In the words of Tarkovsky himself: "Nobody has ever cut anything from Andrei Rublov. Nobody except me. I made some cuts myself. In the first version the film was 3 hours 20 minutes long. In the second — 3 hours 15 minutes. I shortened the final version to 3 hours 6 minutes. I am convinced the latest version is the best, the most successful. And I only cut certain overly long scenes. The viewer doesn't even notice their absence. The cuts have in no way changed neither the subject matter nor what was for us important in the film. In other words, we removed overly long scenes which had no significance.
We shortened certain scenes of brutality in order to induce psychological shock in viewers, as opposed to a mere unpleasant impression which would only destroy our intent. All my friends and colleagues who during long discussions were advising me to make those cuts turned out right in the end. It took me some time to understand it. At first I got the impression they were attempting to pressure my creative individuality. Later I understood that this final version of the film more than fulfils my requirements for it. And I do not regret at all that the film has been shortened to its present length."
Stories of 600-year-old Orthodox monks will feel boring to 21st century viewers accustomed to motorized transit, the internet, and modern entertainment and convenience.
There is humanity in emotion and common experiences, such as sex and death, and this movie has some of those emotions and experiences. For a film made behind the Iron Curtain in the midst of sometimes brutal authoritarian government, it is impressive. But while western film of the 1960's was exploring human darkness, feting warriors, and beginning to glorify sexuality, Tarkovsky cast his eye towards the past at a formative figure who lived during a transformative era for Russia. While the subject matter isn't exciting for most people of our era, the filmmaking is the reason this movie is so highly touted. The techniques and cinematography get the pros excited. I'm not a pro, so I won't critique it further, but you can see from the toplists this is on that some bigwigs are impressed.
A challenging film to absorb and learn from, Andrei Rublov feels more like work than fun to watch.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 27
monty
In the words of Tarkovsky himself: "Nobody has ever cut anything from Andrei Rublov. Nobody except me. I made some cuts myself. In the first version the film was 3 hours 20 minutes long. In the second — 3 hours 15 minutes. I shortened the final version to 3 hours 6 minutes. I am convinced the latest version is the best, the most successful. And I only cut certain overly long scenes. The viewer doesn't even notice their absence. The cuts have in no way changed neither the subject matter nor what was for us important in the film. In other words, we removed overly long scenes which had no significance.We shortened certain scenes of brutality in order to induce psychological shock in viewers, as opposed to a mere unpleasant impression which would only destroy our intent. All my friends and colleagues who during long discussions were advising me to make those cuts turned out right in the end. It took me some time to understand it. At first I got the impression they were attempting to pressure my creative individuality. Later I understood that this final version of the film more than fulfils my requirements for it. And I do not regret at all that the film has been shortened to its present length."
Warrison
An interesting documentary on the challenges of making a bronze bell in 15th century Russia.ClassicLady
Very moving ending.SpacedJ
You could say Andrei Rublev was ... saved by the bell?I'll show myself out.
armyofshadows
10/10A beautiful, classic epic. One of Tarkovsky's many masterpieces.
CrunchySumbitch
Stories of 600-year-old Orthodox monks will feel boring to 21st century viewers accustomed to motorized transit, the internet, and modern entertainment and convenience.There is humanity in emotion and common experiences, such as sex and death, and this movie has some of those emotions and experiences. For a film made behind the Iron Curtain in the midst of sometimes brutal authoritarian government, it is impressive. But while western film of the 1960's was exploring human darkness, feting warriors, and beginning to glorify sexuality, Tarkovsky cast his eye towards the past at a formative figure who lived during a transformative era for Russia. While the subject matter isn't exciting for most people of our era, the filmmaking is the reason this movie is so highly touted. The techniques and cinematography get the pros excited. I'm not a pro, so I won't critique it further, but you can see from the toplists this is on that some bigwigs are impressed.
A challenging film to absorb and learn from, Andrei Rublov feels more like work than fun to watch.
Sethcanes
One word: MasterpieceBigAwesomeBLT
The pause button is your friend on this one.I watched the whole thing in one sitting. I SAW all of it but I'm not sure how much I understood.
Monk is a painter's apprentice, naked pagan party, civil war and a hour on making a bell. I think that was it?
yamyam
what is art?what is beauty?how can one transcend himself?
if you did not ask at least these questions in the movie, please watch it again.
juanittomx
Better than I imagined, when the horse fell I have a heart attack! incredible scene.. but shocking and thanks that today that is prohibit.Holden7
7 (seven) words:What the fuck is going on here?george4mon
god that draggedNukeTheWhales
Pagan tiddiesTiago Costa
4,5 /5nicolaskrizan
High Art – for better or for worse(mod-edit: dead link removed)
Showing items 1 – 15 of 27