Sinners, Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky #2), Madness ‘25 (Finals)

his celebrated twenty eleven debut fruit Vale Station. But like every film since his debut, it does feature Michael B. Jordan, this time in a dual role as twin brothers Smoke and Stack such great Names. After years away, the brothers return to their hometown and the Jim Crow era South, only to find a supernatural evil awaiting them. Here's one me Mosaku and Omar Benson Miller in a clip.

sequences that are dazzlingly cinematic. But Sinners more than those showstoppers, Adam, does it all hold together? This is a film running well over two hours. It shifts gears rather abruptly. I feel about halfway through from a period drama to a genre exercise, and it includes an extensive post credit sequence set decades later than the main narrative. So I want to know does all that ambition pay off for you?

Is Sinners a collection of great cinematic moments or does it add up to something more monumental?

But the last time I felt like I could recommend a movie to anyone from cinephile to casual moviegoer and everybody in between, it was The Holdovers, and I was with family for Easter, and I had multiple people who I don't normally have conversations with about movies come up to me and asked me if I had seen it yet, because they just saw Sinners and loved it. Really, it

didn't surprise me. It did not surprise me a bit, and it didn't surprise me a bit to see that it won the box office either, And there's a lot of conversation around how much money it made. Because it's a film working on every level, on the levels of story, performance, production, we can add in some specific production elements like cinematography, like Ludovic Gorenson's score, all of the music in this film.

Sinners is a redemption movie, a revenge movie with elements of black exploitation and certainly a red blood soaked horror movie. It's also deeply romantic and has the rhythms and audaciousness of some of our boldest musicals. Kogler seems to be drawing from a deep well of cinematic and artistic influences, but still making a film that feels so personal, as if it's been shaped and sharpened his entire life. Everything he's done professionally and everything he's experienced personally has been

shaped and sharpened into this. And I said that the great cinematic moments might be enough. But the fact is, Josh, I do think all the ambition pays off. I think there is more. I think there's revelation too, revelation that that goes beyond the transcendence of Preacher Boy Sammy, his musical number that comes maybe about halfway into this film. Otherwise, Josh, you know the scene I'm talking about, the early favorite for scene of the year, and if something somehow does

beat it out, it's undoubtedly the music moment. Right, There's a choice Coogler makes and a line that he gives us in the screenplay that really gives you something to chew on in the moment and after you've left the theater. And I don't think I'm getting into spoiler territory here. It's all stuff that's hinted at or suggested in the trailer, and based on the box office, I'm assuming and hoping that most people who are listening to this conversation Josh

have seen the movie. The choice is making that lead vampire played by Jack O'Connell, his character's name is Remick, making him irish, and the line is I want your music, I want your stories. The wrinkle here with these vampires is that once bitten Remick and presumably the other vampires that he's turned, they consume not just you, but your entire being, your identity, your memories, your thoughts, your feelings.

So on a literal level, it's as if all that knowledge imviews him with more and more power, which enables him to go on surviving and to go on consuming. But metaphorically, and arn't vampires always a metaphor for something. This is black culture we're talking about with our main characters. This is black art, black narratives being consumed and exploited.

So let's just say, when I saw the movie and then a couple hours later, saw somebody tweet about how Ryan Kogler orchestrated a deal where ownership rights revert to him after twenty five years. I thought, yeah, that checks out, That really checks out based on what I just saw unfold that character. Then Remick is the villain. He's insidious

and evil, and he is white. But by making him irish, at least the implication or the suggestion Josh that I'm still unpacking is that he represents a group of people and a culture with its own unique stories and its own unique stories of suffering and exploitation, with its own music and its own language which we hear, and he was possibly once preyed upon then too, which also somehow makes him potentially sympathetic. It's a layer I found just

so striking, and it's something that I haven't shaken. And it's significant that there is something attractive, Josh sinister, but attractive about joining Remick's community. That's what they are outside the Duke Joint. They're a collective, or at least that's what he intentionally makes them present themselves. As they dance in a circle, they sing in unison, they have this

shared joyous experience. They've all been assimilated, and if you're someone who has spent your whole life having to fight to survive because the dominant white culture doesn't accept you, it would seem awfully enticing to want to be part of that community potentially, wouldn't it. And I haven't even mentioned that, and I won't mention for fear of spoilers that post credit sequence that you mentioned, And someone online here reminded me as well that that's something Coogler is

pretty much done throughout all of his films. He likes to have a post credit sequence that is actually doing a lot of work and isn't extraneous by any means, actually seems crucial to the film. That's certainly the case here, where all I'll say is a character makes a choice that maybe is a bit surprising, but only because we think we know what that care is going to do, largely because of so many other movies or movie characters

who have been put in similar predicaments. And maybe I should have been smarter based on the film I just watched for two hours of seventeen minutes, that of course Ryan Coogler wasn't going to do anything conventional and would surprise us in that moment as well.

cohesive thing to the same degree. Is let's stick with your remic example, all right, because that line you quoted about wanting your music, wanting your stories, there's absolutely elements in this film that connect with that and support that, and that could be a theme I think the standout seat quins that you've already mentioned. So we'll talk a little bit more about it here and move and move on.

But this single take sequence at the juke joint during a musical performance with all the dancers on the floor and we're swooping through them among them, and suddenly we realize, wait a minute, is that is that a DJ over there?

song we're hearing. So this is all touching on exactly what you just mentioned, Adam, about this idea of black art, how it has transformed over the eras but also been co opted over the eras, and here is a space where it is being held and treasured in community that completely aligns with the I want your music, I want your stories from Remick. But we also have that other element you talked about him being an Irish immigrant referring seeing his own oppression as an Irish immigrant and losing

control of himself. Here's where a whole nother thematic thread comes in the prospect the specter of religion as an oppressive force as decidedly against the freedom that the music at the juke joint is enabling folks to experience. And so there I thought, okay, this is this is fascinating that he is trying to win over this group by saying, listen,

I've had religion force fed to me. As well. There's a moment where a character thinks he's gonna die and he starts saying the Lord's Prayer and it get how creepy when the Horde it's almost like this bored horde they are, I'm gonna probably get in trouble with Star Trek people on that, but something like this. They all start chanting the Lord's Prayer too, but in a mocking way. And the point of that, Remick says is, listen, we've been manipulated by religion as well. I'm offering you some

thing separate and freeing. But that's that's at the same time kind of different and not exactly in parallel with his being representative of white appropriation of black culture. So it's almost like this is a movie stuffed with so many intriguing ideas and they're not all working in concert. The one that I did latch onto and I think gives it its most cohesion, is this idea of music as liberation. We see that in the very opening scene again where Sammy played by Miles Catton, the young cousin

of Smoke and Stack, who's an aspiring blues player. He's in this opposition with his pastor father right, and he sees music as offering the liberation of Saturday. And then he says to his father and then I'll come back on Sunday. You know, he sees this stark, secular sacred line, which is another fascinating idea the movie sort of explores. And so there's just so much going on here. I have to admit there is a part of me. You

got the great word, you found the great word. I was trying to figure out how do I describe this as something other than big burly.

vampire metaphors? What can this really capture well and richly, not heavily, not obviously, but in a thrilling genre exercise. And maybe that's just my own taste. That's not to take away from what's accomplished here. I think maybe if push came to shove, I would say, just give me it all, Give me it all. If it's a little messy, a little contradictory and theme, but I still get all of these characters. You know, a bigger movie allows for more characters, all of this music, and all of these

sequences we've already touched on. So I'm a little torn on it. But if I'm slightly less enthusiastic then you, it's for that reason.

I think what I'm most impressed with is that we do meet so many characters, and there are so many different not only themes, but just narrative threads. It should feel so much more it didn't. To me. It should feel so much more unwieldy and messier than it is, And I never felt that messiness.

a plot contrivance for me. And then the action itself the only bit of filmmaking I will question it all in this film, and I do want to go back and watch it again and see if maybe there was

something about it that I just found distracting. But when the big battle scene occurs in this film, that's the only part where I felt Coogler losing his way a little bit in terms of the intense focus otherwise of this film, And maybe intense focus is the best way I can describe one of the things I loved about it, that burliness that comes just from Michael B. Jordan's dual performance as Smoke and Stack the prologue is really interesting.

That moment right after the prologue that brings us to the moment before we go back a day to all of these events. That's certainly provocative as well. But josh I knew this movie was going to be something when he opened that third scene, if you will, on Smoke and Stack, just sitting there by the car with the angle, the kind of low angle on those two, that very natural light outside, the looks on their faces, that intense focus.

Characters who seem to have not just a toughness, but a hardness to them that I think the entire movie reflects, but they also are still open to They haven't they haven't been killed inside, They're not dead inside. They're still open to some of the wonders of the world. They certainly still have feelings for each other as brothers, and they have aspirations that and ambitions that you can really respect.

You get to the moment where chaos ensues, and it felt like chaos for me in a film that otherwise felt so so controlled, but controlled in the best way. Where when Coogler wants to take the roof off the place, quite literally, the roof comes off and you believe it in that moment. In those moments, in some of those fight scenes, I didn't understand where the characters were. I didn't understand what the characters were doing. I didn't understand

completely how the characters were even surviving. And that's the only part for me, John that I am uneasy about.

And then I will also say there is sort of an epilogue before the credits though that I don't want to get into too much, but it evolves an encounter with the Clan, which has been another story throw that's popped up that also seemed strange in and of itself in terms of why it's there, but.

that chaotic fight sequence you're talking about. But in terms of, you know, Michael B. Jordan, this lead performance, I want to hear a little bit more from you on that because I at once loved it because he's having such a good time and it's so charismatic and who doesn't want to Michael B. Jordan's, but also was left a

little wanting, if that makes sense. I really feel like this movie for me needed a more distinctive separation between Smoke and Stack, and the character outlines are there, right. Stack is looser, he's got he's freer, and I love how he's sort of this this tempter with booze and money. Right away he walks around town and he's cajoling everyone. And then Smoke is he's more tightly wound. He's the planner of the two. He's making sure, you know, the

bills get paid, however bills they're working with. So I get that those character sketches, but I think in terms of just the feel of the two of them, there is a climactic fight. I think we can say that would have for it to matter more beyond just the basic logistics, I think we would had to have had a sense of the difference or at least the tension between these brothers earlier for that to really work. It actually made me think of his performance in Kugler's Fruitvale Station.

You know, Oscar Grant, I think is the real world figure he's playing there, and how this was a guy he brought. The challenge there was not to make this victim of police violence, you know, a saint or a sinner, to use the language of this movie, but to show that he was fully human. And so Kugler there gave us two sides of one guy who is he can be rough, he could be intimidating, and then a scene later or in the same scene to a different character,

he can be understanding and loving. And it was those variations in persona from Fruitvale. I'm surprised wasn't more here in Smoke and Stack, not that he isn't a ton of fun and they don't serve their purpose for the narrative. Part of me also was wondering early on, I didn't know exactly what happened narratively. I knew there was some sort of horror element. I was wondering, are these two

more like mythical figures? Like are we going to find out there's some sort of avenging angels or something, and is that the reason for the Thinness? Because there was a Thinness I detected, and then of course we learn I think one of them, I think it might be smoke even says something about he doesn't believe in anything about the power of money, and so they're very much rooted in the here and now. They are not those

sort of mythical figures. But I was wondering if it was going to go that way just because of Jordan's performance. But yeah, how did it work otherwise for you?

other performance in this film. You've mentioned a fe you already, but how about Hayley Steinfeld showing up on screen and getting apart Josh, where we're all all of a sudden in a moment. Honestly, the moment she shows up on screen, and it might even be before she says a word, it's just her physicality. We know, or think we know everything we need to about who that character is in that moment, and there's Steinfeld just reminding us, Oh, in

case you forgot, I'm not a pop singer. I'm not just the star of a Transformers movie or those pitch perfect sequels. I'm a really formidable actress. And I think that's what she proves herself to be here. But again, everybody's doing that. It's one of those performances where I almost feel bad about saying this, but within two scenes you're thinking, so, Delroy Lindo is gonna win Best Supporting Actor, right, Like this is a foregone conclusion, right.

he wants it. So in a way, it's one of those showy best supporting performances because it has those moments of charisma. But I think he's doing incredibly deft work.

He makes this rooted in a man who has lived a hard life and is here now and it's going to get harder than he ever could have imagined, and he handles that with humor and with wisdom. There's there's

a moment where he's he's talking. They're riding along in an open you know, a convertible down the road, and he's telling the story and something about how he's paid they were paid in liquor and his friend, his musician friend, and I forget what happens to the story, but the point is he's asked, what did you do with your money or something like that, and he just says, I drank it. And then it isn't that line. He's holding

a flask and he flips the top. I think closed at that point, and it's that sort of subtle physicality

where it's the exculpation point on the story. It's his shame, but it's also his desire to still move ahead, like kind of like saying, I'm put in the flask away now, like I know you know, but we all know he's it's only for this moment, and these are the little touches that a performance like this doesn't need to have for people to say it's a best supporting actor performance, But Lindo gives us them anyway.

He is not going to go for that. He is not going to try to make you feel pity for him as a character. He says something, there's just some line in there, Josh, in the way he says it where you understand that's the choice he made, and sometimes the choices he makes maybe aren't going to be appreciated or understood by everybody, But then you aren't him. You haven't walked in his shoes, and he is just going to keep on walking and that's the element that Lindo

brings that makes it not just a showy performance. There is so much life that is evident in that character, just years of weariness, so that we sense within a few minutes is that.

elements of it into the foreground. You may not even notice it at first that it's happening, but afterwards you're like, why was that such a vivid I mean, the performance was great, the writing is great. Oh it's so vivid because I literally heard what he was describing that.

wasn't for the scene that eventually follows. It's the first time we hear him perform. He's in the car and I don't remember, sorry, despite what I said about how clearly I could distinguish them, I don't remember for sure if it's Smoke or Stack. But he starts playing, and the moment he starts singing, and you see the reaction. You see Michael B. Jordan's reaction to his performing, and yeah, that sounds right is Stack And what he imparts there

with that stunned reaction is twofold. I think he's first just sort of stunned that his cousin is that talented, This person he is known his entire life could sing the blues, that type of depth and that type of soul and experience and then the other part, and I think he actually verbalizes this is, oh, we're going to make a lot of.

at film Spottingfamily dot com. Thank you to family plus member Jeremy Kennis in Severance, Colorado. I've had a chance to correspond with Jeremy over the years. If you want to follow Jeremy on letterbox, he is Jeremy Kennis k E N N I.

under the Skin. I tried to watch it again after listening to you rave about it, but I just can't get on board even remotely. This, Josh is one of the I don't mean it pejoratively, but I'll say oddist letterbox top four that maybe we've seen in this segment rushmore Guns of Navarone, Jojo Rabbit and La fem Nikita.

know this. Well, I'm gonna say I don't know Formula fifty one or the fifty first State.

a question you'd like to submit for that segment. Feedback at film spotting dot Net is the email. Our May bonus. Then will be our draft, our annual, our new annual tradition, the draft with our film Spotting Madness Bracket contest winner, maybe with a familiar face this year. More on that in a bit. Film Spottingfamily dot Com is where you can learn everything you need to know about being a family member.

