Ok, so, going to the film festival requires a certain amount of dedication. There are, of course, more “lightweight” participants, but for the more seasoned viewer there are more “challenging” options available. This is why, I believe, the selection this year was highly commendable, it was a very VERY good “spread” indeed. In this context, I saw this “little” classic by Russian directing giant, master Tarkovsky, and decided to go for it. Now, a word to the wise. Watching any film that is three and a half hours long in one sitting is a challenge in itself. Especially if it’s black and white and you don’t understand the language (easier to dose off you see). It’s more of a challenge if you’re in a cinema. You know, no distractions, not even a loo brake or a chance to stretch your legs. Add to this that the material you’re watching is, well… Tarkovsky. The experience was fascinating, but it’s not one I’ll be repeating in a hurry.
So what is the film about? Well, it is loosely based around the life of 15th century icon painter Andrey Rublev. Master Andrey, along with two companions, leaves the monastery where he has trained and lived for many years and goes out into the world. His aim is to hone his art as an icon painter - without leaving the religious “context” of course. However, once out in the real world, he finds the task is by no means easy. Especially in 15th century Russia, where infighting and Tartar hoards were plentiful…
The film is, admittedly VERY loosely based around Rublev’s life. It was, however commended the world over for its realistic portrayal of Russia in the middle ages. The thing with Tarkovksy is that his work is heavily symbolic, slow moving, with beautiful images conveying deep meaning, stuff you really need to think about. Personally I didn’t so much as understand but rather felt the meaning of some of the bits of the film… But the main theme is how Rublev slowly begins to lose faith, in more ways than one. The Orthodox Church (of which he is, as a monk, a part) is a massive force of the era, making free art all the more difficult. Rublev looses faith in everything; his art, the church even, Tarkovsky suggests at the very end, his own faith… It is clearly a very “anti-church” very possibly “anti religion – or organized religion any way – as well. You may not necessarily agree with all his messages, but you HAVE to admire the striking way Tarkovsky puts them across. And this is the cinema after all… Presentation IS half the game…
Now, there is one interesting aspect of the film that a good friend and I discussed on exiting (and walking around for about an hour trying to gather our wits and downing a couple of beers to get our brains working again). This film was filmed in Soviet times. And the Soviets of the time DID NOT like the film… So much so that they cut a total of 39 minutes of it. (Now don’t panic, three and a half hours is the total, uncut version, the film in total is NOT four hours long) But I was sort of surprised. I mean, the Soviets weren’t exactly hot on Religion, “The opium of the masses” and all that jazz, you know… But then again, we have to take it in context. True, apart from a few allusions, the film is anti religion, not politics. But, the church of the time was the major determining factor in politics at that time, as were the Soviets in Russia. Andrey’s loss of faith in the major “father figure” of his time, might easily be construed as a loss of faith in the Soviet system of the time. So really, small wonder they didn’t like it. The thing with Tarkovsky is, as you know, symbols. Stripped bare, it is the story of an individual against a mass, the artist against “the wall” (think Pink Floyd) no matter what the wall is… It’s one to be watched again and again to be properly understood, I plan to. Just possibly not all in one go…
FREE WILL: DO WE REALLY HAVE ANY?
2 yıl önce
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder