Movie #56: Released in 1966, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, 183 minutes. New to me!

LetterBoxd Score: 4.5 stars

The first thought that comes to mind to describe Andrei Rublev for me is “monumental.” It’s vast, sort of a portrait of a whole time, and maybe even a whole cosmic order. Partly this is because it takes the form of 9 different sections (8 of which are narrative), which generally have a lot of new characters, new settings, and new concerns (along with some familiar ones). The second thought is “muddy.”

The familiar concern, the cosmic order on display, is the plight of the person who wants to believe in the good of mankind, and to live in that goodness, but who is nonetheless relentlessly confronted with evil. It’s a world where people get their eyes gouged out or molten metal is poured down their throats. Most of the violence is the cruelty of people against each other, but not all of it. It’s winter, it’s muddy, plagues and famines, and hot air balloons crash. But it’s also a world where people celebrate in naked ecstasy, and where communal effort can forge a magnificent 20-ton bell. Or a world where Rublev can paint his icons, seen at the end. It’s in keeping with the movie that they are shown, with their damage visible.

There’s a lot in the movie that is hard to forget. It feels completely authentic; there is a visceral sense of the characters at home in a real world that I would feel uncomfortable in. It also feels… painterly? Despite being in black and white? Maybe it’s the light and the faces of who Tarkovsky casts. A brief rundown:

• The hot air balloon! Who expected that! Also, it looks like a penis?
• The mass nudity! Hundreds running through the forest at night, torches aloft.
• The raid! Expertly choreographed masses of hundreds, running and leaping, with a camera moving from one place to another to take it in
• The bell! The sight of the furnaces opening up to pour in the molten medal, and then the cracked unveiling, and then the triumphant ring (following another choreographed landscape of people).
• This dream image of a crucifixion, that looks like two closed eyes with running mascara.

For me, the main shortcoming, is that I wasn’t invested in the characters, so it was hard to be moved by their fates. Even so, there were exceptions. I thought the breakdown of the Bellmaker at the end was very moving. And when the holy fool left with the tartars, after Andrei killed for her, took a vow of silence, and gave up painting – for 12 years – only so she could run away on a whim, it was heartbreaking. In some ways, the ultimate act of the capricious arbitrariness of human fates. And yet – her life perhaps turned out ok? I wonder too, if I had known the icons shown at the end (in color) where the authentic Rublevs, and that Andrei Rublev was indeed a historical figure, if it all would have come together better for me too.

Why would someone think it’s one of the ten greatest movies ever made?

The only knock I have on it is that I didn’t get super connected to the characters. I think if you were on its wavelength (perhaps thematically), or simply better able to empathize with them for whatever reason, it would be a knockout.

Next: Daisies