@Fergoose said:

1) is stumbling and falling over some kind of motif? It happens at least 4 or 5 times, although much of the film is set in muddy or icey footing and on no occasion is particular attention drawn to the slip.

2) I assume we are to take the 'idiot' girl being seen in apparent finery at the end as symbolic only? Perhaps a sign of Rublev having broken his mental impasse or having found inner peace or resolve? If we take the sightings of her literally then the Grand Prince would know be friends with the Tartar chief that ransacked his city (which seems extremely unlikely)

3) the film is believed by some to be pro-orthodox church in a way that Soviet censors wouldn't have approved off. But surely it portrays the hateful violence and persecution wrought by that church as one of the key factors in demotivating Rublev from artistic endeavours?

4) are there solid grounds for suspecting the portrayal of negative aspects of the church are a pop at the Soviet Union hierarchy (and the way it may have demotivated Tarkovsky from making his art?). I didn't really defect anti-Soviet or anti-establishment themes in his other work, but this symbolism would make sense given what artists had to reportedly put up with from Soviet censors.

5) am I the only one to think Rublev's paintings are pretty underwhelming? What's with the eyes being so close together? I almost thought Rublev might have inspired this restoration of Jesus C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez))

Freudian slip?

I haven't seen this film but from what little I have read, it is that it is LOOSELY based on the artist's story.

That painting 'Ecce Homo' is not a Rublev, it was painted in 1930 by Elías García Martínez. I have seen many of Rublev's paintings & wonder if the men in his paintings are self-portraits (since they are eerily similar)? Although there is very little known about his life.

@bratface said:

@Fergoose said:

1) is stumbling and falling over some kind of motif? It happens at least 4 or 5 times, although much of the film is set in muddy or icey footing and on no occasion is particular attention drawn to the slip.

2) I assume we are to take the 'idiot' girl being seen in apparent finery at the end as symbolic only? Perhaps a sign of Rublev having broken his mental impasse or having found inner peace or resolve? If we take the sightings of her literally then the Grand Prince would know be friends with the Tartar chief that ransacked his city (which seems extremely unlikely)

3) the film is believed by some to be pro-orthodox church in a way that Soviet censors wouldn't have approved off. But surely it portrays the hateful violence and persecution wrought by that church as one of the key factors in demotivating Rublev from artistic endeavours?

4) are there solid grounds for suspecting the portrayal of negative aspects of the church are a pop at the Soviet Union hierarchy (and the way it may have demotivated Tarkovsky from making his art?). I didn't really defect anti-Soviet or anti-establishment themes in his other work, but this symbolism would make sense given what artists had to reportedly put up with from Soviet censors.

5) am I the only one to think Rublev's paintings are pretty underwhelming? What's with the eyes being so close together? I almost thought Rublev might have inspired this restoration of Jesus C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez))

Freudian slip?

I haven't seen this film but from what little I have read, it is that it is LOOSELY based on the artist's story.

That painting 'Ecce Homo' is not a Rublev, it was painted in 1930 by Elías García Martínez. I have seen many of Rublev's paintings & wonder if the men in his paintings are self-portraits (since they are eerily similar)? Although there is very little known about his life.

I know, I know - I was just being somewhat disrespectful about the quality of Rublev's art (he painted eyes too close together and faces were a funny shape).