Andrei Rublev (Criterion Collection Spine #34) Reviews

• If you're serious about cinema, BUY IT NOW

  
  By A1COQ2DOO1O9HD on 2003-01-24
  Tarkovsky's Andre Rublev plows the same ground as Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, but with greater success. No, I haven't been smoking anything; I'm serious. A collection of metaphorically related vignettes that loosely follows the life of Russia's great medieval artist, Andrei Rublev is about nothing less than the struggle between mankind's spiritual and carnal natures. It is also one of the rare films featuring Christianity that neither belittles the faithful nor condescends to them. I'll take this film over The Robe, The Greatest Story Ever Told or even Ben Hur any day of the week.

  All the same, this film is not typical wholesome family entertainment of the Disney variety. It's more like the cinematic equivalent of broccoli - you may or may not like the flavor, but it's good for you. There is nudity. There is violence. If you're an animal lover, it may give you nightmares (at least two horses and one cow probably died in the process of filming). But you know, the Bible itself is full of plenty of that kind of stuff. What makes it palatable is the moral context - the material is in service of an authentically moving spiritual journey. The film may not shy away from the ugliness of medieval Russian peasant life, but it also does not shy away from the message of redemption through grace - and I'm not referring to "grace" in an exclusively Christian context.

  While grace wears Russian Orthodox garb in this film, the concept expands to occupy a more universal definition through the use of strong metaphorical imagery. Grace, it seems to suggest, is a state of mind: if you believe it is a gift from God, this film will probably affirm your faith; if not, it will won't offend you with overt evangelism.

  The beauty of Andre Rublev is that, like life itself, it places its world before you in all its wonder and horror, and then lets you decide what to make of it. It strives to illuminate the human condition, rather than preach platitudes.

  The best art has a way of doing that.

  As for the DVD itself, Criterion has done a marvelous job of pulling together some rare documentary material, as well as enlisting the aid of Harvard film professor Vlada Petric in the creation of a somewhat dry, academic commentary track. My one complaint is that the transfer, while supposedly made digitally from a pristine 35mm print, lacks sharpness. It is also not anamorphic 16x9, which I consider an essential feature of any DVD of a film shot wider than 1.66:1.

  All the same, Andre Rublev is an indispensable film for the serious cinephile's collection.
  
  

• If you liked Titanic, then take a hike. Otherwise...

  
  By A1TMGZ06IS9JYL on 2001-08-18
  Tarkovksy's films are not for everyone. He is the Russian equivalent of Kubrick or Kurasawa or Welles, and he is as different from them as they are from each other. If you're expecting a conventional structure and pacing, you'll be dissapointed. Rublev requires patience.

  Most people consider the film long and slow. The trick is to stop waiting for the narrative to develop and just experience the sequences as self-contained ideas. After a couple of hours you'll see it working up to something you hadn't thought possible at first. And by the two-hundred minute mark, it evolves into a complete emotional and cinematic experience.

  I'm serious. It's amazing. *This* is Tarkovsky's gift.

  By his own admission he was always more fascinated with the "poetry" of images than their immediate narrative value. As a result his films deliver an experience which is unique to every viewer. This is no mean feat; today directors strive to make the global audience feel "happy" or "sad" according to a pre-defined and market-oriented narrative structure. It's a cheap manipulation (like "Titanic" and the damn theme music).

  Tarkovksy doesn't go there at all. He shows you something and lets you feel whatever you want. This isn't a cheap cop-out from an inept director, it's *your* experience. And a dangerous approach in a world where audiences expect to be cued when and how to react. Have you ever noticed how upset people get when left to their own emotional devices?

  Tarkovsky has mastered the long-take, mise-en-scene, and the wide-screen (2.35) frame, and the Critereon transfer does it's best to present this. There are technical problems with the transfer, but having seen Rublev on a pan-and-scan VHS, the extra bucks are still worth it. And the additional resolution of DVD gives the image more texture and detail.

  Side Note:

  One of the tragedies (now being slowly rectified thanks to DVD) of modern cinema is the pan-and-scan VHS. Many lesser works can survive it ("Titanic" again!), but it has ruined almost every one of Tarkovsky's films. He composes very deliberate frames, balanced in a way that only wide-screen can accomodate ("The Sacrifice" was the exception, shot 1.66 I believe). The VHS transfers are claustrophobic and uncomfortable (showing only 60% of the image), but in their true aspect ratio his shots are spacious and carefully composed.

  The accompanying materials (intervews and commentary) are interesting, but dryly presented by academics. A shame, since this is the type of film that Martin Scorcese could do a fantastic commentary for.

  And be warned, there are moments of horrific violence and cruelty.

  Since the Reagan administration came to power, the west has lost track of Eastern European cinema. It had (has) a style and direction as unique as the Japanese or British. Tarkovsky is one of it's gems, and no one who considers themselves a conoseur of film can go without a Tarkorvsky viewing.

  My personal favourites are "Stalker", "My Name Is Ivan", and "The Sacrifice", and of course "Solaris" -- unfortunately the only one I've seen in it's Wide Aspect is "Sacrifice". But Tarkovsky is one of the greatest directors in history, and "Andrei Rublev" is still an amazing film.

  Bye the way,

  If you're not quite ready for the plunge into Tarkovsky, try the documentary "Andrei Tarkovsky Directs", which is an action packed account of the making of "The Sacrifice".
  
  

• A Piece of Modern Art

  
  By on 2000-10-07
  Andrei Rublev is not only one of the most difficult films to describe, it is also one of the most beautiful films ever made. It flows like a long Russian novel, with interworking subplots and interwoven themes. The rich fiction created by Konchalovsky and Tarkovsky, based on the late medieval Russian icon painter Andrei Rublev, raises many important questions concerning life, the soul, and art. Above all, there is something elegantly and radiantly lyrical about the film, scene by scene. The film itself is divided into vignettes, or what I like to refer to as chapters, recounting different periods in Rublev's life; each one could be its own film, namely the last section about the bell and the young bellmaker. However, the most poetic scenes involve the Holy Fool, or Durochka, played by Tarkovsky's wife Irma Raush. Her character adds a touchingly humorous, yet tender aspect to the film; her relationship with Rublev is so sweet and almost childlike, it brings a true smile to your face. Throughout the film, Tarkovsky is able to catch the incredibly earth-shattering expressions on the character's faces, symbolzing oppression from war and Tatar raids, poverty and inequality. One simple look of an eye speaks a thousand words in this film. The vignette entitled The Jester displays some of the most wonderful examples of the human condition ever in film; the beating rain on the primitive hut combined with the tired, worn out, wretched faces of the peasants (including children, men, women, and elderly), is so realistic you can taste it. Tarkovsky is indeed a modern master, and Andrei Rublev is quite possibly his masterpiece. Tarkovsky's work ranks with so many of the great modern artists, not filmmakers, but painters and photographers: Cartier-Bresson, Freud, Picasso, Matisse, O'Keefe, Stieglitz, etc. Anchoress, a film obviously influenced by Andrei Rublev, particularly in cinematography, is recommended also for anyone who enjoys intellectually and visually impressive cinema.
  
