July Blind Spot: Andrei Rublev

First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?

Because of one man at the helm – Andrey Tarkovskiy. About a year ago, I saw a Russian film, The Return(2003), by director Andrey Zvyaginstev. I liked it and I even wrote a post about it but about half way through the movie I realised that it was my first Russian film ever.  When I looked around for some more movie names, one that kept popping up in the discussion was Tarkovskiy. So while doing the list, I decided to cater to this particularly large blind spot by putting Andrei Rublev(1966) on the list and if Hulu didn’t have Solaris(1972) available for free, this was to be my initiation to this great director.

So, what is the story about?

Let me first come very clean and say that I had no prior knowledge of Andrei Rublev either as a person or as a painter. According to Wikipedia, he is considered as the greatest Russian medieval painter of orthodox icons and frescos. Andrei Rublev is a story of his life but since there is very little that is known about him and even littler that can be actually ascertained, it is said to be only loosely based on it. According to IMDb, there are multiple versions of it with varying lengths ranging from 145 minutes to whooping 205. One I saw was smack in the middle, with 175 minutes of runtime. Film is divided into two distinct parts and each of the part is further divided into total 7 chapters, epilogue and prologue which have absolutely nothing to do with the movie itself.

First part contains four chapters which mainly introduce us to Rublev and various facets of his personality such as his faith, his philosophy of life and his perception of Russian people or even humanity in general. These four chapters are almost like four short films with few common characters. I am sure they can even work well as stand-alone shorts or rather they will work well as stand-alone shorts because when seen together they lack some cohesiveness or a sense of progression of story. Take the third chapter called The Feast, 1408 for example. It covers an encounter Andrei and his fellow monks have with a nudist, pagan group. The story makes perfect sense for 20-odd minutes it lasts for but has absolutely no connection to anything before or after.

As we enter the second half, the remaining three chapters have much more to glue them together plus in a typical mainstream way, there is a lot of action that goes on as well. Tatars invade, Rublev is forced to fight, be violent and it affects him deeply. After a gap of many years, he returns to the monastery but stops painting; he even stops talking for many years, until in the final chapter he witnesses a casting of a huge bell and turns his life back around to produce many of his great works that he is known for even now.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?

I believe I have seen my fair share of art-house films. I know they are not necessarily spelled out for you. Andrei Rublev doesn’t go easy on you either. There are many philosophical discussions about the way of life and religion and their beliefs. But with no background whatsoever of either Tarkovskiy or Rublev, I found it hard to connect with them. First part especially isn’t really much accessible. Second half has some link between the chapters, is more dramatic and hence comparatively, much more accessible. However while judging the film overall, even I don’t know if I will be able to say I liked it or not right now. Since I am following this general pattern for all the Blind Spot entries this year, I'll stick to it but everything I’ll say below is more like my observations. Only thing I know for certain is despite the predominantly negative tone of these notes, it kept me interested for all the three hours of it and I sure liked it much more than Solaris(1972), my first exposure to Tarkovskiy films. I think the more I’ll know about Tarkovskiy and this film, the more I will be able to comprehend it and form some opinion of it. Right now, my impression is too malleable.

- I am not sure if it is the editing or the way they are shot, but lot of scenes segue into one other. Like in one scene you have Forma and Rublev talking about Forma and in the next, Theophanes the Greek and Rublev talking about talking their faith on Russian people and in humanity in general, or lack of it. Two conversations have no matching point but the later starts almost like a natural progression of previous scene.

- Another think that strikes me is completely non-heroic introduction of Andrei Rublev. Whatever may be the type of the film; we are usually told upfront, maybe by the way frame is set or by the background music or even by his own actions, that he is the protagonist when we first see the character. We’ll be mainly following him for the next three hours. There is almost 10 minutes of film between the first time we see Rublev and first time we are told he is Andrei Rublev.

