Amazon.com

At last, the complete version of Andrei Tarkovski's 1966 masterpieceabout the great 15th century Russian icon painter (a film suppressed by the Soviet Union and unseen until 1971) is available. It's a complex and demandingnarrative about the responsibility of the artist to participate in history rather than documenting it from a safe distance. A landmark in Russian cinema, AndreiRublev is a beautifully lyrical black-and-white film about harmony andsoulful expression. As the late filmmaker says in a supplementary interview, each generation must experience life for itself; it cannot simply absorb what has preceded it. In fact, a whole host of supplements accompanies the film in this Criterion Collection release. Stick with it; it's worth the effort. --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (63)

The epic sense of the life
Andrei Rubliov is the masterpiece of Andrei Tarkovsky. I 've watched very carefullly all his works, and Andrei contains the quintessential thought of this unique film maker.
What Tarkovsky made with this film may be one the most overwhelming and haunting achievemnts in all the story of the world cinema.
Rubliov is a icon painter who after an important fac, decides not continue in that office.
The powerful of the barbarian invassion into a church, where he acquires the human experience gets far away the world, he isolates and becomes in a wanderer.
The unforgettable images that appear before the viewer are of a trascendental poetic beauty never seen before and even now.
All the journey along the Russia of XVI century is a reflexive gaze of the human condition , the sense of the life and how dealing with it, the unsaid code of one must behavior humanly, even in inhuman conditions, facing the world, with his singleness, its little moments of joy, his infinite sadness and its miseries.
The opening sequence in which the fall is shown before us, is a original metaphor of how facing with the failure; and is depicted with such kind of beautiness that mesmerizes you. No other film n the story, with the exception of the ending of A man escapes from Robert Bresson reveals with so frehness and vitality the epic sense before the life.
When Rubliov knows this teenager, in the final chapter, and faces with him the huge challenge that implies to make the asgned mission, turns back çRubliov and it invites him to keep on going in his mission or the moira term greek, his place in the universe, his meaning in this brief stage in the world.
This superb masterpiece, has countless remarkable sequences, the dialogues are feed of a blissness and poetic raprure without a drop of effectism.
When the mission is completed, and everybody celebrates the fact our young hero remains alone and Rubliov will gather with him and will tell wisdom words that I must not tell.
This is the goal of the artist; he must go to the forrest and seek the mushrooms; the people will be just waiting from the safe place for him; and no matter how dangerous or hazardous be the journey; they only expect for your bag. They will consume these gifts; but the creator must seek them.
Tarkovsky was in the middle of the creative universe (remeber his father Arseni Tarkovsky was a poet)in 1966; the script has an inner mytical force ; and every bit of this film is sublime, perfect.
Tarkovsky showed what many film makers haven't been able to do; express with a camera such landscape of images, in all his whole meaning.
Andrei Rubliov will be always a landmark ; an eternal triumph ; a epic statement that will be with all of us till the end of our lives.
And even more.

Revelation in Contemplation
I had never seen a Tarkovsky film before "Andrei Rublev", but I intend to see more. This film was *very* different, but very good, and I was moved by it on many different levels.

Set in Russia in the early 15th century, this film is based on the life of Andrei Rublev, an icon painter and arguably Russia's first great artist. It's told in a series of vignettes that don't always focus on Rublev; many times he is either a background observer or not involved at all. He is a device that Tarkovsky uses to tell a grander tale, a tale about art, life, humanity, history, faith, good, evil and other philosophical ideas that most filmmakers fear like the plague. This film is much more than a historical epic, it is a work of art, and possibly more than that a path to enlightenment.

Like many of the greatest directors, Tarkovsky is more than just a filmmaker. He is an ARTIST, possibly more so than any director I've ever encountered. For example, most directors use techniques like music and editing to elicit specific emotions from the audience, but Tarkovsky uses few to no manipulative devices. Scenes are typically wide, sweeping, epic shots, which often linger for up to several minutes. The viewer is allowed to absorb the situation and the imagery, to internalize them and let them sink into the subconscious. If one is still and contemplative, one will enter into a dialogue with the film and begin to experience it on a higher level.