Ochi and befriends it. Some of the humans Josh. They're played by Willem Dafoe, Emily Watson and Finn Wolfhart a twenty four et. That's the vibe I'm getting from the trailer. Am I way off base? And if I'm not, is that a bad thing?

in ET. Right, And you know, I'm thinking, but few movies doo, and sometimes the ones that lodge themselves in your mind when you're a kid are those that you know, fumble a little bit on takeoff, but are idiosyncratic enough, visionary enough, ambitious enough, weird enough to kind of stick in your memory as a kid and you come to love them anyway. They're like kiddy cult movies, right. Cult movies we think of as for adults. They're a little

risque sometimes are pushing the envelope. But kids can have cult movies too, these weird little movies that most people forget as you grow older. But you'll run into someone and say, hey, you referenced one earlier in the show. Wasn't the Goonies great? And it's like, well, you know, if you watch it again, the Goonies is fine, Right, you watch ET again, it's a masterpiece the Goonies. Yeah,

it's okay. It's a little weird, a little scruffy. I think of these are going to be eighties titles, because that's how old I am. But the never Ending Story or even something like Labyrinth, right, people love Labyrinth, love the never Ending Story. But you know these are not fantasy or sci fi films like ET. And I do think the Legend of Ochi might be something like that, because it's overstuffed with characters, way too many motivations going on.

I found it to be a little undercooked as a fable, like what it actually wants to be about, wants kids to think about beyond you know, the obvious. But man, is this thing weirdly unique and a lot of that has to do with the puppetry, the choice to use puppetry and animatronics, and for the adult Ochi, real actors in costumes. There is that tactility, that real worldness that you need for a children's fantasy movie to root itself in your consciousness, and this absolutely has that. It also

has a look that's unique. The colors here are deeply saturated. It's almost like everything's wet in this movie. It's like the wetness has made the colors richer in some way, which I admired. The score by David Longstreth is very flute heavy, which casts this unique hypnotic spell. And yeah, overall, you know, you do feel like you're watching real creatures being discovered, not digitized just pixels essentially, and that goes a long way. I think it will go a long

way for lodging itself in younger audience's minds. So if it at all sounds interesting, you check it out. You may not love it, but you'll like it, and you'll probably years from now someone will say did you ever see a movie called The Legend of Ochi? And you'll say, n oh, yes, that was kind of that was really great wasn't it. I think it's one of those, so we'll see what happens.

female directors in their own words. We knew back when Mariah first told us about this book that when it came out, we wanted to have her on the show, and we wanted to do something that wasn't just an interview with her. Can we talk about one of the films it's featured in the book. And it just worked out so serendipitously, Josh, that one of the films she covers is a major blind spot for the two of us that we have wanted to rectify for quite some time.

movie that opens and limited release this weekend. Look forward to having both Mariah and Violet on speaking.

But I do love that pairing from the Next Picture Show. New episodes drop every Tuesday and you can find them wherever you get your podcasts.

so the second to last night of the festival. That's one title that I can recommend. We will have a few other titles that will highlight next week that we are interested in seeing and that you might want to seek out as well. Everything you need to know about getting tickets for the Chicago Critics Film Festival is available at Chicago Criticsfilmfestival dot com. This is lasting, This is madness.

It was our dream Logic contest and this one was super close. At various points over the past week. It was tied I don't think there was ever a point where one film had a lead. There was greater than twenty five votes, and it came out this is how it ended up, Josh, David Lynch and Mulholland Drive advance to have to face Pta Daniel Plainview and his milkshake fifty point eight six percent to Eternal Sunshine's forty nine point one four.

for Old Men? You can vote in the Madness final and that third place matchup now at film spotting madness dot com or filmspotting dot net slash madness. Either place will take you there. You could also just go to the main page of filmspotting dot Net. You can't miss the graphic right there at the top of the page that will take you to the polls. They close Tuesday, April twenty ninth at five pm Central time, So next week, Josh,

we will be able to announce a winner. For those of you who submitted brackets in the bracket contest, check out how you're doing. Go to film Spotting Madness, click on view bracket, go to predictions see how everything shook out for you. Once again, we had eight hundred and twenty five people who participated, and out of those eight hundred and twenty five, number one for like four weeks in a row is the UK's Ricky Kendall. Ricky Ricky picked the correct finals matchup he has there will be

Blood defeating Mulholland Drive. Number two, Josh is Steve Mesa. He has the right matchup, but he has Mulholland Drive winning, So it will come down to that. Our winner will come down to who wins the final, either Ricky or Steve. It really can't be anybody else. And I should probably save this for next week. If there will be Blood does in fact win, and Ricky wins this bracket competition for the second year in a row. But this is the truth. I look this up. If there will be

Blood wins. If Ricky does end up on top, not only will he have won this competition two years in a row, Josh, but he will have correctly predicted sixty two out of sixty three matchups in each tournament. He got one wrong in the sweet sixteen, Otherwise he picked every other matchup correctly.

content RASP topic will be. But then again, maybe you don't want to jinx it. You start thinking about things that they maybe won't happen.