  

• Being Andrei Tarkovsky.

  
  By AYH9WYU47168B on 2000-01-29
  The first time I saw Andrei Rublev I fell asleep after the first fifteen minutes. The second time I saw it I stayed wide awake for the entire viewing. I was impressed by its visual grandeur and its message so much that it is one of the five best films that I have ever seen. It is one of the first films to convince me that that excellent films can be extremely challenging to watch. Despite some of the most disturbing scenes I have ever scene, I no longer view film as a diversion but as an exploration. It is atmospheric, heavenly, gothic, spooky, dreamy, frightening, and thought-provoking. The definitive 205-minute version released by Criterion does an excellent job in restoring some very important scenes which add to the flow of the film and make it easier to understand. I highly recommend it.
  
  

• Sublime Cinematic Magic

  
  By A1F9XJJ2A0XRV9 on 2001-10-12
  I have endured Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev twice now - once on VHS and once on DVD (the 205-minute Criterion Collection version) - and I have yet to penetrate its ultimate secret. The film is audacious and - as many, many will say/have said - epic without the added difficulty of being ponderous. It might simply be that Tarkovsky was a poet and not an intellectual. His work has been mischievously compared with Godard's or Antonioni's but is completely different. The latter two magnificent gentlemen invariably speak to your intellect. Tarkovsky speaks to your soul. Russian (Slavic) soulfulness is legendary, but Tarkovsky is not nostalgic; nor is his work particularly "spiritual" in the usual sense - i.e. moralistic. Andrei Rublev is 1 000 times better than any of Bergman's films and I like Bergman without reservation. To fathom the immense elan of this film one must suspend the expectation for significance imparted to cinema by 10 000 lesser films. Tarkovsky manages something that only the most sublime works of art can "picture" - a panorama of self projected upon world and a complex, associative magic that is irreducible to verbal or critical formulae. Please see this film, if ever you have lamented the porridge poured over our heads by would-be auteurs in the name of cinema. The central conceit of a half-historic, half-fictionalized Russian icon painter of the 15th century wandering about in search of life itself will more than compensate for the cruel gruel of most contemporary filmmaking.
  
  
• please see this film!
  By on 1999-11-10
  This film seems to be one of those which no one I meet has heard of, and yet it is a masterpiece, a real masterpiece. It still surprises me to no end that I discovered it in a Blockbuster -- and if I hadn't seen it there, I probably would never have come upon it in my life.

  As stated in the synopsis, the movie tells the story of the title 15th-century painter of icons and his struggle to accept his vocation in the face of the stupidity and savagery of his era. The structure is somewhat like Joyce's _Dubliners_ (except with greater narrative continuity) in that it consists of a series of episodes, each with a particular focus, and concludes with a piece that could stand alone as a very powerful short.

  Beautiful, hypnotic imagery, and, as in all the great Russian writers, a profound love for Mother Russia, despite its harsh elemental forces, and an ultimate sympathy for its people who have had to endure so much for so long.
  
  

• Absolutely, unbelievable.
  By A134V8KTBPVFVD on 2000-04-03
  I write specifically about this Criterion DVD version of the film. The other cuts simply do not do the film justice. Some of the films most beautiful and most powerful shots are cut in half, and some of them are removed entirely in the 185 minute cut that is available on video. Although other cuts were endorsed, this is 204 minute version is how the film was originally meant to be seen, and I feel that it makes a big difference. The photography and pacing of this film is breathtaking. It is an epic in every sense of the word, but not at all in the sense of the traditional Hollywood notion of 'epic'. This is a fragmented, episodic story, where some of the episodes don't deal with the protagonist of the film at all. In some of them he is merely an observer, in others he is left out entirely. These scenes serve on a metaphorical level, not a physical one. Ultimately though, it all culminates to express the same basic thing: the need for the artist to trascend the earth, the natural world in order to reach something beyond to material, beyond the physical. And it is often about the artist's failure to do this.

  I recommend alongside this, Jacques Rivette's film 'La Belle Noiseuse'. They are very different films, but they both deal with the same essential themes. And both are extremely important works of cinematic art.
  
  

• THE LOWDOWN ON THE TWO VERSIONS
  By A2M22E7J0D8LDT on 2008-05-04
  I have owned the Criterion edition of this film a long time; I recently bought the Ruscico (Russian Cinema Council) edition and think I should try to make clearer the differences. This is not a critique of Tarkovsky's work -- that is beyond my capabilities.
  
  As you may already know, the Criterion edition is taken from Martin Scorsese's personal print and represents the penultimate version of the film, while the Ruscico edition represents the release version, which is about twenty minutes shorter. However, Tarkovsky did more than pare twenty minutes off the film -- it's actually a somewhat different film, though the differences are not major.
  
  To begin with, the Scorsese print (Criterion) has a completely different set of credit titles and intertitles, and at that stage the film was titled "Strasty po Andreyu" (Passion of Andrei). The release version (Ruscico) is titled "Andrei Rublev" and is not merely shorter: it contains shots that do not appear in "Strasty po Andreyu" (Criterion). Commenting on the DVDs themselves, the Ruscico DVD is much better looking. The subtitles (as one might imagine) are written by someone whose native language is Russian, and that is very important to me. When the subtitles are written by an English-speaker they are rendered in English idioms and subtle, specific meanings are often lost. Sometimes one cannot even tell what a scene is about. (There is a scene in Criterion's "Ivanovo Detstvo", for example, where the English-written subs completely obscure the point of a scene, while the Russian-written English subs in Ruscico's version make it perfectly clear.) Russian-written English subtitles are sometimes ungrammatical, use idioms whose meanings are unclear to non-Russian speakers, and sometimes even inadvertantly use a word from yet another language (French, in one case that I saw), but I'll take subs written by someone whose native language is that of the film any day. In fact, if you see a version of any foreign film with English-written subs first, then see a version where the English subs were written in the film's country of origin, it will be like seeing a whole new film. (A spectacular example is the difference between Kino's "Zerkalo" [Mirror] and Ruscico's -- there is NO comparison [Ruscico wins!], except that you have to avoid Ruscico's 5.1 audio remix and select the original mono.)
  
  Additionally, an extra of great interest is hidden away on Ruscico's "Andrei Rublev" DVD. In the individual filmographies certain titles are highlighted: these are accompanied by trailers, three of which are for Tarkovsky films. These trailers are made up largely of shots that are entirely different from anything that appeared in the final film, so should be of absorbing interest to any fan of his work.
  
  To sum up: Although I prefer the long version represented on Criterion's disk ("Strasty po Andreyu"), the Ruscico disk has a superior image, better subtitles (to my way of thinking), and fascinating extras if you can find them. Get both DVDs.
  
  
• All other movies are straw!!!
  By A1BQPKQHV78M8 on 2005-01-13
  I think I have already summed up how I feel about this movie. Not everyone is inclined to agree. But I must say this movie has great character portrayals that can be applied to people from novels to real-life. The many groups represented in the film range from the nobility (a major social moving force as twin princes struggling for power), the religious (with the three main monks representing various attitudes toward religion), the pagans, and finally the artists. The 3 main monks are 1) the talented but confused Andrei Rublev, 2) the mediocre and self-righteous Kirill, and 3) the quiet and focused Danil. The artists Theophanes, Foma, and Boriska really keep the movie in focus just as a real art director of the movie would do. Their attitudes toward faith and art are what helps the viewer understand Rublev's own attitudes toward faith and art. Though Rublev is the main character, he is at many times in the background. The viewer is after all, meant to become Rublev, and therefore Rublev is less visual. Brilliant device by Tarkovsky!
  
  In the end it is the characters of the "idiot girl" and the jester which cleverly help the viewer understand the some of the character and actions of Andrei Rublev. At one point in the movie, Rublev splatters paint on the wall as a sign of protest against the jealous prince who has ordered the blinding of some painters. Everyone around Andrei is baffled by his actions since he does not attempt to justify them. It is however the idiot girl who although lacks reason, has the insight to understand the violence depicted. The idiot girl after all sees the paint and mistakens it for blood and in doing so receives the correct message. The jester likewise, helps the viewer understand two things about Andrei Rublev's character. The first thing noted is that when the jester has part of his tongue cut out, he still does not waver in continuing his art of comedy. Andrei on the other hand, at one point stops painting and speaking, and as a result he willfully becomes more mute than the jester. Finally the second thing noted is that because Andrei has choosen to give up his art of painting, he has in essence become as lukewarm as his fellow monk Kiril. Andrei in fact resembles Kiril so much so, that the jester attacks him thinking he is Kiril (the monk responsible for denouncing him).
  
  Movies like "Andrei Rublev" are rarely ever made. The director Tarkovsky was not called "the Poet of the Cinema" for nothing. His works such as "Andrei Rublev", were just that: poems. A poem like "Andrei Rublev" has lots of imagery used to convey some deeper meanings. Andrei Rublev appeals to scholars of the cinema and art technique as well as history buffs who want a social commentary along the lines of "Alexander Nevsky". But in the end, "Andrei Rublev" has a strong appeal to those who have strong religious convictions and struggle to match those convictions with their actions. The film is ultimately about individuals fulfilling their calling in life despite setbacks, be it due to social conflict or personal tragedy.
  
  The movie is most rewarding when watched with the same patience and perseverance that one would have reading a novel by Dostoevsky. Even the opening scene of the flying balloon stimulates conversation as to its purpose and relation to the rest of the movie.
  
  Finally, a great but often overlooked part of "Andrei Rublev" is its soundtrack. The soundtrack of "Andrei Rublev" like that of "Saving Private Ryan", is not explosive so as to be immediately ingrained in the viewer's mind (see Star Wars). The music instead sets the mood and tone of the movie. It does not distract the viewer from the visual poetry of the movie (for example there is the utmost silence during the slow-motion horse scene). So would Andrei Rublev be any different without a soundtrack? Yes it would. Even though the message of the movie would ultimately be the same, the possible religious experience drawn from it would be delayed by the lack of tone set by the music.
  
  I cannot give this movie enough praise. It is a must-see for anyone who has strong religious convictions. "Andrei Rublev" is capable of not only stirring the depths of the soul but of also creating a predisposition and atmosphere for conversion. "Andrei Rublev" is by far my favorite movie of all time.
  
  The DVD picture is great although the audio commentary could not be any drier. Still the restored scenes and extra Russian translations make up for it. Criterion on the whole does an excellent job transfering this movie to DVD.
  
  Kirill says it best early in the movie: "Only with true insight can you grasp its essence".
  
  
  
  
• THE Russian epic with striking imagery (1966)
  By AD0J5KK4WQXNS on 2004-04-26
  Andrei Rublev is probably the greatest looking film of all time. It was shot on a Konvas (you can pick one up on Ebay for $1000) and film students will be stunned by what has been achieved in terms of cinematography with such an old and dated 35mm motion picture camera. It is inspirational in terms of film-making and this is the core reason why you should watch the film. If you are interested in Kino Art then Andrei Rublev can probably lay claim to the greatest art film ever made. If you are looking to experiment with Tarvoksky, then Andrei Rublev is not a bad place to start.

  Like most of Tarkovsky's films, Andrei Rublev is extremely artistic, conjectures much on the human condition, metaphysics and Russian life - that all seem to have some hidden meanings that contains the film's truth that Tarkovsky expounds on - namely the wickedness of men and the temptations that they face. It is also about triumph of the will and the nature of man. This is all done via the "narrative" and the look of the film. Tarkovsky mixes moments of dialogue about the metaphysical (a doctrine that would continue to be a theme in all of this other films giving a sense of what was to come - especially the intricateness of Stalker, Solaris), arrestingly simple and slow cinematography (his trademark water shots), complex action sequences (there are full scale battles like from a Kurosawa movie) and visionary set designs (15th century villages, towns and cities). This is Tarkovsky's biggest film ever (and quite possibly the biggest Russian film ever).

