Andrei Rublev

Starring: Antoliy Solonitsyn, Ivan Lapikov, Nikolay Grinko, Nikolay Sergeev, Irina Tarkovskaya, Nikolay Bulyaev, Yuriy Nazarov, Yuriy Nikulin, Rolan Bykov, Nikolay Grabble, Stepan Krylov, Bolot Berhsenaliev
Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky
Rating: R
Genre: Science Fiction, Thriller
1966

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Andrei Rublev is a Russian iconographer who experiences religious and political tension in the 15th century.

Review:

Tim: The first Andrei Tarkovsky feature I watched was Ivan's Childhood, an absolutely incredible movie. My initial experience with Tarkovsky was wonderful and I couldn't comprehend how a director so young crafted such a powerful, moving film. I was really excited to see his follow up feature, Andrei Rublev. This movie is significantly more complex (and convoluted). I know that it's often included in lists of the "Greatest Films of All Time", but this is acclaim that I disagree with. Andrei Rublev isn't a great movie. It's good, sure. It's epic in scope. It's got depth and complexity. However, it has serious flaws that can't be overlooked. I recognize my opinion differs from most critics, but I also think I'm right.

First off, there's no reason for Tarkovsky's film to be 3.5 hours long. It's interminable. The film took me forever to get through (something like 4 days, with other commitments and interrupting kids). Did I enjoy the experience? Almost never. Was I intrigued by what I saw? Definitely. Were there terrific, brilliant moments throughout the film? Undoubtedly. However, taken as a whole, the film is bloated, unnecessarily inaccessible to many viewers, a bit pretentious, and overall, fairly tedious. These are not the descriptors of a great film.

One of my biggest complaints about the film is the lack of narrative. Yes, there's some elements of an actual plot and story here, but Tarkovsky doesn't do a good job of telling a story. I know very little about Rublev and I sat through a 205 minute film about him. Tarkovsky never seems that interested in the man or what lies beneath the surface of him. Staring off moodily doesn't give us enough insight into his character. Tarkovsky is interested less in telling a story and more about allowing different images to wash over the audience. I've heard the film praised as "cerebral", when that really means they didn't understand it. I admit there were long stretches of the film I didn't understand. What was happening? Why was I supposed to care? Tarkovsky gives the audience so little to go on- you're left trying to put the pieces together yourself and you can't shake the feeling that he didn't include all of them. This leaves the film up to interpretation, but in a frustrating, unsatsifying way. What was I supposed to take away from this film? Tarkovsky seems not to have an opinion- to leave that totally up to the viewers. Cool, well, with no guidance, I took away very little. Ivan's Childhood was so brilliant because it told a powerful story while providing depth, complexity, some ambiguity for viewers to interpret, but it was clear what Tarkovsky's message was- his voice comes through in that film loud and clear. That doesn't happen with Andrei Rublev. It's all so "cerebral" that you wonder how much of it makes sense, verses how much of the film's interpretation is made up by critics. It felt a bit preposterous to me.

At this point, it likely feels like I hated Andrei Rublev. I really didn't. I have a lot of issues with it, but it's hard not to marvel at this expansive, dreamlike, meandering, occasionally brilliant film. Some of the imagery we see is hard to forget (side note, one of the most memorable is the horse scene, which is also memorable for the terrible reason of showing animal cruelty). Tarkovsky blends religion, politics, morality, faith, redemption, and more all together in an unforgiving, relentless package. Tarkovsky certainly had a vision for what this film was supposed to me- I don't think he delivers on that, but it's impressive to see someone follow their vision this intently. There are terrific sequences- the bell scene at the end is an absolute standout. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, but I was riveted at times, waiting for that story to develop. The fact that Tarkovsky could hold my attention after three hours was impressive. I just wish the entire film was that compelling.

I thought the cast was fine, but oddly enough, I don't feel like I got enough time with any of them. Antoliy Solonitsyn's performance as Andrei Rublev is... what? Solid, I suppose. I don't think he ever connected with the audience, though. He wanders around and says some things. I guess I mostly believed his performance. I liked Ivan Lapikov in the early stages of the film, but he eventually melts into everything else and it was hard to differentiate him from anyone else. The rest of the cast worked fine, I suppose.

I would consider Andrei Rublev to be a good movie- Tarkovsky creates something unique and unexpected here. He obviously pours himself into this film. The scope of the movie is impressive- some of the cinematography, the wide shots are stunning. He crafts brilliant moments throughout the film. The problem is, of course, the film is far too long and not compelling enough. It's the kind of film you watch once (unless you're trying to seem cultured) and likely never again. It was disappointing to me- Ivan's Childhood felt so powerful, so filled with raw human emotion. This film trades all that in for quantity. This would have been a much better film had it been shorter, more focused, less animal cruelty, and I don't know, actually tell a story that feels worth paying attention to.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating- 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend:
Ivan's Childhood, The Killers (1956)