The film lacks a tightly knit plot, and there's no pat morality tale. Rather it is LIFE, boiled down to its essence. Scenes feel real, and often play out in real time according to the rhythm of life. Characters will sit and wait, and we wait with them. Incidents unfold in real time, with no cuts and nothing edited. Tarkovsky uses the natural world a great deal. For instance, a character will chance upon the carcass of a snow-white egret mired in the swamp, or a somber procession will scale a snowy embankment where the mud has bled through like a pair of weeping eyes.

It's a work of art, I've established that, but I also love the historical setting. Fifteenth century Russia was grim and unforgiving. Orthodox Christianity was the official religion, but paganism was still commonplace. Boyars, kings and princes frequently skirmished with one another. Tartars from the south took advantage of the regional instability to sack villages and cities. Plague and sickness were rampant, and the vast majority of people lived in abject poverty. But the so-called "Dark Ages" were nearly at an end. Art and ideas from West were steadily infiltrating the East. Rublev himself was inspired by a Greek painter named Theophanes, a relationship depicted in the film. Tarkovsky captures the period perfectly in "Andrei Rublev", and to me it seems like the next thing to being there.

Having said ALL that, I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to most people. Here are all the reasons a modern filmgoer probably would not like "Andrei Rublev": it was filmed in black and white; it's old (originally released in 1966); it's long (the unedited Criterion release is nearly 3 and a 1/2 hours); it's in Russian with subtitles; at least one animal was brutally killed during the filming (for which there is NO excuse - shame on Tarkovsky); scenes linger for several minutes without cuts or editing; it's arty (though not pretentious); it's very difficult to understand; it requires repeated viewings and you may never fully "get it"; it's told in a series of vignettes with only a loose overarching narrative; etc., etc. If none of that scares you off, you should definitely check it out, because it's a real gem.

RUINED BY ANIMAL CRUELITY
I was really looking foward to this film as i have enjoyed SOLARIS, THE MIRROR and many other russian films so much. Everything you,ve read about the magnificents of this film is true,it is one of the most striking,poetic and beautiful looking films ive seen period, however i must say thatiam utterly repulsed by the three barbaric acts of animal torture , Seeing a cow running around its enclosure after being set on fire, a horse fall down some steps , breaking its leg and then have a spear shoved through its throat
and a dog being beaten to death and watching its final twitching
make this film ultimi unwatchable ..is this art??is this excusable??Do you think this is okay? these are the most repulsive and distrurbing scenes i have ever seen in a movie. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS I DETEST ANIMAL CRUELTY/TORTURE, ESPECIALLY SIMPLY TO MAKE A FILM.....im shocked that so many of your reveiwers did not mention this..Please , someone tell me i wrong and that these scenes did not really happen for real
and its all trickery..

THE Russian epic with striking imagery (1966)
Andrei Rublev is probably the greatest looking film of all time. It was shot on a Konvas (you can pick one up on Ebay for $1000) and film students will be stunned by what has been achieved in terms of cinematography with such an old and dated 35mm motion picture camera. It is inspirational in terms of film-making and this is the core reason why you should watch the film. If you are interested in Kino Art then Andrei Rublev can probably lay claim to the greatest art film ever made. If you are looking to experiment with Tarvoksky, then Andrei Rublev is not a bad place to start.

Like most of Tarkovsky's films, Andrei Rublev is extremely artistic, conjectures much on the human condition, metaphysics and Russian life - that all seem to have some hidden meanings that contains the film's truth that Tarkovsky expounds on - namely the wickedness of men and the temptations that they face. It is also about triumph of the will and the nature of man. This is all done via the "narrative" and the look of the film. Tarkovsky mixes moments of dialogue about the metaphysical (a doctrine that would continue to be a theme in all of this other films giving a sense of what was to come - especially the intricateness of Stalker, Solaris), arrestingly simple and slow cinematography (his trademark water shots), complex action sequences (there are full scale battles like from a Kurosawa movie) and visionary set designs (15th century villages, towns and cities). This is Tarkovsky's biggest film ever (and quite possibly the biggest Russian film ever).