  The premise is complex. Andrei Rublev, a monk with the gift of painting, is invited to paint churches around the country and in Moscow. Between travelling from job to job he encounters - monks who have lost their faith, monks with too much faith in themselves, fools who are imprisoned for their beliefs, Wicca festivals (the pagan ceremonies of St. John's night), murder, torture (the Russian crucifixion), death, error, the sacking of towns by the Tartars (the sacking of Vladimir), vows of silence and of course the most striking final piece of the film - the making of the bell (the casting of the bell). Characters appear and disappear (a cinematic technique found in The Thin Red Line), but there is also a lot of hidden imagery (every time you watch it you find something new), in particular scenes of novice monks putting dirt on their cheeks which makes no sense at the time yet later on we seen Andrei put the same dirt as a stain on a church he has painted because of the bureaucratic blinding of artists (an extremely violent scene of which there are many. As a note: Andrei Rublev happens to be an extremely violent film and there are several disturbing scenes. Also a scene where a horse falls down a stairs was cut because of animal cruelty but this has been restored for the DVD). All of these scenes are done via several chapters that each tells a story in which Andrei Rublev is present either as the central character of focus, a participant or an observer. If you pay close attention to the chapters you will realize that the themes of each chapter are contained in all the chapters. Tarvoksky plays with the audience in so many ways that you can only hope to watch the film again and again until you make ALL of the connections. You will likely not see a more striking film for imagery. The ending is obviously what got Kubrick working on his trip scene in 2001. Tarkovsky returned a nod by filming Solaris.

  Andrei Rublev is shot in monochrome although the ending does a little Wizard of Oz for us. The story is divided between two discs. You have 86 minutes in the first disc and 99 in the second for a grand running time of 185 minutes. This DVD is PRICEY but this is Kino Art at its finest and worth every penny. The extras are many and there are some very important historical interviews about Tarkovsky. However I will say that DVD is totally unsuitable for Tarkovsky's films and possibly you will do better to watch a widescreen video or even better a 35mm print of the film in the cinema next time it comes to town. Even though the transfer is sublime for a 1966 picture (a Russian one at that) and there has been a lot of digital correction, the DVD produces artefacts on nearly all of Tarkovsky's films because of his complex imagery, but this is just quibbling and is not the fault of the DVD producers. Tarkovsky has simply exceeded the limits of what DVD mpeg compression can handle, even after this film is spanned over 2 discs... and that says a lot about the quality of this man's vision.

  Kino Art does not come much better than Andrei Rublev.
  
  

• One of the greatest films of all time
  By A2BK2TFHBVCB8K on 2002-11-24
  I believe Andrei Rublev will be seen as one of the greatest films of all time, if it is not already. It is not easy to sit through its 3hrs 25mins length, because it follows no sequential plot -- a-la-Hollywood blockbuster! It passes rather through several apparently unlinked episodes in Rublev's journey that ultimately gel both for us and him as he finds his proper role in life -- to uplift through painting of churches and icons.
  From the outset there is a picture of medieval life in Russia -- though it could have been true of many European countries at that time (1400-1412) -- that is so realistic, so convincing and so shocking that one's grasp of that era is immediate and forever. One sees the stabilizing role then of religion, the horror of unchecked oppression, the miserable condition of the peasant, and also the humanity that emerges from total degradation and hopelesness. I couldn't help thinking how lucky we are today and how we really ought to better value and defend the good institutions and the many contributors to our modern societies. Much of what we see in Andrei Rublev is surely not unfamiliar to what people in many Third World countries have to bear in our own era.
  Andrei Rublev is clearly a film so vast in its life view and so uncommercially put together that Hollywood could not conceive of it were it not already in existence. It would be pointless and immoral to copy such a real work of art. The realism of the characters, the story on every face, the fine acting that is beyond acting are not part of Hollywood's cinematic tool box. Directing this film must have been both a self-destructive and also uplifting experience on a par with Andrei Rublev's own artistic burdens. And I can only describe the exceptional camera work by saying that if the film were stopped at any moment, each image would be a masterpiece of still photography. The lighting, the contrast, the shapes and structures leave one breathless.
  Need I add that I approve of this film and am grateful to Tarkosvky for putting it together under such unlikely Soviet circumstances. I first saw it 30 years ago and now again just last Friday. It has lost nothing of its impact and value to us all.
  
  
• A work of great humanism.
  By AERRTOL2MFN3Z on 2001-08-14
  This film tells the story of a famous russian painter in the 15th century. It shows the brutality of medieval times such as raping, heathen orgies or the gruesome butchery of animals.
  It was also a time were some crazy peasants tried to master the elements by flying into the air with a balloon only to crush into the ground. And after all it was a young hotshot who had the skills to create one piece of art: a bell made out of clay. Tarkovsky (along with writing collaborateur Andrei Machalkov-Konchalovsky, director of (among others) "Tango & Cash" !) shows all those cruelties with great realism (I don't want to know how many horses died during the shooting of the film) and it never turned out to be exploitative. The stunning images of this film will haunt you long after the final credits and for me it's hardly to believe that a film of such great humanity and spirit could have been done in a bureaucratic state in which censorship was quite normal.

  The transfer is quite beautiful as you could expect it from Criterion. The movie is presented in a beautiful letterboxed format and in it's original director's cut with the exhausting running time of 205 (!) minutes. Extras include audio commentary by harvard film professor Vlada Petric which, is in my opinion, a little academic at times and a rare film interview with the director as well as a video essay on the filmmaker's work.

  Great stuff recommended !
  
  

• Acts of Faith
  By A2A0U27BHHWOES on 2006-07-31
  In its take-no-prisoners approach to filmmaking, Andrei Rublev reminds me of Francis Ford Coppola's self-indulgent masterpiece, Apocalypse Now. Tarkovsky's film is a biography of a fifteenth century monk renowned for his painted religious icons. Rublev was Russia's equivalent of Michelangelo, and some of the works attributed to him display a formidable beauty which is all the more remarkable because they were created during a rude and violent time.
  
  The film is told through a series of loosely linked episodes in which Rublev is either central, peripheral or irrelevant to the action on the screen. The film's brilliance and self-indulgence are evident right in the opening sequence. A man is paddling a canoe across a river to get away from a gang of pursuers. When he reaches the other side, he ties himself to a primitive hot air balloon and takes off into the sky. High above his tormentors, he experiences a vertiginous joy. We do too, thanks to some truly innovative camera work. The man's exhilaration is cut short when the balloon loses air and crashes into a horse, killing him instantly. What this has to do with Rublev is not much, other than metaphorically - man tries to soar above the danger and chaos of this life, only to crash back down into the mud.
  
  As he wanders to the various churches he is commissioned to paint, Rublev is sorely tried. He's tempted by lubricious pagan women, nearly dies during the sack of Vladimir (a horrific and mesmerizing bit of filmmaking) and loses a half-wit girl he's trying to protect to a band of roving Tartars. When he's afflicted, Rublev retreats into the scriptures. His real triumph is not his art, but that he managed to hold on to the spirituality that made his art possible. Like the calm that Vermeer created during a period of religious and political turbulence in Europe, Rublev's faith becomes a triumph over reality rather than a retreat from it.
  
