It took me 6 and a half hours to watch a 205-minute film with many breaks in between. That's how I go through it. I think you'll be happy you made it, because it is an epic; after ploughing through rough moments the end will be rewarding.
As a poster has already mentioned about the pacing and the rhythm - many of these older "art" films have a different rhythm of slowness. Artistically inclined cinema is perceived and constructed out of the philosophy that film is visual poetry (Parajanov, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, etc), unlike "mainstream" Hollywood-style films where plot and action are main keys. Visual poetry involves the experience of the senses rather than the external actions of plot. It is important to "surrender" to the pace.
I grew up with fast-pacing Hollywood "editing" where if shots are considered "excessive" or "don't help the story/plot," they are considered redundant and are hence cut out. Here, the pacing/rhythm is essential to experiencing Andrei Rublev. I also want to say that growing up with Hollywood films has caused many of us to expect to be entertained, rather than intellectually and aesthetically challenged. Film has been seen as a function of entertainment rather than a function of thought and artistic expression. These "art" films are bringing back the limitless possibility of what film can do. I can appreciate being entertained with a popcorn movie (as long as it's not too stupid!), but I can also appreciate a film that has other goals with mindless entertainment low on the list.
I was astonished by the film. Yes, the first half was rather intolerable, but your tolerance for such pacing increases as you watch more and more "older art films." I watched Parajanov prior to Tarkovsky and Parajanov, although shorter, can be just as "intolerable," if not worse, than Tarkovsky's pacing.
I am grateful that there are artists like Tarkovsky who are bold filmmakers - they didn't care about the prevailing standards of cinema of the time and went ahead and did what they imagined. I love film for this reason - if it can be conceived and imagined, it can be done. Do watch Tarkovsky's interviews about his views on art; they are inspiring and I agree with almost everything he says. He would be a cool guy to talk to if he were still alive.
Andrei Rublev is a meditation on how an artist struggles in a world of suffering, how he grows, transforms, and finds himself again in art. Tarkovsky says that if the world were perfect there wouldn't be any artists. This film is about an turbulent epoch in Russian history which is filmed as historically accurately as possible - it is a grim, bleak world where people age fast, live in fear and servitude, and basically in constant depression.
I was quite depressed for the first half of the film due to the masterful bleak direction of Tarkovsky . Then Tarkovsky turned things around and the film became a triumphant, even joyful ode to life. It was full of hope and life. The film was dominated by human cruelty in the first half, and towards the second half, a community of teamwork, brotherhood, and hard work re-emerged as people healed and licked their wounds. Tarkovsky showed Russian history and the philosophy of life by showing the full cycle of human existence. It is a great achievement.
I think the first half of the film was intolerable and deliberately so - I don't think Tarkovsky wanted you to be happy. He wanted to the viewer to experience the same suffering and desperation of the world he created. Then he proceeds to show the human will transcend suffering and the cycle of destruction and rebuilding. And it is also a meditation on art and the artist.
Not only is this film an epic but it is a poetic meditation and a visual record of Russian history. It is philosophical as well as a visual poetic experience.
I urge anyone to finish it, because you will find a great sense of relief towards the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment