Russian Film "Andrei Rublev"
- For those interested in the biography of 15 century russian icon
painter, Andrei Rublev. The Sundance Channel, is showing the 1969 film
by Andrel Tarkovsky. The garb is period. Best part, the casting of a
- drobnock2 wrote:
>For those interested in the biography of 15 century russian iconI actually rented that movie last week, believe it or not!!!!!! The best
>painter, Andrei Rublev. The Sundance Channel, is showing the 1969 film
>by Andrel Tarkovsky. The garb is period. Best part, the casting of a
part was the Tatar invasion. Other than that, I had trouble
understanding what was going on.
- In a message dated 4/5/2002 9:13:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> For those interested in the biography of 15 century russian iconSorry to intrude, but it is not a biography. There isn't enough information
> painter, Andrei Rublev.
on Rublev to write a biography. Much of the film is invention, and has a
political slant needed at the time. As a historical movie, it's not good.
> The Sundance Channel, is showing the 1969 filmSorry, not even that. I'm tired of "dark, hungry, filthy, ragged masses." The
> by Andrel Tarkovsky. The garb is period.
garb reflects Soviet ideology much better than the actual period.
> Best part, the casting of a "great bell."The scene may be good, but I'll reserve my judgment as to accuracy until I've
researched the problem of casting bells. I may not do it, eve, but I'd
consult an expert first.
As you may have guessed, "Andrei Rublev" is not one of my favorite movies. I
find it fairly annoying. "Alexandr Nevsky" isn't too bad, but don't base your
research on anything in any of the two movies.
critical as usual.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> As you may have guessed, "Andrei Rublev" is not one of my favorite movies. IAs for "Andrey Rublev", it wasn't even considered a historic movie. As
> find it fairly annoying. "Alexandr Nevsky" isn't too bad, but don't base your
> research on anything in any of the two movies.
other Tarkovsky's films, it's rather a meditation on the topic given.
And sorry, Alexander Nevsky is not that too bad, it's hopeless. It's
that film that contained state ideology that completely disagred with
the historic truth. It's already proven that the battle was only one
episode of the Order vs Novgorod vendetta, though a major one. The
Order sent an armed host of several dozens knights (20 of them were
killed, 6 were captured, all is cross-checked by the rhymed chronicle
of the Order & the Russian chronicles) accompanied with about 300-400 footmen & -
several hundred Estonians, making the total of about a thousand. No
mass drowning of the poor knights happened, as even according to the
Russian chronicle, many foes were slain, and SOME were drowned. I dare
ask: what idiot should the war leader be, Russian or German, to lead
his host onto the ice on the 5 April, when drifting of ice in Russia
starts just this month?
The whole film was shot in 1942, when the Communist leaders understood
the threat to their rule, and used even those means they outlawed
earlier - they addressed the Orthodox Church for assistance, they
revived the memory of the "damned aristocrats" like Suvorov, Nakhimov,
Kutuzov & Alexander Nevsky. Be the threat more serious, they'd
have remembered Dmitry Donskoy as well. So, the orders of the former4
were founded, the implementation of the Old Russian (pre-revolution)
uniform was planned, etc. The leaders tried to unite the nation at
least by old victories, be they real or exaggerated. So, the aim of
the film was to impress by all means. The refrain theme of the film
was "unite, the people of Rus, for deadly battle, for the last
battle...". And anything that helped to create the image of "almost
fascists" knights vs "noble Russian warriors" was used. Thus, there
are numerous anachronisms, to say nothing of the usual cliche of the
Soviet propaganda of that time: enemies armed to the teeth vs Russian
peasants, armored with their belief & almost unarmed, wielding clumsy
axes taken from home. Disgusting. Sometimes such cliche was also used
in "Ilya Muromets" (this film under a different title was discussed on
the Florilegium), and later, in the "Mark II" soviet propaganda spawn
of the 1980s, "Vasili Buslayev". If it is available in the US, I
suggest avoiding it as if it's a leper.
So, returning to Alexander Nevsky. That film made some folk jokes in
later Russia, I watch it sometimes, feeling the same as when I watch
Alexander Rou's fairy tales (available in the US). A fact from the
history of the cinema: one episode had to be re-shot as a plane flew
over the battlefield. My remark: that didn't make the film less
- My name is Kevin and i am new to the group,in regards to the film
Alexander Nevsky and the Russ miltary Order of Nevsky.I read that
the designer used the actor who played Nevsky in the movie as a model
for the order because no images of the true Nevsky exist.Stalin would use
anything and everything if it futhered Stalin's cause.I own the Order,bought
it on my last trip to Lithuania,i think the Order is real cool,i tend to think
of it now representing the brave men who who died for their country Russ.
While we are talking of Eisenstein's films,i have a copy of part 1 & 2 of
Ivan Grozny,it is my understanding the part 3 was made,but Stalin ordered
part 3 destroyed because it showed Ivan's decent into madness.I am no
expert on the Russia of the 16th century.I have done a little reading
Ivan Grozny,did Eisenstein make any attempt to reflect "true" history in the
filming of Ivan IV ?
I believe that Ivan was some sort of hero to Stalin,because Stalin made the
statement that Ivan the Terrible was not Terrible enought.