The Poetics of Andrei Tarkovsky - Andrei Rublev 

If you enjoy this video essay and would like to see more, please subscribe and join our cinematic community 🎬 Link to Subscribe - ru-vid.com/show-UCyyU7PouVBnx8sIZfV9X1fg

"it becomes almost impossible to believe that the work was filmed in 1966." So true - the props, wardrobe, and mood feel so authentic. With other period pieces, I often feel like the objects on screen are well preserved antiques instead of naturally a part of the world.

The images are so striking that i keep forgetting the film isn't in color, my mind just colors everything every time this comes to memory since i've watched it. Possibly my favourite film of all time.

Magnifecent essay. I haven't yet dived into Tarkovsky's works. However this was a very intriguing watch and I will definitely have to see some of this masters works. Great video!

Excellent video, I congratulate you for your insightful and well crafted work. Best regards.

Love your video essays

Very good. Nice to get a fresh take on a classic..

Great video!

Amazing

yeah man they repressed him so hard he a movie.. sick

I love this film and it is the one film I wish was in color.

Naturally, you do a video on the one Tarkovsky movie I don't like.

Wasn't he agnostic

You say the Soviet Union was a repressive regime - but it was the state that approved and funded this film. Can you imagine Hollywood making a film like this? I'd say it's the Dictatorship of Profit that's the real repression.

англосаксам тяжело понять

ну хоть не политикс.. а нет поторопился, конец второй минуты и уже совиет репресив. ну а дальше чисто графомания

A few minutes in and already with collective west propaganda bs…unsubbed

From the very beginning of the video there is funny propaganda. I don't think it's worth watching the rest.

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.