- It has no sense of location to it and I guess it doesn’t even matter. At the start of each chapter, it gives you the year we are in and that is all we get to give us sense of timing as well. With no background of the subject and lack of either time or location, Andrei Rublev works rather as a series of disjointed vignettes of various events, jumping off one to the next in chronological order, in one man’s life. Whether this is a sensible thing or a folly is up to the individual.

Trinity - One of Rublev's Masterpieces

After having seen it, do I agree with its 'essential' status? And why?

To tell you the truth, I don’t think I am in the least bit qualified to answer this question. I am finding myself very inadequate to comment on such a revered masterpiece by one of the most respected directors of World Cinema, especially in Art-House cinema, for the same reason you won’t find me commenting on another giant that often, Ingmar Bergman, even though I have seen about dozen of his films – I don’t think I have understood them enough to add something to the discussion. Is it essential? Well, for anyone remotely interested in art-house cinema, Tarkovskiy certainly is and being one of his most well-known masterpieces, that should in turn qualify Rublev as essential as well. So, basically yes, it is an essential film in every sense of the word given that you know what you are signing up for.

Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?

Putting this film onto the list was all about opening new doors, getting more exposure in Russian cinema as well as in Tarkoskiy’s filmography. If we discount couple of Eisenstein’s silent films, two films I talked about in the introduction are only Russian films I had seen prior to this. Given the fact that I hated Solaris, even though it isn’t one of the most accessible films I have seen, Andrei Rublev reassures enough me to look for more of his work. It will also encourage me to look for some more Russian notable directors like Aleksandr Sokurov to dig into their filmographies as well. Hopefully, I will get a chance to dig deeper into them soon.

March Blind Spot: Through a Glass Darkly(1961)

I am kind of obsessive compulsive about making lists. Not that I make lists about everything but when I do, I have to make them in a certain way. Off course, that habit seeps into my movie watching as well. Even in a simple case like Wrapping up post that I do at the end of month comprising of that month's watching, I try to keep my movie watching as dispersed as possible. If you have noticed it, it wasn't a coincidence. I make sure it happens. Almost every month, you will find that batch to be a fair mixture of Classics and contemporaries, English and Foreign movies. I have purposely tried to break that pattern, just to see if I can and have returned to it every single time. When I made this list of 12 movies last December, off course, I made sure that I am including movies from every decade and give good weightage to foreign and classic films. Now when it comes to watching them, I have seen a classic and I have seen an English movie before. So its time for a Foreign movie - I am slave to my habit, I am telling you and when it comes to foreign movies, there is hardly a better choice than Bergman. 

First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?
I have already told you - Two Words, One Name, Ingmar Bergman. I have seen quite a few of so-called 'Essential' films from his armada. What still remains to be an unventured territory for me in his filmography is his Faith trilogy and his TV Mini-Series Scenes From a Marriage(1973). The reason I wanted to include a Bergman film in the Blind Spot line-up was to force myself get back to his remaining films and I could not think of another movie than first film of his trilogy. 

So, what is the story about?
Through a Glass Darkly(1961) chronicles 24 hours in the life of one Family of 4 people. Our main focus is on the sole woman in the group - Karin. Karin has a problem; she is schizophrenic and has been recently released from an institution. This seems to be their first gathering after she got out. Other three men in the group are her Brother Minus, who seems to have some some problems of his own, Her Husband Martin who has been told by Karin's therapist that there is a very good possibility that she may never recover from her disease completely and hence is always protective, sometimes maybe over-protective of her. However Her father, David, who has just returned from his trip to Switzerland, is the most interesting character of these men or the most intricate. As the movie progresses, we become privy to the various parts of their personalities where they keep their deepest secrets that they have never shared with anyone. Karin understands that her condition is complicated and serious. She also understands that this has made Martin overprotective and her father seems often not to be there. So she confides in her brother who, to her, is a stronger person since he can take any news and right away doesn't think there is something wrong about her. Minus himself seems to go through patches of anger and depression which he has kept secret from his father as well. 

Of all the relations in this movie, Karin and Minus have the most interesting interactions, probably because they both are the birds of similar feather and hence prefer to sail together. It makes their interaction much more direct, frank and honest. Karin and Martin are kind to each other and try to be as good as possible. But their relationship as Husband-Wife is almost non-existent. Karin has lost her desire due to her treatment and Martin's over-protectiveness seems to repel her further. Her father, again good and kind man but Martin hates the fact that David always seems to have some selfish, hidden agenda and Karin and especially Minus think of him as emotionally unavailable. He almost seems surprised when David listens to him in the end but David is the character that reveals himself the most in these twenty hours, for better or for the worse.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?
It's dark, it's melancholic and it's depressing but it's an Ingmar Bergman film. You don't exactly sign up for them expecting a comedy(You didn't, right?). Existential angst with a bit of religious back current that we see here is Ingmar Bergman at his best. I am not sure if I will call it Bergman's The Best, that might still be one of his 1957 double punch - Wild Strawberries or The Seventh Seal, but it sure is one of the best I have seen and I have to say Harriet Anderson and her Karin is probably the biggest reason. Even though she was my favourite part of Smiles of Summer Night(1955), probably Bergman's only lighter film, I think this is the best role I have seen her in. Yup, even better than Cries and Whisper(1972) though these two roles are a little similar. Anderson handles all the ups and downs of Karin really well and as you can expect, this is hell of a bumpy ride. Of the other three, another Bergman regular, Gunnar Bjornstrand was the one I liked the most. His David is a regular guy on the surface but is much complicated beneath. Bjornstrand brings all the complexities of David to surface with such honesty that you can't help getting hooked. Lars Passgard also did a good job in Minus' role but Max von Sydow was little annoying, especially in comparison to such fine performances otherwise.

I have no idea if the two films really have something more fundamental in common but from the very first minute, I was thinking about Sidney Lumet's Long Day's Journey into Night(1962). Similarities in the two movies are uncanny - both came at around the same time, both revolve around only 4 characters of one family with a woman at center, both chronicle single day in their life, take place at a single location and bring a lot of skeletons out of the closet. Both are dialogue heavy, character driven movies that boast some amazing performances with leading ladies heading from the front. Long Day's Journey into Night is much more explosive though whereas Through a Glass Darkly leaves lot of things unsaid and being a Bergman film has some religious undertones that Long Day's Journey lacks. 

After having seen it, do I agree with its 'essential' status? and why? 
Ingmar Bergman has been immensely influential; over the years he has become one of the directors that has inspired generations of directors that followed him. To be consideredas one of the best in his oeuvre itself is a huge compliment. Add to the fact that Bergman's Faith trilogy, or Silence Trilogy as some might want to call it, is often considered as one of the Best trilogies in world cinema. I have never been able to answer 'Which is your favourite trilogy' question because there are far too many options to choose from but if the other two are as good as this, I can see myself agreeing to it being one of the best. Apart from that, it is one of the two films that won him back-to-back Foreign Film Oscars, if that means anything to you. I do believe that for those who are even remotely interested in the works of Ingmar Bergman or want to get into it, this is one of the films that you do not want to miss.

Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?
The driving force behind getting Through a Glass Darkly onto Blind Spot line-up was to get back on Bergman bandwagon. By now, I have seen about 10 movies he directed. I am hoping this would be the push I need to get some of those remaining essentials, including the next two installments of Faith Trilogy Winter Light(1962) and The Silence(1963) along with others such as only Bergman and Bergman collaboration Autumn Sonata(1978) and The Virgin Springs(1956), off my list that I have always meant to but for some reason or the other, never got to. I would also like to check some of his work before 1957, the year he made two legendary films.

Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy

One of the questions that we are so frequently asked and one that I can never answer is what is your favorite trilogy ? Even the current poll at LAMB asks the same question and I still do not have the answer. There just are too many options to choose from like
(a) Nolan's Batman trilogy: with The Dark Knight Rises(2012) epic ending to the trilogy this summer, we have another brilliant option available.
(b) Three Colors trilogy: White(1994) is inferior of the three only because it has likes of Blue(1993) and Red(1995) alongside and together they just hit it out of the park.
(c) Satyajit Ray's Apu trilogy: After I saw all three movies earlier this year, it has become a serious contender as my favorite. Only thing keeping me is the quality of the competition.
(d) Lord of the Rings trilogy: Another one of personal favorites and certainly one I have seen most. More than everything else put together in this list
(e) Toy Story trilogy: Probably the weakest of the list but I love Toy Story 3 and can not argue with the iconic status of first one.
(f) Bergman's Faith trilogy: probably the best trilogy I haven't seen yet.
and I am sure there are quite a few more I am forgetting here but then this labor day when I sat down in front of the TV and saw all 3 movies from Sergio Leone's Dollar trilogy, I added one more name to the list.

Starting out with A Fistful of Dollars(1964) as the first installment, it is adaptation of Kurosawa's Yojimbo(1961) set in the west. Eastwood's iconic character Man with no name, arrives in one of the small towns on Mexican border where there are two gangs fighting with each other over the control of the town. One of them is Gang of Rojo Brothers - Don Miguel, Esteban and Ramon while the other is so-called sheriff of the town John Baxter. Because of the constant feud between these two families, rest of the town is pretty much dead as there are no more businesses alive except one hotel. After this stranger arrives in the town, he decides to make use of this divide in the two families to make some quick money. He gets his chance to play these two families against each other pretty soon as Ramon, with the help of his gang dressed in American uniforms, steals the gold being delivered to Americans by Mexican soldiers. He feeds false information to both the gangs that couple of American soldiers survived Ramon's attack and are hiding in the cemetery. Both the gangs rush to cemetery, Rojos to silence these soldiers and Baxters to use them against Rojos. When they both square up against each other in cemetery, Ramon becomes successful in killing both the soldiers who are actually just the dead bodies planted by stranger. With this success under his belt, stranger tries to do something bigger and soon realizes that he is biting something bigger than he can chew. But, he is the Hero right? So, he has to win in the end and with the help of couple of friends in the town, he does. Of all the three movies, this is probably the weakest in my opinion but for the first film in trilogy, it does a lot of groundwork for more greatness to follow. It establishes the character which pretty much made Clint Eastwood Clint Eastwood, that is of of 'The Man with No Name', though he does have a name in the other two, in his signature costume with his typical hat, poncho and munching the cigar. We never know anything about his background, here we don't even know what he really does, he speaks only when it is necessary and rather prefers to let his gun do the talking for him. It also sets you up with what to expect visually because lets be honest, if I ask one thing that is of prime importance in this movie I am sure majority of us will say it is visual style. It also marked first collaboration of Leone and his composer Ennio Morricone which would bring us to another very important aspect of the trilogy - background scores. Even though the weakest of the three, it certainly is marks a great start to the trilogy.

Rating(out of 5):