The premise is complex. Andrei Rublev, a monk with the gift of painting, is invited to paint churches around the country and in Moscow. Between travelling from job to job he encounters - monks who have lost their faith, monks with too much faith in themselves, fools who are imprisoned for their beliefs, Wicca festivals (the pagan ceremonies of St. John's night), murder, torture (the Russian crucifixion), death, error, the sacking of towns by the Tartars (the sacking of Vladimir), vows of silence and of course the most striking final piece of the film - the making of the bell (the casting of the bell). Characters appear and disappear (a cinematic technique found in The Thin Red Line), but there is also a lot of hidden imagery (every time you watch it you find something new), in particular scenes of novice monks putting dirt on their cheeks which makes no sense at the time yet later on we seen Andrei put the same dirt as a stain on a church he has painted because of the bureaucratic blinding of artists (an extremely violent scene of which there are many. As a note: Andrei Rublev happens to be an extremely violent film and there are several disturbing scenes. Also a scene where a horse falls down a stairs was cut because of animal cruelty but this has been restored for the DVD). All of these scenes are done via several chapters that each tells a story in which Andrei Rublev is present either as the central character of focus, a participant or an observer. If you pay close attention to the chapters you will realize that the themes of each chapter are contained in all the chapters. Tarvoksky plays with the audience in so many ways that you can only hope to watch the film again and again until you make ALL of the connections. You will likely not see a more striking film for imagery. The ending is obviously what got Kubrick working on his trip scene in 2001. Tarkovsky returned a nod by filming Solaris.

Andrei Rublev is shot in monochrome although the ending does a little Wizard of Oz for us. The story is divided between two discs. You have 86 minutes in the first disc and 99 in the second for a grand running time of 185 minutes. This DVD is PRICEY but this is Kino Art at its finest and worth every penny. The extras are many and there are some very important historical interviews about Tarkovsky. However I will say that DVD is totally unsuitable for Tarkovsky's films and possibly you will do better to watch a widescreen video or even better a 35mm print of the film in the cinema next time it comes to town. Even though the transfer is sublime for a 1966 picture (a Russian one at that) and there has been a lot of digital correction, the DVD produces artefacts on nearly all of Tarkovsky's films because of his complex imagery, but this is just quibbling and is not the fault of the DVD producers. Tarkovsky has simply exceeded the limits of what DVD mpeg compression can handle, even after this film is spanned over 2 discs... and that says a lot about the quality of this man's vision.

Kino Art does not come much better than Andrei Rublev.

Excellent, but slow paced and not for everybody.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film. This film, like many of Tarkovsky's movies are slow-paced. This may bore some, but Tarkovsky viewed many his films as a form of art as opposed to entertainment.

Most people like movies that entertain, but not all films do that. I am a longtime fan of Russian cinema and find this to be a good example of "art house" cinema.

This movie contains some scenes that some persons may find unsettling. There is a scene where a man kicks a dog to death, a scene of a horse falling down a set of stairs breaking its leg, and another where a cow is on fire. There is also nudity.

The film itself was banned in the Soviet Union, but later released in a heavily cut version. The film has many religious references and quotes from the Bible. (The subtitles on the Criterion Collection DVD use the King James Version for translation of the Bible which is my favorite.)

The film follows the story of real life 14th-15th century icon painter Andrei Rublev. Not knowing too much about him, I cannot give a clear comparison between the film and his life. The movie is well photographed and has an excellend full color sequence at the end of the film showing his acutal paintings.

The Criterion Collection DVD has numerous special features.
Interview with director Andrei Tarkovsky, Improved Subtitles, A timeline showing events of Russian history, and the works and life events of Andrei Rublev and Tarkovsky. There is also a partial length audio essay during certain chapters on the DVD track that conform with the scenes the narrator is talking about.
The booklet lists these tracks so one would not need to view the whole film to search for the commentary. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

A Classic, Period!
One of Isabelle Adjani's best qualities is that no matter what character she plays, she's always convincing. 1988's "Camille Claudel" is probably her most passionate, convincing performance. From the film's moving start, to its tragic end, there is never a dull moment. Easily handling a full range of emotions, Adjani manages to charm us, sadden us and even frighten us. This is a long movie but never once did I tire of it or lose intrest. Before this movie, I had no idea who Camille Claudel was. After seeing it, I was moved to find out as much about her and her sculptures as I possibly could. Along with Adjani, Gerard Depardieu deserves credit for his outstanding performance as Rodin. Production values are meticulous right down to the smallest details. While several great movies come out every year, very few "classics" manage to break through. "Camille Claudel" is one of those who thank God, managed to do so.

