criterionforum.org

Drucker wrote:205 minute version playing in 35mm print on Sunday May 31 in Brooklyn.

I did not know Rublev was a great dystopian Australian road movie.
(you've attached the wrong link to your post.)

Director's cut, naturally.

Thanks, Drucker. The last New York City screening I attended was some 8 or 9 years ago in the theater adjoining the Donnell Library near MOMA. I remember being underwhelmed and distracted. Could it be that the intimacy of home viewing has ruined the spectacle aspect of the film? It lost something in that space for some inexplicable reason.

Goodness, it was 10 years ago, November 23, as part of a retrospective called Luminous Tapestries: Medieval Life on Film. Wow.

Roger Ryan wrote:As I mentioned before, I strongly suspect that Criterion is skittish about releasing only the 205 min. cut on Blu-ray since the print quality is fairly weak. If they could acquire the rights to the 183 min. edit, which is in much better shape print-wise, I'm sure they would issue an upgraded set including both versions.

Is this meant to imply that Criterion only has the rights to the longer cut? And if so, why would this be the case?

Anyhow, it's disheartening to see that it's been a few years now since Criterion has last addressed the prospect of upgrading Andrei Rublev, and there has been no new information. I just watched the 183-minute cut for the first time, and it's now probably my favorite Tarkovsky (I've seen his films through Mirror).

criterion10 wrote:

Roger Ryan wrote:As I mentioned before, I strongly suspect that Criterion is skittish about releasing only the 205 min. cut on Blu-ray since the print quality is fairly weak. If they could acquire the rights to the 183 min. edit, which is in much better shape print-wise, I'm sure they would issue an upgraded set including both versions.

Is this meant to imply that Criterion only has the rights to the longer cut? And if so, why would this be the case?

Anyhow, it's disheartening to see that it's been a few years now since Criterion has last addressed the prospect of upgrading Andrei Rublev, and there has been no new information. I just watched the 183-minute cut for the first time, and it's now probably my favorite Tarkovsky (I've seen his films through Mirror).

I honestly don't know what the rights situation is in regards to this film. However, I believe the 205 minute initial edit is the only version that is screened in the U.S. and my understanding is there is exactly one 35mm print that makes the rounds. This is a fairly high profile title and the Russian Blu-ray has been out for awhile; since Criterion has upgraded IVAN'S CHILDHOOD and SOLARIS to Blu relatively promptly, I'm assuming the delay in upgrading this film is due to rights issues or access to materials.

So I have the DVD and haven't watched it in years. I sat down to watch it today on my blu-ray player, and the movie is contained entirely within the upper left quarter of the tv screen. I have never seen anything like this. Is it likely the fault of my dvd or of my blu-ray player? Has anyone ever seen this, and if so how did you fix it?

Sounds to me like a player fault, or inappropriate setting. Do you have another non-anamorphic DVD that you can try out on it?

Your description suggests that it's displaying the NTSC-resolution image pixel for pixel instead of upscaling it to fill the screen.

you can watch the movie and some others as well on Mosfilm webpage. Quality is not bad and Andrei Rublev has english subtitles:

http://cinema.mosfilm.ru/films/film/And ... ey-rublev/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow, Mirror (also with English subs) looks great.

HerrSchreck wrote:

jmj713 wrote: but I suppose this will be close to Tarkovsky's original intentions for the film.

I don't know that he even knew what his original intentions were. Hoberman's phrase (I think it was Hoberman) "superproduction run amok" fairly well describes, I think. And its this luxury that created the necessarily peculiar conditions for this most miraculous film, which benefited from state agencies having no fucking idea what was on deck, how loose, adventurous, and indulgently original were the conception (not to mention entirely contrary to state paradigms at the time) and execution.. with well nigh a small city of resources made available. Even AT himself probably couldn't believe he was getting away with and actually pulling off the cinematic logistics he was.. with the wildest conceptions physically realized no matter what-- by the time it was all done he must have wound up with stuff he'd never dreamed he'd actually successfully execute.. material directors visualize only in their imagination (if they had the rare imaginative fertility to even conceive such material).

The thing that strikes me about Rublev is its sheer scale and audacity, for someone rather early in their career. I'm not sure if I can really think of another director whose second film is not only this ambitious, but also this fully realized? It's one thing for a rising, confident young director to set out to make a world-changing epic... it's another thing to actually pull it off.

Sloper wrote:Although I have sometimes watched AR in two chunks, I think it’s kind of important to go in for the long haul single-sitting experience, because only then can the final episode achieve the cathartic impact it’s supposed to have. Aside from being a (modestly) triumphant, redemptive story in itself – which, yes, is a relief after what comes before – it has a conventional narrative interest and momentum which the film really needs by that point, and which other Tarkovsky films tend to lack. We ought to be breaking down in tears along with the kid at the end, and we’re less likely to do that if we haven’t been suffering for the last three hours; as Bunuelian says, taken on its own terms it can seem theatrical and emo-ish. You need to be immersed in the boy’s desperation. He’s essentially fighting for his life, and after seeing people have their eyes gouged out, or have boiling oil poured down their throats, this should really mean something to us.

Certainly the bellmaker sequence and the exultant finale in color benefit from the long journey of watching the film in one setting. For me, the film can and should be enjoyed both as a whole (in a single sitting), and in pieces at one's own leisure. I will echo those earlier in the thread who mentioned that Tarkovsky's films are well-suited for re-watching in small increments, repeatedly. The Mirror, for me, is ideal for such fragmented, repeat viewing. It's lack of coherent time structure lends itself to dipping in from time to time, like revisiting a familiar dream.

The MOSFILM HD restoration of Rublev is a dream come true.

Curzon/Artificial Eye will release this on Blu-ray on 25 April. Great news there's some movement on this front in the English-speaking world too.

solaris72 wrote:185 minute version playing in 35mm at the Charles Theater here in Baltimore on April 9, 11, 14.

Hmm, interesting that it's listed as the 185 minute edit in 35mm. Has the Mosfilm 2004 restoration made it over to the U.S. in a film print? I wonder if the running length is a typo and the print will simply be the 205 minute version?

By the way, I noticed the Curzon/Artificial Eye Blu-ray listing shows a running time of 174 minutes. Is this the even shorter edit?

Roger Ryan wrote:Hmm, interesting that it's listed as the 185 minute edit in 35mm. If it was a DCP, I'd suspect it originated from the scan for the forthcoming Curzon/Artificial Eye Blu-ray (even though that one is listed as being 174 minutes in length). I wonder if the running length is a typo and the print will simply be the 205 minute version?

Yeah I wondered the same...when I saw the film in 35mm at the Harvard Film Archive in 2006 it was definitely the 205 minute version,

Spoiler

the stabbing of the horse

being the most obvious difference.

I changed the content of my post after quickly reviewing the Mosfilm 2004 restoration on YouTube! I'm still curious about the Curzon/Artificial Eye release - is it really going to be nine minutes shorter than the 185 minute edit?

Roger Ryan wrote:I changed the content of my post after quickly reviewing the Mosfilm 2004 restoration on YouTube! I'm still curious about the Curzon/Artificial Eye release - is it really going to be nine minutes shorter than the 185 minute edit?

For what it's worth, their website lists the film as 183 minutes long.

Roger Ryan wrote:

solaris72 wrote:185 minute version playing in 35mm at the Charles Theater here in Baltimore on April 9, 11, 14.

Hmm, interesting that it's listed as the 185 minute edit in 35mm. Has the Mosfilm 2004 restoration made it over to the U.S. in a film print? I wonder if the running length is a typo and the print will simply be the 205 minute version?

By the way, I noticed the Curzon/Artificial Eye Blu-ray listing shows a running time of 174 minutes. Is this the even shorter edit?

It ran at the american cinematheque in 2005, I didn't get to attend due to schedule conflicts, but I remember it being advertised as a new restoration, although the website says it was the205 minute version. So I'm not sure.

http://egyptiantheatre.com/archive1999/ ... kovsky.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Roger Ryan wrote:By the way, I noticed the Curzon/Artificial Eye Blu-ray listing shows a running time of 174 minutes. Is this the even shorter edit?

Most likely an unthinking porting-over of the old Artificial Eye DVD running time, which would have undergone PAL speedup.

Roger Ryan wrote:

solaris72 wrote:185 minute version playing in 35mm at the Charles Theater here in Baltimore on April 9, 11, 14.

Hmm, interesting that it's listed as the 185 minute edit in 35mm. Has the Mosfilm 2004 restoration made it over to the U.S. in a film print? I wonder if the running length is a typo and the print will simply be the 205 minute version?

Just got back from the screening, was definitely the 205 minute version. A beat-up but beautiful print...I wonder if it was the same print I saw 10 years ago in Boston.

I'm gonna get the Artificial Eye blu-ray when it comes out but I hope Criterion releases this on blu-ray soon- I've only ever seen the 205 minute version and I can't imagine wanting to see too much cut out of it.

I prefer the longer cut myself, but I would definitely get the theatrical cut on BD. For starters, it wasn't butchered - it's just different and Tarkovsky reportedly preferred it. Second, there's no way the longer cut is going to top the theatrical cut in PQ on a BD. This seems to be always the case with alternate cuts, which is a little disappointing, but understandable - in most cases, all they've got is a print, nothing like an IP or OCN that will look better. I still hope someone makes a good 4k transfer of it and masters it for a BD, but I think you'll have a lot of consumers who will be put off by the inferior PQ regardless of reasoning, in which case it may have to be a really great supplement to the theatrical cut.

solaris72 wrote:...Just got back from the screening, was definitely the 205 minute version. A beat-up but beautiful print...I wonder if it was the same print I saw 10 years ago in Boston...

Thanks for the confirmation. As I noted a couple of pages back, Detroit Film Theater curator Elliot Wilhelm claimed four years ago that there was only one 35mm print of the 205 minute version which circulated in the U.S. - I can't imagine that situation has changed, so it probably is the same print that keeps showing up.

hearthesilence wrote:I prefer the longer cut myself, but I would definitely get the theatrical cut on BD. For starters, it wasn't butchered - it's just different and Tarkovsky reportedly preferred it. Second, there's no way the longer cut is going to top the theatrical cut in PQ on a BD. This seems to be always the case with alternate cuts, which is a little disappointing, but understandable - in most cases, all they've got is a print, nothing like an IP or OCN that will look better. I still hope someone makes a good 4k transfer of it and masters it for a BD, but I think you'll have a lot of consumers who will be put off by the inferior PQ regardless of reasoning, in which case it may have to be a really great supplement to the theatrical cut.

I agree that it's good to have both cuts available, since the shorter is Tarkovsky's preferred version, and also the animal cruelty in the longer cut takes a lot of viewers out of the movie. Maybe when Criterion releases it they'll do for the longer cut what Shout Factory sometimes does, and edit in as much higher quality footage from the shorter cut as they can. This might be complicated if alternate takes are involved, but (judging by his comments) it sounds like Tarkovsky only cut down in going from the 205 minute version, so it might be relatively simple.

I see this thread pop up month to month over the many years, so I am sorry if this question has been addressed and lost in the shuffle, but is there any evidence whatsoever that CC is going to upgrade this to Blu? Where are we at in April 2016 on this?

There's just that one poll really.