For the second installment of the trilogy, we have For a Few Dollars More(1965), only movie of the trilogy that I could remember properly before I saw it again that day. It may be isn't the most popular or even the best of the trilogy, but in my opinion it is most compact of the three in a sense that I may be in the minority who thinks so but it is better than A Fistful of Dollars and is shorter than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly(1966). This time around, as I said, The Man with No Name has a name - Monco and we also know that he is a bounty hunter. There is also another bounty hunter in picture by the name of Colonel Douglas Mortimer. After getting their hands on some smaller bounties both happen to set their eyes on the big prize of Indio and his gang. Being good at their job, they both guess correctly that Indio who has just escaped from prison, his first target will be Bank of El Paso which is considered as the safest bank of all. When they both arrive in the town of El Paso and square off against each other, they have already learned about each other from different sources. After testing each other out, they both realize that the best thing for either of them will be to join forces against Indio. Mortimer proposes an idea of one of them joining Indio's gang so that he can work from inside and Monco reluctantly agrees to be that man. However, not everything can go according to plan, after all there is a reason why Indio isn't an easy target. This duo of bounty hunters also try to come up with a counter plan to make up and with some more twists and turns we get to the eventual ending but not without revealing why Mortimer is so badly behind Indio. Building on the elements from first installment, it adds a lot in various departments, especially characters. We get to know Clint Eastwood's character a little more in depth here after first installment. He still has all his signature articles - his poncho, cigar, his hat and he still prefers to let his gun do the talking which should be clear from the scene when Monco and Col. Mortimer face each other. But to tell you the truth, Van Cliff's Douglas Mortimer is much better and even more interesting character in this. He is the brain of their partnership whereas Monco is pretty much of a follower. Even Indio's villain is little more dangerous as he is just as savage as Ramon but this time around works more with his head than his heart. If not better, this movie has as much visual flair as the first one and also Morricone scores again with his whistling soundtrack. Something else that did stand out for me this time is sound editing in general but specifically the use of echo mostly in their gun fights and the use of chiming of a watch in final duel was amazing.

Rating(out of 5):

And finally, we come to the most iconic, most popular and certainly the best of the trilogy The Good, the Bad, the Ugly(1966) as the final installment. Now, I had seen it before but it was long ago and I almost remembered nothing about it. So, despite the fact that it would mean I will be watching 3 movies in a row, 10 hours non-stop, I sat down for this classic yet again. This time we have three men we are focusing on. The Man with No name goes by the name of Blondie here who is a professional gunslinger, Angel eyes is a man on hire who makes sure that the job he is hired for is done gets done while Tuco is a wanted criminal. Tuco and Blondie have a kind of partnership where Blondie will arrest Tuco and give him to police, collect the bounty on him and when he is about to be hanged, he will rescue him and then they share the bounty. After a while Blondie gets tired of doing this every time and he ditches Tuco in the desert with not even water to drink. Tuco not only survives the scare but he soon enough finds Blondie out and makes Blondie go through the same routine he did. Just when he is about to bolt Blondie to death, he sees a stagecoach full of confederate soldiers. Only one of them, by the name of Bill Carson, is alive and he tells Tuco about cemetery where he has hidden a lot of gold but he is dying of thirst and will not tell the name on grave unless he has water to drink. By the time, Tuco finds water for him and brings it to him, he is dead but not before giving Blondie the name on grave. So, the two men again have to form an uncomfortable partnership and keep each other alive to get that gold. Now Angel eyes has also been looking for this gold for quite some time. He knows that Bill Carson is the one who knows everything about it but unfortunately he hasn't been able to get hold of Carson. Through a lot of interesting twists and turns where at one point Tuco and Blondie disguised as confederate soldiers, even fall in hands of Angel eyes in Yankee prison Camp, where he is disguised as Yankee Captain; we finally get to the cemetery and to the grave where we witness probably the most iconic moment in western movies ever - all three men for themselves in a three-way shootout. Almost all the elements Leone has been building so far have been almost perfected in this movie. Characters are much more richer, deeper and best example in this case is Eli Wallach's Tuco who is like chameleon changing its color and he gives probably the most entertaining performance of the whole trilogy. It has much better storyline which maybe isn't really complex but there is a lot that happens in it. Soundtrack is unforgettable, I am sure even those who haven't even seen movie know about it(e.g. my parents). Cinematography is breathtaking. Even though I do feel like it is little too long, especially towards end and sudden disappearance and reappearance later in the film of Van Cliff's Angel Eyes bothers me a little, there is no denying at all that this is Western Cinema at it's very best from any angle you choose to look at.

Rating(out of 5):