Andrey Rublyov (1966)

Andrei Tarkovsky is considered, along with Eisenstein, the greatest Russian director ever. I had seen masterpieces by Tarkovsky (Ivanovo detstvo, 1962), but also artsy, pretentious movies completely dull and impossible to understand (Zercalo, 1975). But Rublyov is considered his greatest achievement, so it was with anticipation, but the feeling that I would need a bag full of patience, that I sat last Sunday for 3 hours to watch it. Well well, this movie is something indeed. Ok, but let me warn you that it will only serve for those who are prone for this genre of films, for those who can see Fellini or Godard, for those who are not disturbed by what is not exactly straightforward, and, of course, are very keen on the artistic value of film. For those, Rublyov will be one of the films of a lifetime. For me it was a good experience, but not that sublime, although it mesmerized me many times. At least it was understandable, and not pretentious. On the contrary. It tells the story of Russian 15th century monk turned painter Andrey Rublyov, but it doesn't really tell it. Well, at least not in the conventional sense. We don't see him painting once, nor even picking up a brush. The movie is a series of set pieces introduced by credits such as "The party, 1408" or "The bell, 1422", that show an event in the painter's life, which he watched or took part or just passed through. There are scenes where he doesn't appear, and in the end we just see him walk by. Actually the movie is a social portrait of an era, it dwells more on the famine, cold and war infested Russia of the middle-ages, and on the feelings that creates on the inhabitants, Rublyov included. It can be fierce, as in the invasion of the Tartars, it can be gentle, delicate, humble, heroic and mostly philosophical, but it is always beautiful. For me the most striking thing was the depth of the image (every scene has incredible background work at real locations with many extras) and the fantastic composition of the black and white photography. Rublyov's inner demons are revealed by the conversations he has, unconnected from one scene to the next, then at a point he takes a vow of silence and the images do it for him, but unfortunately, as I said, the movie more than often changes to side characters and situations (such as the bell construction) and loses its thread. I will not call it dull in its three hours, but actually it reminded me of Lean's "Ryan's Daughter" of 1970. An incredible epic fantastically photographed, but which sometimes stays off topic more than it should. Every camera shot is a work of art, that is for sure, and the movie ends up being not a story, but a piece of poetry, a work of art in itself, which uses Rublyov as a connecting point, but that does not make much effort in sticking with him. At last, after three hours, the last 5 minutes are a slide show of his paintings, with balletic zoom and ethereal music, which throughout the movie was an asset. Also Anatoli Solonitsyn, an actor in his first movie, was a very insightful Rublyov and an amazing find for the role. For me it was not better than Ivanovo detstvo, but watching it I came to understand why Tarkovsky gained, justifiably, his status of cinema master.