The Poetics of Andrei Tarkovsky - Andrei Rublev
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2021
- If you enjoyed this video essay on Andrei Tarkovsky's, Andrei Rublev, please do consider subscribing and joining us on our journey through cinema, and if you would like to support me and my work, please take a moment to look at my Patreon page.
Link - / thecinematheque
On this page you'll have early access to my work, and your name will be included in every video.
More Info Below:
Further Readings:
Andrei Rublev by Robert Bird
Scultping in Time by Andrei Tarkovsky
Andrei Tarkovsky: Elements of Cinema by Robert Bird
Andrei Rublev: An Icon Emerges By J. Hoberman
Links:
Email: thecinematheque@outlook.com
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/WillLeese
Instagram: thecinemathequefilms
Music by: Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov
This video was made by William Leese. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7Oqqo90x_w/mqdefault.jpg)
If you enjoy this video essay and would like to see more, please subscribe and join our cinematic community 🎬
Link to Subscribe - th-cam.com/channels/yyU7PouVBnx8sIZfV9X1fg.html
"it becomes almost impossible to believe that the work was filmed in 1966." So true - the props, wardrobe, and mood feel so authentic. With other period pieces, I often feel like the objects on screen are well preserved antiques instead of naturally a part of the world.
Thanks for watching!
That's what you get when profit is non existant as the driving force behind art. Everything is full quality when there's no need for cheaper versions, since money isn't a thing. The USSR wasn't exactly exactly socialist, but wasn't exactly capitalist either, this film's existance is proof of the second, but it's distribution problems is also proof of the first.
The images are so striking that i keep forgetting the film isn't in color, my mind just colors everything every time this comes to memory since i've watched it. Possibly my favourite film of all time.
Magnifecent essay. I haven't yet dived into Tarkovsky's works. However this was a very intriguing watch and I will definitely have to see some of this masters works. Great video!
Thanks for watching!
забудь это русская культура
Excellent video, I congratulate you for your insightful and well crafted work. Best regards.
Thanks for the kind words 😃
Love your video essays
Very good. Nice to get a fresh take on a classic..
Thanks for watching!
Great video!
Thanks for watching!
Amazing
Thanks for watching!
yeah man they repressed him so hard he a movie.. sick
I love this film and it is the one film I wish was in color.
Naturally, you do a video on the one Tarkovsky movie I don't like.
Thanks for watching! What is your favourite Tarkovsky film?
@@TheCinemathequefilms
1. Stalker
2. The Sacrifice
3. Nostalgia
4. Mirror
5. Solaris
6. Ivan's Childhood
7. Andrei Rublev
@@experi-mentalproductions5358What don't you like about it? To me it might be his best, incredibly Dostoyevski-esque, and i love Dostoyevski.
@@brunoactis1104 I've changed my mind since that comment, I do like it, but it's still my least favourite (probably because of how long it is).
It's not that I don't like it, it's just that I like all his others more.
англосаксам тяжело понять
Wasn't he agnostic
No, he was Orthodox Christian.
You say the Soviet Union was a repressive regime - but it was the state that approved and funded this film. Can you imagine Hollywood making a film like this? I'd say it's the Dictatorship of Profit that's the real repression.
It failed to win approval for release from Soviet censors. This is one of the classic Soviet censorship cases. Besides, Hollywood isn't the government.
It's possible to have more than one opressive regime, y'know?
The Soviets didnt like the finished product and banned it for two years
@@jacobm804 IF I got what you're saying: yeah, sure, but I wouldn't say it's the same thing. They function differently. Like it or not, in a democracy, a commercial industry has its say on production, because it doesn't detain people's money directly -- only profit --, whilst (if you believe in democracy) a government shouldn't have its say, because its money comes directly from taxes. + there is openness to independent production in democracies, whereas in a dictatorship there is censorship enforced by the military. Quite the balance?
@@stevekain7309 but the thing is that it got shot, and it was very expensive at that time
ну хоть не политикс.. а нет поторопился, конец второй минуты и уже совиет репресив. ну а дальше чисто графомания
Совка порвало
@@olzhas1one755 *звук рвущегося совка*
A few minutes in and already with collective west propaganda bs…unsubbed
Bro, i'm a socialist, i know about western propaganda and i know how to cut through it. But the USSR was never socialist, the means of production was never in the hands of the people. Stuff like the purges i do not think were bad, but there's just not much point in defending the USSR if they just weren't socialist to begin with. We have to take them as incredibly important examples to learn from, but never think about imitating it. We have to go back to a more classical marxism, where the state matters less. You could say that was a great lesson from the 20th century, don't put too much trust in the state.
