The story goes that Andrei Rublev was to be filmed for the 50th Anniversary of the 1917 Russian revolution. But Andrei Tarkovsky's lengthy, difficult movie was not what Soviet officials had in mind. It was withheld from release until 1969, and then only after censors had removed some fifteen minutes of film.

Western reaction to Andrei Rublev was not mixed, however. It was praised as no Russian film had been since Sergei Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin, more than a half century earlier. At the 1969 Cannes Film Festival, it won the FIPRESCI (cinematography) award, and won Best Foreign Film at the 1971 French Syndicate of Cinema. It has since appeared on many lists of best films.

Russian history was a favorite subject for Soviet-era filmmakers. But director Andrei Tarkovsky did not choose to make the film in a conventional manner, in which the title character dominates the film with his heroism.

While the movie closes its last chapter optimistically, and ends with an uplifting montage, it cannot be called positive as a whole. The early fifteenth century of Russia seems filled with plagues, famines, and murderous Tartar raids. It was an anarchic and dismal life, which Andrei Rublev represents with his gloomy countenance. Someone who breaks free from pessimistic restraint, such as the jester (Rolan Bykov) or holy fool (Irma Raush) is punished for it.

For Western viewers, the most shocking scenes from the film may be those that show cruelty to animals. A cow is set on fire. A horse is unable to climb down a staircase, instead crashing over the railing. A dog is beaten to death with a cane, but at least this occurs off camera.

By contrast, the violence inflicted on people is not as unsettling, as we have seen it before in countless films and television programs. Still, director Tarkovsky finds originality in the methods that the Tartars use to torture their Russian victims. One is sawed, another is speared, a third has boiling water poured down his throat.

Reading several reviews for Andrei Rublev, I was surprised that there were few complains about the violence inflicted upon man or beast. Most criticism was targeted at the film's slow pace, its bladder punishing 205 minute length, and at the difficulty of distinguishing the supporting players.

It isn't true that all medieval Russian men look alike, as I can easily distinguish the jester, the old painter, and the bell-maker's son. But I have to admit, I sometimes had trouble figuring out which of the bearded, frock-wearing men was Andrei Rublev.

"Where's Andrei" is not always an easy game to play, and part of the reason for this is that he is often only a peripheral character. For example, while the great bell is being constructed towards the end of the film, he is only an interested observer, while young Boriska (Nikolai Burlyayev) has become the lead. As Rublev has taken a vow of silence, it isn't even clear whether or not he approves of Boriska, until the end of the sequence.

Other scenes, such as that of the balloonist that opens the film, do not have Rublev present at all. Far from being a conventional biography of the noted Russian iconographer, Tarkovsky is more interested in a realistic depiction of the harsh era that he lived in. Rublev's taciturn personality is usually present, but is of secondary interest to Tarkovsky. The importance of Rublev's life work is only made substantial in the color sequence that closes the film, which show his surviving paintings.

Would Andrei Rublev be 'improved' if an hour of it was edited out? Many would consider even the suggestion of editing down this masterpiece to be blasphemy, but it is a process that happens to nearly every film. And shorter versions of Andrei Rublev do exist, with most of the cuts not made by Soviet censors, but by Western distributors seeking a more commercial film.

Viewers accustomed to activity would want to keep the most memorable scenes, such as the balloonist, the jester, the Tartar raid, and the making of the bell. Scenes having painters discussing philosophies or their projects would be candidates for removal.

This would certainly result in a shorter, tighter film, but not necessarily a better one. Character depth would be lesser, and the film would lack some of its continuity. It would be like stripping a heavy metal album of all of its slower moments; the resulting record would be louder, but fragmented and not representative of the artist's vision. (78/100)

Visit me at filmsgraded.com


Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age