like you, he had parasite advancing to the final. That means that I am probably temporarily I am in first place and I'm twenty ninth overall. That might mean the best I've ever been. Again, I think it's going to be short lived, though, though I haven't looked, I decided to be daring. I went with Mulholland Drive over. There will be blood in the final. So, like Steve Mesa, I have a chance to win this whole thing. You

got a shop and Drive wins. But if Mulhallan Drive doesn't win, despite the fact that it seems like I'm crushing the three of you right now, I will finish last. You could go from first to last, first to last, print out David Lynch doesn't pull it out. Print out your.

painter of religious icons during the fifteenth century. Tarkovski and co screenwriter Andre Konchalovsky invented much of rube Lev's story, of whom little is known. The movie is told in eight extended chapters, plus there's a prologue and then an epilogue, and it depicts the artist navigating a medieval Russia defined by violence and cruelty. Writing about Andre Rubelev last year in the Reveal as part of their series dedicated to the Citan Sound Top one hundred, Keith Phipps wrote that

scene it for the first time. He was feeling a bit at sea until a scene that helped clarify what Tarkovski might be after that. The film was about quote ruby Lev's artistic development and the development of his soul. So, Adam, we're coming off, I would say a relatively straightforward start to this marathon. That's nineteen sixty one's World War two set,

Ivan's childhood. You have seen Andre rube Lev before. This was a blind spot for me, So tell me a little bit about I know it was a while ago, but what you're mes memories of that first viewing, how they informed this one, and what you make of it and its episodic structure today.

That's why we did that marathon so early. It's part of why Sam and I also started this show to give ourselves missions. Just like that, I was more engaged and I liked the film that time, but having a little bit more perspective twenty years later, not just on cinema, but on the work of Tarkovsky, having been able to watch and discuss and really appreciate some of his other

films like Mirror. As you said most recently, I think what I was able to put away, Josh was that compulsion in I think all of us as humans, not just as movie watchers when it comes to art, which is to try to make sense of what we're seeing, to try to find a certain logic to try to understand motivations and see a causality.

there's leaps in time or you find yourself. For example, after chapter one or two where Andrea gets called to go off to paint and learn from Theophanes and he brings Foma I believe his name is with him. You assume when you get to that next chapter that they're walking amidst the trees they must be going to work with Theophanes, and then all of a sudden, Theophanes is there with them. Then he kind of appears almost like a ghost, Josh, it's not immediately clear that he was

part of their traveling party. And those are the types of lapses in logic that you have to expect with Tarkovski. For me, what I was able to give myself over to was that episodic structure once I realize that you have to see them less as stepping stones to understanding anything factual or actual about Andre Rublev the painter an artist,

and see them as parables. And that's how I ultimately embraced those chapter is now, I think in the end, even though we can't necessarily say that any of it is accurate, or that accuracy is what he's going for, we know very little about Andre Rublev the man, we have his work. It really is and I think Scott and Keith talk about this in their really eloquent conversation about the film that we referenced earlier in the reveal.

It's as if Tarkovsky said, I'm going to take this figure and I'm going to use him to explore questions about sin, about the responsibility of the artist, about Russia itself and its history, about the brutality of man, all these big questions. He's going to use this story simply to be the provocation or the lure to explore some of those big questions, the type big questions we've seen

Tarkovsky explore with his other films. So I don't know if that Parables analogy that I'm making resonates with you at all, Josh, But they are stories sometimes that don't even have anything to do directly with rube Lev himself. It seems to be more about not only asking some of these big questions or posing some of these big questions, but more about providing a backdrop, a potential backdrop to understand the types of experiences and the environment that might have shaped an artist.

religious art. I think that, I mean, first of all, just generally speaking to me seeing this for the first time, and it's sort of the first time I went to see it. I've mentioned before at DUC Films at University of Chicago in January because they were screening it and just knowing we had this marathon. So I have had the chance to see it twice in a couple of months, but still in these recent months, it was the first time I thought I'd seen all the Tarkovsky masterpieces at him.

I was like, I've you know, I've seen Nostalgia, I've seen Solaristock. It's like, let me go catch up on this well regarded. I certainly knew the movie's reputation, but knowing it was something of this biography picture historical picture, sounded different than the films I was familiar with earlier movie right his second full feature, I thought, let me catch up with this one. Okay, apparently the guy's up to what five masterpieces. In my mind, this thing is incredible.

But yeah, going back to what you were saying and what Keith wrote specifically, you know this notion I think he's I think he's very close when he says this was about Rubelev's artistic development and the development of his soul, except I wouldn't have the ant I would put those two things together, because I think they're exactly the same thing in terms of what Tarkovsky is interested in exploring in this movie and thinking about it in context of the further films that he would go on to make.

It's almost like he's setting the stage here for the rest of his career because he's stating these he's discovering. Let me say, it feels like he's discovering the terms by which he's going to go on to make deeply spiritual cinematic films like Solaris, Stalker, Nostalgia. But they're not religious films right in the sense that we think of them. And so Andre Rubelev is all about an artist whose job is to make religious films, and what are we

told about him? Very early on, one of his fellow painters says to Theophanes, he has no faith in his art, right, This guy's going through the motions and he doesn't find that faith and that artistry until he's recognized that it must have a purpose beyond the religious realm. It must resonate outside of these cathedrals for it to have true artistry, true meaning, true religiosity, I would argue, and I do

think you know. There's that early section which is comedic but sets the stage for all of this, when he and his fellow painters stop at this tavern. They're seeking shelter from the right. And before they even arrive, we've been watching this performer, this jester roll on bikeoff is the actor entertaining villagers with this crude and very lude song and dance. Right, and then Andre and his fellow monks come in and they crash the party. Everyone gets quiet.

