I saw this years ago, maybe 5 years by now, back when I had Hulu/criterion, and it's been on my mind ever since. It's one of the most mystical and beautifully raw films I've ever seen.
@@artgallery7376 I haven't seen the film yet, I intend on watching it soon. There are people who enjoy dark, gloomy aesthetics. Art relatively is subjective.
Finally! Andrei Rublev will take the next big step. This upgrade will allow one of Tarkovsky's greatest works to come full circle. Long time coming indeed!
@@smotnick Anything I should know before I watch it? Or any recommendations for how I should do it? People seem to talk about this like it’s a genuinely life/perspective changing movie so I want things to be perfect because I only have a very short list of movies that are to those standards and I know that I myself am very particular about who, if, and when I will even rewatch those special movies with other people. I’m super excited to hopefully discover another one like them but because of the seriousness of the others, I can also already imagine how exhausting this movie could possibly end up being lol. From your comment, I thought you might have been saying that it was a bad movie but now what you wrote makes total sense to me. Have you seen Stalker btw? I’ve read the book and I’m really curious how they stack up to each other. I’ve been waiting for the perfect time to watch both of them (particularly Stalker because my friend read the book with me) but the more I think about it…the less I know if I really want to watch them with friends/family or just alone by myself. But they’re so long I don’t even know if I’d really want to rewatch them all over again another time after seeing them the first time but you would probably know better about how enticing that would be than I would. You responding right now has got me debating again if I should finally just watch Andrei Rublev now and stop waiting. Its already midnight but I’m free to sleep in. It’s just hyped up so much in my head at this point that I’m almost worried I might be let down from not being in the right headspace or something
@@cam5816 apologize I didn't see this earlier. I would see it on the big screen if at all possible. Watch his "Ivan's Childhood" which was his first feature but there is really nothing in that movie, that would prepare or cause anyone to expect his next, to be a masterpiece.
The bell and the name - "Andrei Tarkovsky" gave me goosebumps, similar to the one where they name - "Stanley Kubrick" in the 50th anniversary trailer for 2001.
Important to mention - movies of Andrei Tarkovsky were not welcomed by the Soviet/Russian government, he was tired to struggle with them and left to Europe - Italy.
@@NelsonVanDweller Andrei Rublev is fantastic, but I find Offret, Zerkalo, Nostalghia and Solaris a bit better. I think to truly understand Tarkovsky you have to see his other works. "Zerkalo" is my favorite film of all time, in my opinion one of the greatest works of art in human history.
The Revenant sort of eased me into Tarkovsky. This video in particular peaked interest in his work. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cpcdhNq_VPM.html
My favorite part was when the artists got their eyes cut out by the local prince. Well, not really- that's where I stopped watching the movie. It may be an important work, but I don't think a movie can get more dreary.
What becomes most apparent during the watching of 'Andrei Rublev', is that director Andrei Tarkovsky seems to be in love with himself. Rarely have i seen such pretentiousness and pseudo intellectuality in a major motion picture, but Andrei Rublev is definitely up there as one of the highest in that regard. As usual in a Tarkovsky film, there is no conventional narrative in Andrei Rublev, thus making sure it is not personally accessible in any way. The film starts with a guy escaping in a hot air balloon while being chased by an angry mob of people. What does this scene mean? Nobody knows. But we can't understand it, so it must be art, right?? I reckon this is how many of these pretentious fanboys of this film view this matter. What Tarkovsky is doing in this entire film does not require any kind of imagination or creativity. He loosely creates short stories which have no cohesive connection with eachother, and he implements a lot of random dialogue or events that make it seem like it is actually a very clever film, while in reality it is devoid of all substance. A film that is not decipherable does not automatically make it 'art'. It just makes it meaningless, devoid of life & empty. Of course, all Tarkovsky films have this narcissistic kind of pretentiousness ( Even a good movie like Solaris ), but it is in this case painfully obvious that is is purely there to cover up the creative and emotional emptiness that this motion picture is full off. Having seen the full 205 minute version of Andrei Rublev, it also became quite clear that there were numerous scenes and shots that simply held no value at all. The intro as stated before is an example, but there was also a shot of a horse tripping ( Which made no sense whatsoever ), the actual stabbing of an actual horse during one of the Tartar