  Tarkovsky's use of lingering long shots combined with abrupt cuts between the chapters give the movie a static, yet elliptical feel. It creates an odd narrative rhythm, but it's not dissimilar to viewing a great icon, which has both a stillness and a sense of underlying mystery, which is the mystery that attaches to faith.
  
  In the end, the whole of Andrei Rublev is greater than the sum of its fascinating but disjunctive parts. Its various episodes bear witness to the heroic effort required to make art during a nasty and brutish era - not unlike Tarkovsy's efforts to bring his idiosyncratic vision to the screen under a totalitarian regime committed to social realism. Be patient with this movie, let it lead you where it will, and you will be amply rewarded.
  
  
• Revelation in Contemplation
  By A3UGLMD1GKIZGR on 2003-12-07
  I had never seen a Tarkovsky film before "Andrei Rublev", but I intend to see more. This film was *very* different, but very good, and I was moved by it on many different levels.

  Set in Russia in the early 15th century, this film is based on the life of Andrei Rublev, an icon painter and arguably Russia's first great artist. It's told in a series of vignettes that don't always focus on Rublev; many times he is either a background observer or not involved at all. He is a device that Tarkovsky uses to tell a grander tale, a tale about art, life, humanity, history, faith, good, evil and other philosophical ideas that most filmmakers fear like the plague. This film is much more than a historical epic, it is a work of art, and possibly more than that a path to enlightenment.

  Like many of the greatest directors, Tarkovsky is more than just a filmmaker. He is an ARTIST, possibly more so than any director I've ever encountered. For example, most directors use techniques like music and editing to elicit specific emotions from the audience, but Tarkovsky uses few to no manipulative devices. Scenes are typically wide, sweeping, epic shots, which often linger for up to several minutes. The viewer is allowed to absorb the situation and the imagery, to internalize them and let them sink into the subconscious. If one is still and contemplative, one will enter into a dialogue with the film and begin to experience it on a higher level.

  The film lacks a tightly knit plot, and there's no pat morality tale. Rather it is LIFE, boiled down to its essence. Scenes feel real, and often play out in real time according to the rhythm of life. Characters will sit and wait, and we wait with them. Incidents unfold in real time, with no cuts and nothing edited. Tarkovsky uses the natural world a great deal. For instance, a character will chance upon the carcass of a snow-white egret mired in the swamp, or a somber procession will scale a snowy embankment where the mud has bled through like a pair of weeping eyes.

  It's a work of art, I've established that, but I also love the historical setting. Fifteenth century Russia was grim and unforgiving. Orthodox Christianity was the official religion, but paganism was still commonplace. Boyars, kings and princes frequently skirmished with one another. Tartars from the south took advantage of the regional instability to sack villages and cities. Plague and sickness were rampant, and the vast majority of people lived in abject poverty. But the so-called "Dark Ages" were nearly at an end. Art and ideas from West were steadily infiltrating the East. Rublev himself was inspired by a Greek painter named Theophanes, a relationship depicted in the film. Tarkovsky captures the period perfectly in "Andrei Rublev", and to me it seems like the next thing to being there.

  Having said ALL that, I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to most people. Here are all the reasons a modern filmgoer probably would not like "Andrei Rublev": it was filmed in black and white; it's old (originally released in 1966); it's long (the unedited Criterion release is nearly 3 and a 1/2 hours); it's in Russian with subtitles; at least one animal was brutally killed during the filming (for which there is NO excuse - shame on Tarkovsky); scenes linger for several minutes without cuts or editing; it's arty (though not pretentious); it's very difficult to understand; it requires repeated viewings and you may never fully "get it"; it's told in a series of vignettes with only a loose overarching narrative; etc., etc. If none of that scares you off, you should definitely check it out, because it's a real gem.
  
  

• Among mankind's great artistic achievements
  By A1SVO1B3CNJ7ZE on 2005-07-19
  You won't see this from Hollywood. A movie that is not just a cinematic masterpiece but a work that comes close to the high water mark of artisitic achievement in the history of man. I say this despite the obvious flaws in the movie. It is beautifully shot, paced, and written, with a message of hope amidst suffering and hardship.
  
  The first time I saw Rublev, I was puzzled. Not at the story, but because it was so different from anything I had seen before. I had strong feelings that I had just viewed something great, but I wasn't quite able to process it all. It was the next morning when I started to realize how much the movie had meant to me. Tarkovsky was said to have prefered images to symbols, since latter are closed off to further meaning. Images allow layers of interpretation, and allow the interpretation to expand. This kind of experience is organic and continues over time.
  
  Some reviewers seem to have viewed Rublev as a religous film. I didn't see it that way. There are religous themes here-he was a monk afterall, and it is medieval Russia- but Rublev is mainly the story of the struggles of an artist in a cruel world. It is also about the nature of true art, and the creative process. There are many themes here and everyone will draw something different from it.
  
  One thing that struck me,and saddened me, was when I realized how different most Hollywood directors would have handled many of the scenes in Rublev. Tarkovsky has a style that lets the scene speak for itself, making the experience exponentially more powerful than the sledgehammer approach, which I imagine someone like Spielberg would insult us with. I am thinking mainly here of the Tartar raid and the scene of the people huddled in the church.
  
  Reviewers have mentioned the lack of continuity in certain places. I don't think this was Tarkovsky's design, done to challenge the viewer. I know that at least two chapters of the original screenplay were never shot. The first would have been the battle of Kulikov, which would have set the stage for the whole movie. The second was a chapter which explained the Holy Fool character and her transition in the movie. Supposedly Tarkovsky was short on money and left the two chapters out.
  