They look at the gester askance. One of his companions says, God sent priests, but the devil sent gestures. You know again, we're back to sinners, drawing this line between the sacred and secular right. But notice in that sequence, Adam, the jester connects with the crowd. The monks sit in the corner. They're useless.

are merciless. What happens when religious art is co opted by the cruel and the powerful. And then here's the Tarkovsky question. Can art that isn't explicitly religious be faithful as well? This is what I think we see in his further films, And here it's almost like he's making the argument for that. So I really do think this is, you know, as powerful as his later movies, if still sort of in this formative space for him as a filmmaker.

to allow more space for. Are these fools? And that doesn't just mean because they're comedic foolish in this case, also means that they are distancing themselves or in some

way separating themselves from conventional society. I think that's why we have the prologue, that we have this story that otherwise so disconnected, but isn't, and it is in terms of filmmaking Bravora Tarkovsky, where that camera is elevating up into the sky from the point of view of this fool who has decided, despite the shouts that he is getting from the people down below, despite the absolute absurdity of this decision, to try to fly. He pulls it off,

doesn't he? And it does, as I said, feel disconnected because narratively it doesn't tie otherwise to our story. But it makes complete sense when you realize that the movie is filled with these types of characters, including rube Blev himself, who is constantly going against society, constantly putting himself in a position where he is daring to do something that subverts norms or subverts expectations, including taking a vow of

silence as we see him later do. I think part of the complexity here of this film too, and the way Tarkowsky really gets at the human condition through rube Lev is having a character who can so clearly in one moment espouse this epiphany that he's had about his art, and it's in the chapter about the Last Judgment where

he seems to have a sort of painter's block. He's doing everything he can to distract himself from the job at hand, and he expresses it it's because he doesn't feel like spreading that message of hell fire and punishment

and suffering that doesn't seem to resonate with him. And then he finally realizes that he wants to tell the story of a feast instead so he can have he can have that type of epiphany, Josh, he can understand that he's a man who doesn't believe in, or doesn't want to espouse these ideas of hell fire and judgment and condemnation of his fellow man. But what does happen in that chapter with the Pagans I believe it's called

the Feast? Where as soon as they catch him spying on lovers and they are going to punish him, what does he do. He invokes fire and brimstone, he tells him, But that's going to be punished. I think it is. Actually it's part of his journey. You could say that's part of his journey, and I think that that would be fair. You could also look at it as a bit of a contradiction, because he invokes it when it suits him and then later it doesn't completely feel right.

But he hasn't he hasn't yet had that moment where he's realized what the counter is what he believes in instead, I suppose, so I guess that's why I'm kind of linking them. But you're right ultimately that I think that is part of that journey, that he's not this fully formed character. And not only that, of course, any artist

is always developing. We're always developing as humans. But I think what I'm trying to express, Josh is that this is a character who is constantly shifting, who because of the conditions of the world that he lives in, because of the horrors that he witnesses, because of the ideas that he is constantly confronted with, He's malleable. He's trying to find what he really believes in. He's trying to

commit to an ideology. And I like the fact that we see someone for a good portion of the film who is seeking, who is searching.

very much cinematic archetypes. But it is this this striving, the seeking, this uncertainty, this lack of faith, this doubt that is torturing figures like this, and I think we very much get that in this performance, which is quite strong. Also quickly before I go back to that is we've referenced a couple of times all these horror horrors he witnesses. We should say for people listening who haven't seen Andre Rublev, one of these chapters is like basically a Kurrosawa film, right.

figure out, why are you bothered by this? He says, then it disgusts me, like this concept of damnation and hell fire discuss me. And then later we notice there's another holy fool woman played by Irma Rausch, who wanders into this cathedral that they're painting as a character is reading a New Testament passage about how women should cover their heads in worship. And this is obviously an ironic contrast. Here comes this woman into their manly space as they're

reading this aloud. But it's also where ruby Lev says something like she is not a sinner even if she does not wear a scarf. And so we're seeing his spiritual development here where he's transitioning away from the hell fire and damnation to a gospel of grace that he's beginning to embrace. And now the tension, the artistic tension, is like, but is this what the people paying me to paint want and how do I wrestle with that? And how do I be true to my art and

my beliefs. So yeah, it is this this journey of discovery on his part, which who knows how historical it is, but in terms of rooting it in this narrative and how it works on a meta level to my mind, with Tarkowsky's development as an artist, I think is fascinating.

to make sense of it. And that even includes josh lines of dialogue like the one in this film where Ki, the character who's a painter who is kind of an adversary, seems to be a friend but becomes kind of an adversary, feels a lot of jealousy towards Andrea because of his talent,

he wants to be seen as a superior painter. He has greater ambition, but lacks that fundamental ability that his colleague seems to have when he is just about to have his great unraveling and he's in his room at the monastery, and I don't remember who is in the room and who says it to him, but the person says, why are you burning a candle in the daylight. I'm still thinking about why are you burning a candle in the daylight? Why that's even something that that character posed

to him, and how we might interpret it. But what it says about Kirol as a man, as a monk, as a painter, that he could be I don't know, suppose wasteful in that way, that he could feel as if, even though it's daytime and he should be able to see everything he needs to say, he nevertheless feels the need to take in this bit of luxury, this bit of medieval luxury, if you will, or adorn his room in some way with that light. In a character it seems kind of calls him out on it.

