Overview
Contact:
View
company
contact information for Andrei Rublev on
IMDbPro.
Release Date:
1973 (USA)
more
Plot:
Andreiv Rublev charts the life of the great icon painter through a turbulent period of 15th Century Russian history...
more
|
add synopsis
User Comments:
Bloody Tarkovsky!
more
Additional Details
Also Known As:
Андрей Рублёв (Soviet Union: Russian title)
Andrei Rublev (USA)
Strasti po Andreyu (Soviet Union: Russian title) (working title)
The Passion According to Saint Andrew (Europe: English title) (literal English translation of Russian working title)
more
Runtime:
Soviet Union:165 min (re-edited version) | Soviet Union:186 min (re-edited version) | UK:183 min (2004 re-release) | 205 min (original length) | UK:145 min (UK version)
Aspect Ratio:
2.35 : 1
more
Fun Stuff
Trivia:
Vasili Livanov claims to be the one who suggested the idea for the film. He also wanted to play the lead, but Tarkovsky wanted to go with the unknown actor.
more
Goofs:
Revealing mistakes: After Rublev comments that nothing is more terrible than snow falling in a temple, some of it lands on Durochka's hair and is clearly a white feather.
more
FAQ
This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.
more
Message Boards
Discuss this movie with other users on
IMDb message board for Andrey Rublyov (1966)
more
Recommendations
Related Links
He has ruined cinema for me and this is one of the masterpieces that did it. Everytime you see one of his film's you proclaim: "That's the best picture ever made!" Which can't be true as that was the last Tarkovsky film you saw. I've seen this one many times at the cinema and is the best three hours of celluloid you're likely to see apart from Solaris, which is Tarkovsky anyway.
Tarkovsky wanted to make art that would change people's lives and in this he succeeded. Although his life was troubled and his projects clawed into life randomly from the grip of his film studio bosses, when viewed as a whole they seem to be all part of some great plan that was meant to reach fruition right from the start. He believed that ultimately it is best to do things that deepen one's inner life rather than impoverish it. That may explain why you leave most Hollywood films feeling soiled. There are too many great scenes and moments in this astonishing and monumental work to mention so I won't. Suffice it to say it would have been fascinating to have seen what Tarkovsky would have made had he lived and returned from exile to his homeland. Recent events in Russia and the Balkans make this film even more vital and pertinent today.
The trouble is Tarkovsky's films have such extraordinary purity and spiritual depth that no other films seem able to satisfy one in the same way. They seem flat, lifeless and unable to compete. Why watch the let's-pretend-grown ups like Tarantino when you can watch a real grown up? So like I said, Bloody Tarkovsky. He has ruined cinema for me.