Good!
Camille Claudel is a must-see. There are various topics in it that make this film interesting: the struggle of women artists of that time; the influence of Rodin on her artistic and personal life; her father's support and insight for his daughter; insanity as product of social misconception on females' role in the art world.

Great acting and a superb story. The only drawback is that it seems to be told entirely by the 'pro-Claudel's side of view'. In spite of that, this is still a movie that has depth and gives an accurate picture of that passion and conflict for being a fine artist.

Passionate, Creative and Tragic, A True Art Movie
I began watching this film on a late night of insomnia....it didn't help me to sleep and that's a good thing!

Isabelle Adjani artfully plays real life French sculpturess, Camille Claudel. She displays pure emotion and passionate reactions such that she is completely believable as the tragic yet talented Claudel. Claudel becomes Auguste Rodin's assistant and eventual lover/muse. They fight and compete for fame together and seperately with Claudel always the more talented but underscored by Rodin's jealously and fierce connections to the art world. In the end Claudel succumbs to a broken and ravaged heart betrayed in many ways by her one true love, Rodin.

I recently returned from a trip to Paris and having seen first hand the sculptures created by Claudel and Rodin I am even more impressed with this tragic story of talented yet conflicted artists. To see the obvious gentleness with which Claudel can carve marble and to feel the warmth that stems from a slab of cold stone left me mesmerized by her talent. Rodin appears clumsy and inept next to her creations despite his world reknown fame. I will always wonder what a woman of her talent could have created had she been alive today and not under the influence of an egotistical maniac!

'Camille' est magnifique!
As a French major, this is an excellent film. The language is clear (the nudity is a little inappropriate for some ages, though). I've seen this film twice some months apart and each time it was certainly engaging.

The pace was a little frustrating near the end, but considering the topic at hand (the demise of a promising artist), it is understandable. What does make an impression are the images. Many of the scenes have almost a photographic quality - very nice cinematography. The relationship between Camille and Rodin is very full of little nuances that keep the viewer engaged, too.

This is a great film for pleasure, an art classroom or a history class. Obviously, francophiles would love it, were they to see it!

Good Movie
I saw the movie on cable and it was a fascinating story about the sculptress Camille Claudel and her lover Renoir. She was a talented artist in the beginning with ambitions. Then she gets involved with Renoir, a womanizing artist and a married man. She forgets herself in his world and when he doesn't choose between her and his wife, she leaves feeling as if he is at fault for her waning popularity. Claudel was a talented artist of her day when women were considered second-class citizens and encouraged by her father to be the person she was. Unfortunately, she came across disappointment and mental distress when her relationship with Renoir ended. While she was his mistress, she wasn't herself, and without him, she lost her spirit. Her brother, who was considered the troublemaker, made himself a well-known person in diplomacy and literature. The movie examines the close relationship between Paul and his sister. It was sad that her relationship with her mother was never restored. She always felt she was a threat to her because of her work. Her father was supportive through and through. What disappointed him was the daughter that changed into someone else's shadow. Camille was a gifted woman of her time. Had she kept her sanity and let go of the demons, she would have maintained high status as Collette. The movie was a very interesting movie to watch. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Stunning Evidence that Cinema can be Art
The ultimate Tarkovsky film in many ways, but the one that may prove most challenging and difficult without the proper background information. I highly recommend the Johnson & Petrie book, "The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue," it is very enlightening and makes clear the fact that "Mirror" is not a confusing film but indeed Tarkovsky's tightest and most sincere work. Incidentally, the actual title doesn't contain "The", it's just "Mirror." Truly one of cinema's greatest masterpieces, a landmark in subjectivity and the dream/natural world duality. The greatest attribute of this film rests in its unflinching gaze on the depths of human experience, a fluid odyssey into the heart-straining eyeglass of a brilliant man's soul. Considered by many Russian cinephiles as Tarkovsky's greatest film and the personal favorite of many of their finest directors. Of course, the picture quality of the DVD is much better than the VHS, but no widescreen. The mother/wife and young narrator/son are played respectively by the same actors and the subtitles don't include the names, so do not confuse the characters.