  
• One of the most beautiful of all films
  By A361LE16VBQDP8 on 2001-08-04
  'Andrei Rublev' is one of the most beautiful and disturbing meditations upon faith I have ever witnessed. As a film it is consistently astonishing - so many of the images are unforgettable, the musical score is fragile and haunting, and the overall conception so inspiring that, personally speaking, it restored my faith in the power of film. Along with Tarkovsky's other works, 'Rublev' is more akin to poetry than to simple narrative prose. Rather than approaching it as a regular film, I find it helpful to imagine that I'm about to enter an art gallery and view an exhibition by a master. It repays repeated viewings, and it is not a film to hurry you along with the urgencies of plot - Tarkvovsky, as he often states in his writings, is concerned with the nature and effect of time in the context of cinema - the pace then is contemplative. There are few if any commercial considerations motivating the making of this film, so unsurprisingly it inhabits a world entirely alien to that of mainstream Hollywood.
  *
  The opening scene reveals a Russian Icarus attempting to 'fly'. His faith must overcome not only his own fear, but the wrath of others who find his ambition threatening. He escapes and we inhabit his point of view, one approximating that of God perhaps, Tarkovsky depicting the landscape and its people as something suddenly abstract. The frighteningly primitive hot air balloon inevitably fails, and as it hisses in its final resting place it appears as something organic, like some grotesque human organ proving its mortality. The soundtrack throughtout this scene is particularly evocative.
  *
  After this the monk, Andrei Rublev, is introduced and a series of events demonstrates and tests his faith in himself, in God, and in other human beings. Images of the worst cruelty and barbarism are juxtaposed with ideas of transcendent beauty - at one point the whitened interior of a pavillion is inexplicably filled with softly floating feathers and down (this looks likes snow, but the commentary tells otherwise); at another, a peasant village is drawn as if from a painting by Bruegel; a pagan ritual has torch fires flashing through a nocturnal forest. From these backgrounds emerge sounds that seem almost supernatural - the lone female voice that comes intermittently, her song like the most delicate filament imaginable, being the one that stays with me most.
  *
  The final scene is truly climactic. A boy, who is alone in the world, apparently leans on knowledge passed on from his father in order to fashion a magnificent bell for his ruler - in so doing he is risking his life, for he will be killed if the bell is not resonant. The construction of this bell is enthralling, the firing of the metal and the pouring, spectacular. Ultimately it is revealed, however, that the boy has not placed his faith in his father, but in himself, in his art, and, it is implied, in God. Rublev comforts the child and this moment serves as an epiphany after which Rublev's faith in his own vocation is restored. The film erupts into colour at its close, as we are left with ravishing images of Orthodox iconography, Rublev's faith made incarnate.
  *
  If this film appeals, then it is easy to recommend Tarkovsky's other works, especially 'Nostalghia' and 'The Mirror'; Tarkovsky was also an admirer of the films of Carl Theodor Dreyer, and the latter's films are some of the very few that, for mine, equal Tarkovsky's achievement.
  *
  The Criterion DVD has excellent picture quality and sound - better than the prints I've seen in theatres. If you have a widescreen TV the format can be optimised by setting for 'zoom' and adjusting the vertical pitch of the image until the black bar on the top of the screen disappears - the subtitles will then be fully visible below the frame. (Actually, I'd suggest trying to view the film with the subtitles turned off - particularly on a third or fourth viewing - for me, the visuals become all the more overwhelming.)
  
  
• an epic of 15th cent. Russia
  By AQ8DU6XVA3USJ on 2000-08-07
  The first time I saw this, I was so exhausted after 30 minutes I turned it off...I had never seen Tarkovsky before...I was baffled. Because of my admiration for Rublev's work (and after seeing Solaris & The Stalker..2 films that are "easier") I gave it another try, and became caught up in this magical world of flowing images and passionate soul. The love and faith in this film is overwhelming. Anatoli Solonitzin is wonderful and so real as Rublev. In black and white, it turns to color at the end when showing Rublev's extraordinary work (Trinity is my favorite piece of art).These images somehow put the suffering of the hunger, cold, and war shown in the the film into perspective, and gives us a joyous celebration of God's love through art...this film is a masterpiece !
  
  
• Life is a painting
  By A2AZRBFR8U4BWH on 1999-12-07
  In this movie Tarkovski paints several small paintings, like Rublev paints icons. They all are linked together yet have no direct link. They depict life in Russia and the works of men and God through Orthodox Church. Tarkovski is Rublev. The movie as surely inspired some main directors, such as Emir Kusturica, as the night bathing nude scene of the pagans is very close to the dreamy wedding scene in Time of Gypsies. The movie is slow and sometimes difficult to reach the links (as for the long 30 minutes scene of the manufacturing of the huge Bell) but is Hypnotic and soulful. Rublev is a humble and pathetic character as he refuses the world, but doesn't attempt to change it. He's the weeping voice in the face of the crualty of the world.
  
  
• 3 times in a year...I finally can say that I don't like it
  By ATXL536YX71TR on 2008-04-11
  I have a habit of returning to films that I don't care for because I am always interested to see if my opinions will change. This is my third time through "Andrei Rublev" since last winter. I have now spent over 10 hours viewing this film from many angles; I have looked at it from the religious, the political, the pagan, the historical; I have read what precious little there is to read about the real 15th-Century Iconographer; I have read about the writer/director Tarkovsky and his symbolism....and, for me, this film does not reach me on any level. Why?
  
  Tarkovsky wanted to make a statement about his beloved Russia and how he saw it's decline during the Soviet Years. He, along with co-writer Andrei Konchalovsky, chose the character Andrei Rublev, considered to be Russia's greatest iconographer (religious images) and wrote a purely fictional account of the iconographer's life and struggle with art and faith and the conditions that prevailed in 15th-century Russia for peasants and artists under The Grand Prince and also under continuous Tatar Invasions. Through using historical Russian History as a backdrop, Tarkovsky portrays this monk through seven chapters of life from 1400 to 1412. Tarkovsky shows us peasants ,pagans, Tatars, Church Priests, inserts tons of Scripture from Ecclesiastes (the vanity of man) and Paul's First Letter to The Corinthians (the great Love chapter), and attempts to tell the "struggle" of an artisan who is to go from Church to Church and commission to commission to paint Icons (religious images). Three hours, Tarkovsky never shows one icon being painted, making it very plain that this film is not solely about the life of an artist. Why choose an iconographer and never show one icon? Wait... at the end of this black-and-white "masterpiece", as it is often referred, we are at last allowed to see, in color, icons that were "attributed" to this obscure monk, Andrei Rublev. The final icon, "The Trinity" is actually the ONLY icon that can be absolutely ascribed to Rublev. In Tarkovsky's words, his choice of black-and-white filming was motivated by his claim that "in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors. Consequently Rublev's life is in black-and-white, whereas his art is in color." I could not personally disagree more with Tarkovsky's assumption about how a person views life. That is why, for me, this film is strictly Tarkovsky, and nothing more. I don't agree with his views, nor do I like his film. My opinion only here!
  
  If you expect to know anymore about the artist than what is known, you will not; Tarkovsky uses this man to show that the Soviet's have ignored The Scriptures and Russian History. This is a sociopolitical film that was intended (through reading Tarkovsky) to "show an artist's maturing and development of his talent" and to show "the connection between a creative character's personality and the times through which he lives." I do not feel that this film expresses this in the least. Sorry....call me a Philistine if you must, but this film was not enjoyable or informative nor plummets the depth of an artist's soul except in Tarkovsky's mind.
  
  The film does contain animal cruelty, which I find offensive. A cow was placed in an asbestos suit and then set aflame for one shot during carnage. Another shot shows a horse stumbling down stairs and impaling itself. Tarkovsky notes that the horse was first shot for the scene and then taken to the slaughterhouse!
  
