!]

If the Passion cut on the Criterion BD (with the burned in subs) is the Scorsese version....then what is the Criterion DVD (without burned in subs) source?

[Stefan Andersson]

The Venice Classics lineup includes the following:

Andrei Rublev – Director’s Cut
By Andrei Tarkovsky (USSR, 1966, 191 minutes, Color/B/W)
Restored by: Istituto Internazionale Andrei Tarkovsky in collaboration with Coevolutions and Cloudpost

According to a blu-ray forum poster, this is a new cut prepared by Tarkovsky's son. Supposedly the son talks about it in this youtube video, but it's in Italian.

Interesting comment on the 191-min. cut:
"The uncensored cut that has been released in 2023 at the Venice Film Festival is practically identical, if not for the addition of a series of dialogues in which Rublev's criticism towards the tyrants is more explicit and employing a language that makes no doubt about the political content being targeted to Tarkivsky's own time and his own leadership under the Soviet Union. When Rublev talks to the ghost of Theophanes, he asks, "when will this all end?" - a rhethorical question on the millenary power structures that sees forms of authoritarian rule over the russian people and that remains actual today."
Source:
https://www.easteuroflicks.com/2025/04/ ... ublev.html

[Roger Ryan]

I hope to see this new 191 min. edit before I leave this plane of existence. Given that it's eight minutes longer than Tarkovsky's final edit, I don't know that I would agree with the description of "practically identical", but then others might be expecting previously unseen sequences whereas I would be thrilled just to have the smallest of censored snippets reinstated to restore the elegance of Tarkovsky's long takes uninterrupted. I imagine this "Director's Cut" has more footage found only in the 203 min. initial edit (workprint version). I don't this first assembly has that much that would improve upon the 183 min. version as I'm now convinced that the alternate takes and editing choices Tarkovsky made for his final edit were improvements (apart from the obvious censorship edits).