He has two confessions, first who he actually is, and then later in the bell section, he confesses when Andrea is mistaken by the jester from the early section for the monk who denounced him and led to his punishment. And it was actually so yeah, can we talk about the bell section?

I have his childhood, right, Nikolai Berlyyev, who gave such a brilliant performance there as a kid a couple of years younger, and is here's this orphan teenager who convinces the prince that he has learned to cast church bells from his late father, is given the job, which means overseeing this massive team of adults, and we learn later though suspect right away he has no idea what he's doing. His father didn't teach him anything, but he proceeds anyway,

and everyone follows him. What did you make of this past?

Maybe it's a great question, either deeper or more superficial, that's driving him. Maybe he just appreciates the power. But for whatever reason he takes in my mind, he takes the same leap off the church that the guy at the beginning does. Right when he flies with the balloon, he is putting himself in danger. There is no reason on this earth, in this world that he should pull this off. He's completely flying without an it and the

punishment for failure here is severe. As we like to say here on film spotting, the stakes could not be higher. That is constantly reinforced throughout this entire section. What exactly could go wrong and the type of punishment that will befall him if he doesn't pull this off. And yet, Josh, he is a fool. He doesn't know exactly what he's doing. He is just hoping that through the force of his own will, that he is going to pull it off. That's the test. That's another example for me why it

feels a bit like a parable. It isn't supposed to necessarily make sense that we believe that this character could do it. We believe it though in the context of this story. So yeah, that's that's where that that really came from for me, That idea was that character.

I mean water is Skarkowsky right, but he's he's baptized when he finds the right clay that shot, and from having to mold the bell in the earth to raising it up to yeah, the molding of it with how about the streams of like burning, I don't know what material is lead or silver, but it's glowing. This is a black and white film, but it's glowing behind this kid conjuring this fool slash wizard conjuring these streams of light to I mean, the filmmaking here is just incredible.

But yeah, to connect it with some of these other things we've been talking about. So Andre Rublev at this point is still in his vow of silence, living near this city, the Prince's city, where the bell is being cast, and observing it from afar, and so he's watching this kid, and I would say, similar to the way you've been describing it, that rube Lev experiences the creation of this bell as a miraculous revelation. I mean, he's been on this journey of seeking inspiration. He's found it here a

little bit. But then the sack of the city and the violence that he experienced and witnessed caused him to give everything up take on the vow of silence. He's left his work behind. But here I think what he discovers and the holy fool part is an element of this that art emerges from talent, but also from beyond himself. Right, he's a vessel. Ruby Lev discovers that he's a vessel, just like this kid is a vessel for the miracle, and I love I almost want to give it away

because you are right, You're in such suspense. Is that bell going to toll? Are we going to hear anything? I'm almost positive I meant to rewatch it today, but I think when we hear the bell, the camera is on Rublev's face, and he is He has been a very side figure in this whole passage.

in different ways. Water again is here, but we see many times a paint brush with white paint being held in a stream.

But they were also something of a vessel. And so I think that's the you know, that's the what rube Lev to my mind, discovers by the end of this movie, and pointedly in the historical context he goes on to make after this period in his life, according to what history we know, his greatest piece the Trinity, his greatest icon, the one that's the most revered. So it's just interesting to see how historically this could be understood as an

epiphany moment for him. But I think it might be the same for Tarkovsky.

Is it something society even needs? I think it goes back to the steamroll or in the Violin too, in that way that's opposing that question and ultimately coming to a realization that you kind of have no choice. It's the only thing ultimately you can do, or certainly you can do if you're someone like Rublev or you're someone like Tarkovsky, who is a unique visionary artist, and that

is definitely on display here. I'm so glad that you mentioned the brushes, because that moment where I think it's Foma who I didn't know totally what to make of it, And now it's starting to as we talk it out, it's starting to be clear to me. I just liked it as an image, and I liked it as a singular Tarkovsky image because we've already talked through this marathon and with mir we've talked about water and how he

uses it in so many different ways. But the idea, it's almost like, by putting that brush in the water, it creates something new, as I said, something that's forming. It's in the process of forming itself before your eye. Something is disturbed, something is disturbed. The water that's flowing is disturbed by the introduction of a new liquid by someone's hand, a new thing, and then and that creates something new, and it actually creates an effect. Josh, It's

like the only thing I could write down. I don't even know if I'm using this word correctly, but it's like tributaries. It's like within the water, new strips are formed, right, new streams are formed, which makes sense with some of the imagery we've seen from Tarkovski already. But there's another moment of that in this film, Josh, and my notes