  On my third time through this ponderous film, I used Tarkovsky's guide that is published on the Internet, to see if I could appreciate the film and understand it any better. I could not. I think this film needs to be viewed solely for the purpose of understanding Tarkovsky's vision as an artist in the Soviet Regime, and not for anything else. You will either get it or not. I admittedly did not and do not. The film contains very long shots which, stylistically, is a Tarkovsky trademark. The narrative is extremely dull and very confusing without the guide. With the guide, you will only understand the confusion. I have honestly tried to get more out of this film than I have been able to get. I find in it nothing inspiring or interesting or artistically or cinematically that should warrant a label of "masterpiece". To each his own. Granted I have loved films that others deplore, but for me, this is the last time for "Andrei Rublev."
  
  
• magnificent!
  By on 1998-11-20
  It is probably one of the finest history movies I have ever seen. By taking highly subjective "through the eyes of the hero" approach, film shows Russian history (or medieval one) like no other one. It's one powerfull rebuff to believers of the "glorious past" rubbish. Outstanding cinematography and acting.
  
  
• A Cinematic Work of Art
  By A1ENC0ALMHVBU on 2005-04-12
  Caution! This film is well worth watching BUT only for those who are willing to take the time and effort (nearly 3 ½ hrs - at least) to watch and think about the meaning of the various stories that make up this epic work of art. Perhaps the film can be viewed and enjoyed in a single sitting, but I doubt it. The closest analogy I can offer is that watching the film is like viewing fine paintings in an art gallery or savoring the taste and aroma of vintage wines. Visually the scenes are striking with many panoramic views. The use of black and white (until the very last few minutes of the film) creates a hypnotic, dream-like effect that heightens the mood of the scenes. As others have pointed out, there are some scenes that show cruel treatment of animals and barbaric treatment of human beings.
  
  
• Inspiring Masterpiece
  By A2RFG9LI7JDILS on 2004-10-05
  Given the trouble Tarkovsky had releasing this film it is astonishing to be able to view this film in any format let alone this astonishing criterion director's cut.
  The film itself is gorgeously shot and perhaps one of the most interesting biographical films - in terms of narrative form - it is quite inventive in this respect.
  I found this to be one of the most detailed, metaphorical studies I have ever seen - impossible to digest in just one viewing. Indeed, one could study this film for years and still know little of its mystery - it is like all great works of art - never fully attainable - it escapes grasp- and yet you know you are seeing something truly special.
  
  
• Thank you Criterion
  By A2ZJL78KISJK0V on 2001-10-11
  Before this DVD, I last saw a screening of Andrei Rublev back in the mid-90's in San Francisco, during a Tarkovsky retrospective. The notes claim to have restored 40% of the dialog. The print that I watched must have been the one used for comparison. As I recall, the film print started off fairly well translated (or at least appeared that way), but as the film rolled on the translation became more sparse. Whole stretches of dialog summed up in one line. Eventually, the translation pretty much ended and I don't remember any translation at all in the last hour. A tip of the hat to Criterion for the new translation, and all the other work that went into producing this dvd. The film is so visually moving though, that you might want to watch it again without subtitles altogether. The magic of dvd.
  
  
• A Glimpse into Russia's Medieval Interior
  By A1NPNGWBVD9AK3 on 2002-06-10
  If you want to understand medieval Russia, this is a superb place to start. It is as if someone had gotten hold of a wayback machine and taken their cinematographer with them back to the 15th century. Andrei Tarkovski obviously owed some debts to Bergman and to Eisenstein, but he surpasses both masters in conveying medieval atmosphere. This is in part due to the fact that the film is highly accurate, historically. Tarkovski sticks to the primary texts in his depiction of Rublev, and his era. This is in no way meant to imply that the film is some sort of academic exercise, only that it falls within the boundaries of the great tradition of Russian realism.

  The film takes place in an era when the southern half of Russia was still occupied by Mongol invaders. It was only in Northern Russia that Christianity continued to flourish during this period. The status of artists was not clearly defined. Rublev and his fellow artists were regarded as prizes to be bartered for by the highest bidder amongst the noble boyars. Thus the graphic and violent scene depicting the blinding of a group of artisans leaving one boyar's principality without tacit permission to go to work for his brother in another province. It is a haunting scene, but accurately depicts a type of depotism that unfortunately recurs throughout Russian history.

  Andrei Rublev is considered by most experts (including James Billington in his marvelous book, The Icon and the Axe) to be the greatest icon-painter and muralist in Russian history. He painted his masterpiece, "Old Testament Trinity," for the monks of the monastery of St Sergius in 1425. One can view some of his most glorious creations by visiting the State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg and the National Museum (Tret'iakov) in Moscow. Icons still hold great importance to the believers in Russian Orthodox Catholicism. Visit any church service in Moscow or Saint Petersburg and you will see believers lighting candles and praying before various icons. To understand the essence of this faith and properly appreciate it's depth, view Tartovski's film and read Dr. Billington's books.

  In all honesty, the film does require a bit of patience, as it runs over 200 minutes. For viewers disinterested in Russian history and culture, it may prove too taxing. For those who find Russian history fascinating and who wish to better understand the underpinnings of its culture, the time invested will be richly rewarded.
  
  

• Life and Times of Andrei
  By on 1999-08-22
  This cinematic account of the life of Russia's great fifteenth century icon painter is brilliantly directed by Ivan Tarkovsky, with superb period detail and cinematography. The film seems to be more a portrait of Roublev's world than of Roublev's life, but in painting that world Tarkovsky provides a series of amazing set pieces that evoke the mystery and violence of those times. The bloodiness and savagery surrounding Roublev is brought home most viscerally in his depiction of the Tartar sack of the Russian city of Vladimir, but other disturbing scenes include the violent execution of a local ruler and the blinding of a troupe of craftsmen by the forces of a Grand Prince seeking to prevent them from entering into the service of his brother. The scene in which Roublev, a monk, stumbles into a pagan mating ritual reinforces both the tenuous existence of Christianity in 15th Century Russia and Roublev's own divided nature. Solonitze plays Roublev as a passive observer, but he offers a sympathetic peg on which the rest of the film hangs. He is ably supported by Ivan Lapikov as Kiril, a fellow monk, lesser artist, sometime friend, and sometime enemy to Roublev; Nikolai Sergeyev as Theophanes the Greek, Roublev's mentor; Nikolai Burlyaev as the young bell-maker in the final sequence; and Irma Rausch as the holy fool Roublev protects. At three hours, the film is long, but it is never boring, although Roublev's role as more of an observer than a participant in his times makes the narrative thread a little difficult to follow at times.
  
