Movies

The paper explores the link between the meaning of iconography in Andrei Rublev and the meaning of filmmaking in Andrei Tarkovskys creative life. The paper positions iconography as the direct reflection of pains and creative tortures of filmmaking. The paper confirms both iconography in Andrei Rublev and filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky as the difficult, painful, but vital instruments of their own moral and spiritual survival.

The Church possesses and uses a wealth of iconographic works, but in the history of iconography, the works of Andrei Rublev occupy a special place. Likewise, Andrei Tarkovskys movie Andrei Rublev is fairly regarded as one of the most sophisticated, most talented, and most complicated examples of the modern Russian filmmaking. The three and a half hours of philosophic journey through Andrei Rublevs life create a confusing and mostly dubious impression. On the one hand, Andrei Rublev is a talented representation of the Russian life from within. On the other hand, Andrei Rublev seeks to use the mystery of iconography as the reflection of the same mystery in filmmaking. In the context of Tarkovskys work and the role of iconography in it, it would be fair to assume that in Andrei Rublev, iconography stands out as the direct reflection of pains and creative tortures of filmmaking and positions filmmaking as a unique tool of exploring the enigmatic nature of the human being.

That Andrei Tarkovskys Andrei Rublev is included into the list of the most talented creations in the history of filmmaking is as natural as it is also obvious the three and a half hours of the painful journey through Andrei Rublevs life are equally difficult and fascinating. Not only do the viewers have to adjust to the way of thinking proposed by Tarkovsky, but they cannot but recognize the unusually peripheral role, which Andrei Rublev plays in Tarkovskys film about himself. Everything in the film is about the mystery of iconography, as well as about the mystery of filmmaking the long fluid stands and shots are used in a way that distracts the viewer from the central figure of Andrei Rublev and create an impression of Andrei Rublev being secondary to everything that takes place on the screen. The scene with the balloon, the scene with pagans, soldiers and mass slaughters  everything is shown through the prism of Andrei Rublevs impressions and eyes and as talented filmmakers use their movie creations to reflect, contemplate, and reconsider the reality, Andrei Rublev in Tarkovskys work successfully fulfills a function of the viewers eyes, which they can and are even recommended to use in the process of exploring the reality.

Needless to say, the art of iconography is as complex and painful, as the life itself. In icon is the ultimate product of pains and sufferings, through which Andrei Rublev is bound to go in his life. His decision to devote himself to silence is actually his search for redemption after killing a treason soldier that tries to rape Durochka. Whether redemption is the basic source of Tarkovskys inspiration is difficult to define, but it is obvious that both iconography and filmmaking seek to balance the negative and positive sides of human existence and to show reality as a complex enigma, which goes beyond simple definition of the good and the evil. In his movie, Tarkovsky never shows Andrei Rublev in the process of creating an icon nor is the viewer given a chance to witness the process of creating the film itself. As such, iconography in Andrei Rublev reflects the mystery of filmmaking and creates an impression of filmmaking being a sacred and secret procedure, available only to the most talented ones.

It is natural and even anticipated that iconography, although a sacred and mostly secret process, makes it possible for the audience to see the results of the long and painful iconographers work. Moreover, it is through his interaction with the environment, people, and his inner world, that a talented personality is given a unique opportunity and inspiration to create. Like Borishka succeeds in creating a wonderful bell, Andrei Rublev takes a decision to return to iconography and like his talented works survive centuries, Tarkovskys film is likely to remain one of the best and the most talented examples of film art. The epilogue which, in distinction from the movie itself, is an 8-minute-long colorful disposition signifies Rublevs icons transition to the colored eternity and positions Rublevs icons as the products of his long, painful, and sometimes unbearably difficult fight for the spiritual and moral survival. In this context, it would be fair to say that iconography for Andrei Rublev and filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky are equally painful, creative, and productive, and serve an effective tool of exploring the nature of the human being.

In the context of Andrei Tarkovskys Andrei Rublev, iconography stands out as a painfully creative process and an effective element of Andrei Rublevs journey through the depths of the human being. In the same way, filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky is the result of creative tortures and pains, through which a talented personality is bound to go in the process of investigating the enigmatic nature of life. That Tarkovsky never shows Andrei Rublev in the process of creating an icon positions both iconography and filmmaking as the two sacred and mostly secret processes, the products of which usually survive centuries. As such, it would be fair to assume that iconography in Andrei Rublev and filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky represent the two equally important dimensions of human existence and position both as long, painful, but inevitably necessary tools of ones moral and spiritual survival.