aren't entirely clear. I have post attack, so it must be after the raid, something like some kind of milk or liquid gets spilled into the water and the exact same tributary, like yeah, thing forms with that introduction of that liquid in the water, and then I love it's almost a match cut Tarkovsky gives us from that that spilling of that liquid in the water to then paint being thrown at the yes wall. There is yes, right, So that's that's a great kind of visual play on

a motif that the Tarkovsky obviously is enamored with. We also get here and I didn't know coming into this marathon. I didn't know this was a thing. I didn't know a thing for Tarkovsky. I didn't know that until I saw that incredible scene amongst the birch trees in Ivan's childhood that this would be a recurring motif, even with the films I've seen, not considering them back to back, like this, what happens Josh In one of the early sequences in this film, they are walking amongst those same

types of birch trees, those white trees. They even comment on them. I think you never notice until you leave. And and there's even a moment, Josh, with those trees where the characters in the scene are walking across the trees kind of like they're on a tightrope, which is exactly how they're walking across them in Ivan's childhood. So

that was something that stood out to me. The symbolism of those trees, the power of those trees for Tarkovski obviously very intentional, but again the use of water here, and the use of water and layered varying ways by introducing new bits of liquid into the mix, was a real standout for me as well. I feel like, Josh, this is the movie in a lot of ways, that's

the answer to the biopic conundrum. And the secret is not only just have someone as visionary as Tarkovsky creating the image of help, but just don't be encumbered in any way by fast events signposts. Yea, the things they actually did. Like he's a painter, we don't ever see him paint. We don't see any of the painting. We'll give you some art at the end, otherwise, otherwise we're going to give you a story that seems very loosely based on who this man ultimately is.

shape the artists in the work that they do. But by disconnecting them the way that Tarkovsky has making it so, the film itself isn't about the art at all or showcase in the art, and it's only at the end that we get it. It really does make us feel as if he was finally only capable of doing that work because of all of these experiences. Yeah. I love that separation of it. I think it's very potent.

thinking about the filmmaker. I was watching that and real quick this now made me think, Josh as well when you brought up I also loved that imagery of the lead. Whatever that molten substance is. But Josh, that's another tributary like visual yes, isn't it. It's as if these rivers of that liquid are cascading down. But I was thinking

about the work the entire time. I was just thinking about the physical work it must have taken, the people working on this film, the oh gosh, the austion designers, anyone involved with making this film, and Tarkovski himself to sew specifically and in such a detailed way render the creation of that bell and the hoisting of that bell the pulling of the levers, the pulleys there on the rope. It made me think about the totally going over the mountain if it's Karaldo, and I can't believe he did it.

I can't believe he pulled it off.

with Tarkowsky where he is. He's not Kubrick in the sense that I mean for a lot of reasons, but he has control, but not the Kubrickian level of control of the frame like he he seems to be open to chaos in a way with the incorporation of animals, like I said, frequently, but also you know, many extras doing their own thing nature the way nature intrudes or or is like you know, recreated to seem to intrude, but yeah, that also seems to be a unique quality

of his. But just the scale of this movie Andre Rublov alone is incredible to behold.

He beats the dog. The fact that the fact that Tarkowsky felt the need to show that type of brutality from Kirol in that moment by beating a dog, and then dogs are a constant presence swirling throughout that entire raid Josh as well. So just when I think thought i'd mentioned it's something to keep an eye on, Yeah, for sure.

we still have some Film Spotting Fest posters available. Go to film spotting dot net slash shop.

Tom Hardy as jaded cop in Netflix movie. He didn't even get a name, well, not with Sam anyway. Directed by Gareth Evans who made The Raid out wide. You could see Ben Affleck and John Berthel in The Accountant two. Is the Accountant review in the film's finding archive. Josh, I can't remember.

on Swift Horses is out. Robert Daniels says it's a slow burning, nineteen fifty set noir western driven by carnal appetites and a longing to break free from societal expectations. It stars Jacob Elordi and Daisy Edgar Jones. David Cronenberg's The Shroud is also out in select cities, with Vincent Cassell as a man who invents a technology that allows him to Yeah, I suppose that's accurate. Mono the Dead

with Diane Krueger. I also did want to give a quick mention Josh to a movie called Jimmy and Saigon, a documentary directed by Peter McDowell that I think actually counts as a twenty twenty two film, played a lot of different festivals, but is just now getting a release at the Cinema Village in New York City this weekend. And it's a documentary about the filmmaker Peter McDowell, who

grew up he was the baby of the family. I think there were five kids total, and had the oldest sibling, Jimmy, who he barely knew because of the age difference, and also because Jimmy went off to Vietnam and didn't come back, and the circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious, and part of the mystery was that his family just never talked about it. His parents, his other siblings, they seem to

always want to kind of keep this a secret. And so what McDowell does is he tries to unravel the mystery of what did happen to his brother back in Saigon, has experiences post war there, and I do think if you have a chance to see Jimmy and Saigon, it's a film worth checking out. Next week, Film Spotting goes to the library the Shrouds with author Violet Lucas. She just wrote a book about David Cronenberg called clinical Trials and blind Spotting. We'll be looking at Gina Prince Bythwood's

Love and Basketball at twenty five with Mariah Gates. She's the author of Cinema Her Way, visionary female directors in their own words.