  
• Beautiful filmmaking
  By on 2000-09-03
  I believe that film is a truly respectable modern art form when done well. Tarkovsky is a filmmaker who must be regarded as one of the great 20th century artists, ranking up there with Cartier-Bresson, Picasso, O'Keefe, Lucian Freud, and Brassai. Andrei Rublev is perhaps one of the most stunning films I have ever encountered . . . and certainly one of the most stunning works of art I have ever seen. It continues to beguile and capture my intellect viewing after viewing.
  
  
• Slow-moving, but hypnotically beautiful
  By on 1999-03-19
  This movie may require multiple viewings. It takes its time dealing with the subject of the soul of an artist from an seemingly aloof camera viewpoint. It's strangely hypnotic, filled with gorgeous black-and-white imagery. Not in everyone's taste, but anyone who loves the art of cinema should give the movie a try.
  
  
• The Holy Grail of Cinema
  By A2PP83ETVOZ73R on 2004-12-01
  There is nothing to add to all the praise,really.
  Whenever I watch Rublev it's a religious experience, the images come alive .How did Tarkovsky achieve that is beyond my understanding. If you want to watch a film that will touch your soul (and possibly change your life) - buy this DVD now!
  
  
• Excellent, but slow paced and not for everybody.
  By AI0OAQ6E2O8VF on 2004-04-08
  This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film. This film, like many of Tarkovsky's movies are slow-paced. This may bore some, but Tarkovsky viewed many his films as a form of art as opposed to entertainment.

  Most people like movies that entertain, but not all films do that. I am a longtime fan of Russian cinema and find this to be a good example of "art house" cinema.

  This movie contains some scenes that some persons may find unsettling. There is a scene where a man kicks a dog to death, a scene of a horse falling down a set of stairs breaking its leg, and another where a cow is on fire. There is also nudity.

  The film itself was banned in the Soviet Union, but later released in a heavily cut version. The film has many religious references and quotes from the Bible. (The subtitles on the Criterion Collection DVD use the King James Version for translation of the Bible which is my favorite.)

  The film follows the story of real life 14th-15th century icon painter Andrei Rublev. Not knowing too much about him, I cannot give a clear comparison between the film and his life. The movie is well photographed and has an excellend full color sequence at the end of the film showing his acutal paintings.

  The Criterion Collection DVD has numerous special features.
  Interview with director Andrei Tarkovsky, Improved Subtitles, A timeline showing events of Russian history, and the works and life events of Andrei Rublev and Tarkovsky. There is also a partial length audio essay during certain chapters on the DVD track that conform with the scenes the narrator is talking about.
  The booklet lists these tracks so one would not need to view the whole film to search for the commentary.
  
  

• give it time, it'll take it
  By A3QVAKVRAH657N on 2002-09-08
  Insanely overlong, maddeningly opaque, visually striking but bleak, violent, stark--this would be a very easy movie on which to let the tiger out of the cage. But it also has a great reputation, both among cinephiles in general and among conservatives and the religious. So one is willing to give it more chances than it might otherwise deserve. And if you do stick with it until its final third or so, the rewards are bounteous.

  Andrei Tarkovsky tells the story of the great 15th Century icon painter, Andrei Rublev (Anatoli Solonitsyn), in a series of vignettes. The film opens with a famous scene of a man being dragged aloft by an escaping hot air balloon. He soars overhead beckoning the people bellow to follow him, but they can't or don't. Much of the rest of the film is taken up with Rublev's wanderings about Rus (old Russia) during a time of paganism, plague, poverty and marauding Tartars. Rublev is so disturbed by what he sees and by one violent reaction of his own, that he retreats into silence and gives up his artistry. But the final episode that he witnesses, which really makes the film, restores his faith and revives his desire to create art.

  In this last story a young man, the son of a bell maker, convinces a noble's men that he can cast a great bell for them, that his father has handed down the secrets of the trade to him. But as the work progresses the boy, Boriska, makes missteps and squabbles with the workmen who served his father. At one point he is in desperate need of clay to fortify the mold for the bell, but can't find earth of the right consistency anywhere. Then fate intervenes and, chasing a lost shoe, he slides down a hill into a muddy patch of just the right kind of clay. Insisting that he be given a precise mix of precious metals, teetering on the edge of exhaustion, Boriska drives himself until the bell is done. Amazingly, when freed from its mold it proves beautiful and the tone it produces rings true. Only then does the boy reveal how truly miraculous it is that such beauty has arisen from the mud because his father died with the secrets unspoken and Boriska was actually learning as he went. In the end he got by on little more than faith. Rublev, who in this section as in most of the others is more a spectator than a player, goes to the boy and breaking his silence urges the boy to come with him and cast church bells while he, Rublev, will paint icons to adorn the walls. In particular, Rublev has been asked by Abbott Nikon of Radonezh of the Holy Trinity Monastery in Moscow to paint an icon commemorating the prior abbot, St. Sergius of Radonezh.

  All that has gone before is in black and white, but in the last images of the film Tarkovsky shows color details of Rublev's greatest work, the Icon of the Holy Trinity (1410), based on Genesis 18, when the Trinity is understood to have appeared to Abraham :

  1: And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
  2: And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door,
  and bowed himself toward the ground,
  3: And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
  4: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
  5: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant.
  And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
  6: And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes
  upon the hearth.
  7: And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
  8: And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree,
  and they did eat.
  9: And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
  10: And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. .

  Obviously the director is telling us that the themes he has been exploring in Rublev's life, about which little is actually known, have come together in this magnificent artwork. As always with Mr. Tarkovsky, it's difficult to impose precise meanings on his narrative, but some of the ideas we can trace include the idea that the artist, though he must get down in the muck and experience life, must at least in his art rise above and lead the rest if humanity. The Trinity with its mysterious unity may also represent the necessary unifying of the various strata of the society that Rublev encountered--the wealthy nobles, the impoverished peasants, the churchmen who uneasily occupy the middle ground, perhaps even the Tartars. The painting and the film are certainly both invitations to us to join with the Trinity in the unity of love that they offer. On a more personal level the struggle of Boriska to create a bell on his own, without access to his father's wisdom, apparently represents Tarkovsky's own belief that each generation must discover artistic truths for itself. On all these levels, and many more that I'm sure eluded me, the film communicates its fascinating and beautiful ideas to us, so long as we've the patience to let it unwind to the end.

  GRADE : A
  
  

• Solaris - Criterion Collection
• Stalker: A Film by Andrei Tarkovsky
• Ivan's Childhood - Criterion Collection
• The Mirror
• The Sacrifice