invasion scenes ( Which also made no sense ), and the fact that the final hour of the film suddenly brings forth a character nobody has seen before building a bell ( Again, there is very little structure at work here ). It is true that some of the shots during this final hour are phenomenally choreographed and created, also featuring a lot of dynamic crane camera movements which truly do make me wonder about how that was shot, but again, in substance, it is lacking severely. Not to mention the weird 15 minute outro by showing colorized iconographs. There's no doubt that pseudo intellectuals and self proclaimed 'film buffs' will find some hidden meaning there, but there really isn't any. Tarkovsky uses a lot of biblical quotations and uninspired pseudo intelligent dialogue to make sure people are fooled into thinking this empty lifeless exercise in his narcissistic nature can be considered 'art'. With people today claiming that everything can be art according to the person in question, this is something that's not very hard to do. The truth is, not everything can be art, and Andrei Rublev is one of them, as it is the equivalent to a modern painting with 2 lines on it being called 'innovative', 'daring' & 'genius'. Both have no meaning. Even though Tarkovsky is not necessarily a bad director, it's obvious that his self indulgent and narcissistic nature got the better of him for most of his films, thus creating 'Andrei Rublev', a pure exercise in subjective self-indulgence and wannabe art, which holds no actual value in quality apart from some technical brilliances.
You made same comment in The Beauty of.... But it's also an insightful comment 👍. Just my opinion-(don't wanna look like a pseudo intellectual) I think one should approach TARKOVSKY in terms of poetry rather than conventional prose definition of movies. Yeah sometimes it feels like wtf is happening,(I was really pissed off while watching Nostalghia and fell asleep,same with Mirror but later decided and watched both of 'em twice)but if you just cut yourself off from the SPEAKING nature of Films..you can get mesmerized by what the film is showing(imo)...and you can decipher your own meaning from that. And that for me is the reason why I like TARKOVSKY. I am 19 and heard about TARKOVSKY first through a you tube comment section and decided to watch...The most unique in terms of Cinema I would say. My Favorite Kubrick movie(watching your profile photo) is EYES WIDE SHUT, 2001(The most groundbreaking film of all time after/alongside METROPOLIS) and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
I guess you have a confusion on judging the film. It is like comparing poetry with romance. Narrative is very important in the later (style is also ), in poetry narrative or meaning is of second order, if any. Most of Tarskovski films are more akin to poetry. Stalker is a case, as the film goes you start to think the Stalker is a crazy man and that's it. But at the end, you have a clue that maybe he is not. Almost two hours is needed to such a small narrative? Poetry is in the way... If you look after narrative your are in the wrong place. If you do not like it, do not see it. Regards
"He loosely creates short stories which have no cohesive connection with eachother" You're completely wrong. The whole film is about a man's disillusionment with faith and God, the temptation of sin, and trying to keep his creativity and soul alive amid a world of abominable cruelty and meaninglessly suffering. Each vignette in the film builds and elaborates upon these themes beautifully. In many ways this is one of Tarkovsky's most straightforward and narratively consistent films. You say Tarkovsky's films are pretentious and lack cohesion, but you could say the same thing about a lot of different filmmakers. What about David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky, whose penchant for bizarre imagery and surrealism often takes precedence over traditional narrative? What about Martin Scorsese, whose films are usually light on plot and more focused on immersing the viewer in a particular world and the characters who inhabit it? Even Kubrick, who I'm sure you love judging by your profile pic, had a tendency to lose sight of the human element of his films in favor of technical wank and clever gimmickry (I think Dr. Strangelove is his strongest film in terms of story and message, and ironically much more existentially terrifying than his later films while still maintaining a sense of humor. After that he started trying too hard.) What appears meaningless on the surface may in fact have a much deeper meaning that you are simply unable to grasp, especially when we're talking about a film like this one which is so heavily steeped in real life history and theology. And it's really ironic that you throw around terms like "pretentious" and "self-indulgent" when your whole rambling analysis/temper tantrum is nothing but jumbled methane huffing rhetoric that would most likely get you laughed out of any serious film study course. Maybe when you grow up a little and get more life experience and intellectual curiosity you'll be able to appreciate Tarkovsky's films on a deeper level.