A very special achievement in film. My DVD pick of the year.
Andrei Tarkovsky's THE MIRROR is a historical achievement in art and form. This is what great movies should be like: very personal without being overly sympathetic and corny. It was very hard for me to understand. It is about a person who is reviewing events that have occurred in his life before he dies, but the movie presents his experiences in a non-linear fashion. Probably the best way to approach this movie is to put yourself in the individual's shoes. We all think of past experiences, but not always chronologically. Even if one may find this film hard to understand, there are many beautiful moments in this film: the opening scene, the dream sequence, the print shop, the stock footage of the balloon ascent, the bird landing on the boy's head, the firing range, the fire, etc... This movie's unpopularity in the United States is living proof that many true works of cinematic art in this country largely go unnoticed. If I can direct at least one person to the works of Andrei Tarkovsky then I feel my work as a film buff is done.

Haunting, Cinematic Poetry
What a brilliant work of cinema. A haunting, beautiful film.

Impossible to view only once
I admit that I was not properly prepared when I first watched "The Mirror" (or "Mirror" or "The Looking Glass" or whatever it's really supposed to be called.) It was not my first Tarkovsky movie, but I found it disjointed, confusing, incohesive, etc. I even thought of turning it off in the middle and giving up on it. But as I thought about it the next day, the meanings and symbols slowly became clear. What was confusion and exasperation the night before turned into intrigue and curiosity the next day. I actually watched the entire movie again the next night. What I discovered was a beautifully and poetically created masterpiece that discards the narrative structure in place of disjointed memories and images. The film is more like a painting in that to understand it each portion of the canvass must be mulled over and revisited to get the true impact.
The images in this film are absolutely stunning and unforgetable; the burning barn, milk dripping from an overturned glass...
It may go without saying but this film is for those interested in film as art and not film as blockbuster entertainment. In fact, I'm sure that if this film were shown even in an art house half of the audience would get up and walk out.

The challenging depths of memory and time
In his films, Andrei Tarkovsky rarely gives the audience any help in grasping what is happening on the screen. He demands a level of attention and receptivity which is not always automatic with most audiences, since our viewing habits are formed by easier stuff. It's a bit like trying to read Heidegger or Kant after a life of reading nothing but pulp novels. In my estimation "Mirror" is his most difficult film. A depiction of the inner world of a dying man, the film jumps between different eras of the protagonist's life, with sometimes only very subtle connections between them. Shots are often composed for their emotional impact, rather than their narrative effect, the idea being that the audience will feel what the protagonist feels as he reflects on his life.

I often see films described as poetry, but here is a case where that comparison is most precise. Like poetry, layers of meaning are waiting to be discovered in this film. Each time I watch this film it affects me more and more. My last viewing, perhaps my tenth, was the most profound. I encourage everyone to give this film the time it demands, and deserves, because the rewards are great.

The quality of this dvd, like others have written, is not the best. The version put out by Artificial Eye in the U.K. is reported to be superior, and is probably the better choice if you have a multi-region player. I have given this disc 5/5 stars because the film is so great it overpowers the limitations of the disc, and there isn't a compellingly better version available in Region 1 at the moment. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Patrice Chereau, the acclaimed French director of opera and theater, follows his grand period drama Queen Margot with this gorgeous but jagged portrait of dysfunctional adults and broken relationships in contemporary Paris. A group of old acquaintances whose friendships have become strained over the years reunite for the funeral of their mentor. Chereau drops us in the midst of things from the opening moments, leaving us to sort out the layered editing and rich soundtrack while catching up with a story that keeps leaping forward. The widescreen film is shot with a handheld camera, and the jittery, nervous energy and abrupt editing wind up the already tense atmosphere. But even as Chereau eases up from the uncomfortably in-your-face intimacy of the claustrophobic opening scenes on the train, emotions ooze like open wounds and unresolved conflicts bubble over. Former French idol Jean-Louis Trintignant, who has aged into an awesomely understated performer and a fascinating screen presence, leads a cast of edgy young actors, including Queen Margot stars Vincent Perez (as a depressed transsexual) and Pascal Greggory (as the group's tentative spokesman). It's a sharp, intelligent, restless film that recalls such recent French dramas as Late August, Early September and My Sex Life (or How I Got into an Argument). It doesn't offer any clear story or easy resolution, just a messy but potent portrait of the crossed lives of adults still looking for themselves. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more