It is hard to imagine that Andrei Tarkovsky uses such a large film length to actually solve one question: What is an artist? In other words: What is art? Or from another perspective: how did art and artists come into being? Facts have proved that this process of generation is far more interesting than art and the artist itself.
However, doesn't this problem need to be solved with a huge space? Talking about "what is art" outside of any work that can be counted as art has been so difficult since ancient times. Modern and contemporary artists can only rely on some kind of "wisdom" and "intelligence" to fight this concept. edge ball. It is indeed necessary to create a work and tell everyone: this is art, this is artist; this is how art and artist are generated.
It can be said that "Andrei Rublev" is my favorite type of work no matter from any angle. First of all, it does not solve a problem that exists only as a contemporary. Of course, they are not empty so-called "eternal propositions" such as "love and hate" and "life and death". "Non-contemporary" and "empty" are not directly opposed, just as "contemporary" does not necessarily have a through train with "on-site attention", "real", "cruel", and "important". The problem that "Andrei Lubrev" is trying to solve involves each artist, past, present, and future. This kind of pertinence is far more important than any "contemporary problem", it is more painful, and it also requires hard work to face. I don't feel that the time he is in is "the most important, unique, and unprecedented", and is the most modern, because he lives in any era, including the future, regardless of whether it is his wish or not.
Secondly, the way it fascinates me. It eliminates the "sequence" and "causes and consequences" that we require when we read or create to "arrange" them, and narrate things as they are. "Originally" means: when things are developing, no one knows what will happen next, but this does not affect its calm and normal development in the least. The important difference between this method and contemporary "can't wait" works is that the latter always waits for the first sentence, the first image to appear, all subsequent results, all the author's purpose, and all the author. Their private lives and confession; they are eager to "show" and "show", and for this "show" and "show" eagerly one by one, or even wishing to take off their clothes (some He was completely naked as soon as he played); while the former is patiently shaping, and every process is a goal.
Every process is an end. Such creative thinking is not only embodied in the “plot” related to the “main line”, but also opens up the courage and freedom of the artist to “wander away” and dare to “freely write” at any time. Because mindlessness and leisurely writing are also the purpose. Faced with these distracted and idle brush shots, the audience can no longer ask "What does this have to do with the whole work?", as long as these distracted and idle brushes have their own self-sufficient value, their own value of existence, and their meaning It beats the hints and symbols, guidance and preaching imposed on them by the author and readers. What's more, don't worry, the big artist will naturally make these distracted and idle pens finally or at any time reconnect with the "main line", no matter what method and angle he adopts. The last chapter of "Andrei Rublev", "Casting the Bell", is this thrilling operation of "wandering, idle pen and main line joint". Andrei Rublev is the sum of all the time, all the places, all the others, and all the events of his own life, and there is nothing that has nothing to do with him. The distinction of "primary and secondary" is not based on the weight of the surface of these elements. Dare to discover the value of "primary" more "primary" from "secondary", undoubtedly adding to the difficulty of creation, and at the same time testing the artist's skill, and if you don't accept such a test, how can "artistic stimulation" be talked about? rise.
Tarkovsky's lens is perfect but not smooth, rich but not eloquent, with a strong style but not monotonous, with a "theme" but not a single theme, and has his own obsessive scenery (such as horses, rain, trees) But not first of all he is himself, there is imagery but not deliberately symbolizing, there is idle pen but not random, the rhythm is slow but not dull, the tone is dignified and not dry, almost every "yes" must be immediately followed by a "no", contradictory Not so much, so big, how rich is there.
2002/7/11
text: Chen Wei
View more about Andrei Rublev reviews
