In order to achieve a deep understanding of this film, one must have a certain understanding of the society and religion in Russia at that time. At this level, I feel deeply lacking and powerless. But at the same time, the film art ontology that the director has always adhered to allows us to feel the artistic reality created by the film even if we cannot touch the deepest philosophical thinking.
Throughout the whole article, Rublev's life was a life of wandering and turbulent. This turmoil is not only physical, but also spiritual. After Lublev left his monastery and set out on his journey, he had been witnessing or experiencing the mutilations and sufferings, including the brutal massacre. This was not a "honor" given to him by God, but in the turbulent environment at the time, such tragedies were everywhere.
At the same time, Rublev has also been engaged in spiritual and ideological confrontation with various people. There are several scenes where Rublev argues with people. In the beginning, Kimer's accusation when he left the monastery, the debate with the old man by the river, the conversation with the woman in the mysterious tribe, and the communication with the soul after the massacre. I don't dare to speculate on the specific meaning of these confrontations, but I only feel the power of religion as an ideology. A few days ago, I heard Director Yang Chao's comments on religion and was deeply touched.
At that time, he talked about the so-called cult, and said: "I have doubts about the concept of the so-called cult. The so-called religion is just a kind of thought, an ideology, and a cult is just a label attached to them by mainstream religions. If the ideology is different, the debate is over. That’s not how our Buddhism came to be. It took so long to debate and persuade each other before it finally became mainstream. It didn’t become mainstream from the very beginning.”
Rublev's life was also a life of arguing for his beliefs. During this process, he was defeated, wavered, and even decided not to paint anymore. But after all of this, he still returned to his beliefs and painted In the "Holy Trinity", Jesus' eyes are so rich, kind, compassionate, firm, angry...
Since most of these debates are verbal games, Laota contributed a lot of wonderful dialogue scenes in this film. It's worth noting that none of these dialogue scenes are head-to-head, a Hollywood-invented way of saving trouble. As long as the two people start to argue, it is a long shot to the end, and then make wonderful internal scheduling in it.
In the conversation between Rublev and the woman, he kept tilting his head to avoid the sight of the woman because the woman was naked, while the woman chased her gaze and ran from left to right, and the camera swayed. And when it comes to love, the camera is slightly pushed forward to the woman, and with the music playing, the woman rushes up to kiss Rublev. This actor's performance also contributed to this. Rublev's eyes have been wandering and dodging, showing inner struggle and shaking, while women represent simple but powerful values - primitive impulse.
After the massacre, Rublev talked to the dead in the church. One of the dead souls was originally on his right side. When he turned around while talking, the camera panned and the dead soul appeared on the left. This treatment not only makes the dialogue more fluid, but also implies that the object of his dialogue is a surreal, non-existent person. This is actually a conversation with your own heart.
In addition to dialogue, there are many excellent scheduling and details to learn. During the massacre, the leader of the Tartar shot an arrow at a rebel, then burned the hay in front of him. Panning down the camera, we saw that the resister had an arrow in his chest rolling down, and panning up, the hay that had been lit before was roaring, and the church in the background was shrouded in flames. There is also a small detail. The leader of the Tatar and the Russian leader who betrayed his countrymen rode in the city to watch the slaughter. At this time, the dog of the Russian leader barked at the Tatar, and the Tatar laughed: "Your little bitch. When you grow up, you don’t know me anymore.” Here is a simple detail, how ironic, even the dog knows who is the foreign enemy, but this Russian leader betrays his compatriots for his own selfish interests.
By the way, Bryayev, who played Ivan, is really suitable for the image of this teenage hero. He has the courage to command a group of adults, and seems to know how to do it by nature. But at the same time there is the innocence and fragility of a child.
Also, although the picture quality, sound quality and subtitle quality of the resources I watched are not bad, but there are inexplicable fast-forwards and deletions in many places, and then I found that almost all the downloadable resources on the Internet are only this version. I finally found an online resource with AV image quality. I wanted to see how "unsightly" these clips that were deleted at the risk of breaking the rhythm of the director's cut were just some naked scenes that didn't count as missing— In one scene, a man and a woman meet in the bushes. The shadows of the trees block their bodies and there is no dew point. I don't know who made this resource like this, or why such a great movie can only be found in this version. What a paradox! Could someone who can watch a movie like "Andrei Rublev" in its entirety, which is three hours long, suffer in any way because of so few nudity scenes?
View more about Andrei Rublev reviews