Look, it's as simple as this; if we're gonna be repressed in order to "protect the revolution", what's the point? What's the point if we're just gonna be repressed anyways? The whole point of socialism is real freedom, not just freedom from, but also freedom to. If we're not gonna have that, then it's not worth it.
@@brunoactis1104 I hear you…my knee-jerk reaction is basically a result of the DNC’s 24/7 2016 launch of the “Russia bad!” BS … witnessing how the dirty tricks campaign against Bernie Sanders, (cooked up by Clinton and her attack dogs, David Brock & Peter Daou & Media Matters and amplified by the sycophantic ghouls of MSM), morphed into the current incoherent Russiaphobic Frankenstein monstrosity being spoon fed to the masses by MSM today REALLY PISSES ME OFF
From the very beginning of the video there is funny propaganda. I don't think it's worth watching the rest.
What becomes most apparent during the watching of 'Andrei Rublev', is that director Andrei Tarkovsky seems to be in love with himself. Rarely have i seen such pretentiousness and pseudo intellectuality in a major motion picture, but Andrei Rublev is definitely up there as one of the highest in that regard.
As usual in a Tarkovsky film, there is no conventional narrative in Andrei Rublev, thus making sure it is not personally accessible in any way. The film starts with a guy escaping in a hot air balloon while being chased by an angry mob of people. What does this scene mean? Nobody knows. But we can't understand it, so it must be art, right?? I reckon this is how many of these pretentious fanboys of this film view this matter. What Tarkovsky is doing in this entire film does not require any kind of imagination or creativity. He loosely creates short stories which have no cohesive connection with eachother, and he implements a lot of random dialogue or events that make it seem like it is actually a very clever film, while in reality it is devoid of all substance. A film that is not decipherable does not automatically make it 'art'. It just makes it meaningless, devoid of life & empty. Of course, all Tarkovsky films have this narcissistic kind of pretentiousness ( Even a good movie like Solaris ), but it is in this case painfully obvious that is is purely there to cover up the creative and emotional emptiness that this motion picture is full off.
Having seen the full 205 minute version of Andrei Rublev, it also became quite clear that there were numerous scenes and shots that simply held no value at all. The intro as stated before is an example, but there was also a shot of a horse tripping ( Which made no sense whatsoever ), the actual stabbing of an actual horse during one of the Tartar invasion scenes ( Which also made no sense ), and the fact that the final hour of the film suddenly brings forth a character nobody has seen before building a bell ( Again, there is very little structure at work here ). It is true that some of the shots during this final hour are phenomenally choreographed and created, also featuring a lot of dynamic crane camera movements which truly do make me wonder about how that was shot, but again, in substance, it is lacking severely. Not to mention the weird 15 minute outro by showing colorized iconographs. There's no doubt that pseudo intellectuals and self proclaimed 'film buffs' will find some hidden meaning there, but there really isn't any.
Tarkovsky uses a lot of biblical quotations and uninspired pseudo intelligent dialogue to make sure people are fooled into thinking this empty lifeless exercise in his narcissistic nature can be considered 'art'. With people today claiming that everything can be art according to the person in question, this is something that's not very hard to do. The truth is, not everything can be art, and Andrei Rublev is one of them, as it is the equivalent to a modern painting with 2 lines on it being called 'innovative', 'daring' & 'genius'. Both have no meaning.
Even though Tarkovsky is not necessarily a bad director, it's obvious that his self indulgent and narcissistic nature got the better of him for most of his films, thus creating 'Andrei Rublev', a pure exercise in subjective self-indulgence and wannabe art, which holds no actual value in quality apart from some technical brilliances.
"What does this scene mean? Nobody knows."
What does beauty mean?
@@lonestardiscs26 Substance above beauty, though it has none.
@@bradpackq725 I strongly disagree regarding the "substance above beauty" stance, and I think this film does have both in abundant quantities. But I'm afraid the argument would turn into a 'my opinion vs your opinion' type of discussion.
What I would like to say, though, is that I think we should not try to intellectualize the raison d'être of a given scene in a Tarkovsky film. The guy was ultimately a poet, and he focused more on the beauty of the images rather than their narrative context. That's not to say he lacked the second, but he focused more on the first. For example, it seems to me that the reason you cited that scene in particular is because it is so powerful and beautiful. I fact I remember it vividly, as you seem to do as a well. But I remember it and enjoy it at a visceral and instinctive level, and I don't try to 'understand it'.
But anyway, that's just my opinion and I totally get your point. I just disagree.
@@lonestardiscs26 How could anyone disagree with that? It's substance above beauty. Story and characters are more important than visuals. You are dumb.
Can't teach a blind man to see...