I don't have an access to my copy of "Rublev" right now, but being a native speaker of Russian, I can tell you quite confidently that in Russian language there was no noun equivalent to the world "motherfucker" at the time this film was made. To express the same meaning, the Russians used and continue to use a phrase that translates as "fuck your mother". The latter is a quite popular cursing, but at the time "Rublev" was made (the Soviet era), it was virtually impossible to use words like this in a movie, so Criterion's translation is definitely wrong. Having said that, I recall that the actor playing the jester mused that he did use some cursing during one of the scenes, but he did this in such a tempo that even movie censors couldn't distinguish what was being said, let alone regular moviegoers, so it went unnoticeable. Currently, many Russians (esp. younger ones) use anglicisms daily, so this word is no stranger to a Russian ear. But Tarkovsky wouldn't use it, I am sure...

Where exactly in the film does this occur on the Criterion DVD? I'll check it against the spoken Russian.

I don't remember seeing that word on the subtitles, but if it was, and it's a poor translation, it will be yet another in a long line of inappropriately modern translations on Criterion: La Haine, anything by Linda Hoaglund, etc.

Didn't the producer of this disc (laserdisc originally) almost get canned because he spent so much money on the subtitle translation? I'd hope it was a pretty accurate one then.

I wonder why Criterion has not re-release this again on dvd? This is one title that should be number one on their list to update both image and subtitles. It was nice to see Tati's Playtime and others redone with new transfers and extras so why the no show on Rublev?

You can see/hear the line at the beginning of this Youtube clip.

It occurs at the 3:07:24 mark and the Ruscico DVD has it translated as "You'd better do, damn you!"

Thanks for pointing me to the exact spot. "Motherfucker" seems like a good way to translate this. The man says "Mat' vashu," i.e., "your mother," in which here "mother" is clearly the direct object of the implied verb "fuck," or yebat' in Russian. What it means would be unmistakeable to any Russian speaker, and it's pretty insulting. To me at least, "Damn you!" in the Ruscico translation doesn't quite capture the specific flavor of the insult.

In other instances when the verb is not implied, "mat' vashu" can be neutral, such as "Love your mother."

Out of curiosity, I poked around on Google to get a better sense of common usage of the phrase mat' vahsu, and in some cases it specifically appears to mean "motherfucker" as we use that phrase in English. Sometimes it seems to mean "fuck" as a more general expletive. Perhaps a native Russian speaker can weigh in here.

Don't forget that Andrei Rublev was "shelved" for several years, so Tarkovsky ultimately paid a heavy price for the film's "naturalism." At any rate, I don't recall hearing that phrase in another Soviet-era film.


P.S.: Speaking of Russian obscenities, if you're a fan of the group Tatu you can still purchase their notorious anti-war tee shirt, though someone should explain that Khui voine is a little stronger than "Stop the War," in case a non-Russian speaker decides to buy it and wear it in public.

I know two native Russian speakers so I will ask them about the phrase but I will have to be careful how I approach them about it!

Actually the Italians that appear at the end curse a lot. So that one line in Russian does not exactly go against the tone of the film.

Watch out - every time I make this (extremely obvious) suggestion, I get told off for not appreciating Criterion's 'commercial reality' or whatever. Or, to put it another way, Criterion are doing everything they can to sell out at present, so you're probably best to forget about it and start collecting Masters of Cinema discs instead.

There's often a reason why apparently "obvious" titles aren't remastered and reissued. I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case, but as an unofficial cut of a film that's presumably still owned by Mosfilm, which has since released the officially-sanctioned version through Ruscico, there's every possibility that it's entangled in legal red tape..

Or, more prosaically, Criterion do have the rights, but have found it impossible to source a decent print for a new transfer of sufficient quality to make a reissue worthwhile, given that the source for the DVD was none too ideal even by transfer standards of eleven or twelve years ago.

MichaelB is correct, Criterion have said a few times via Facebook that the prints are in poor condition and will need a lot of work first, it'll come, but who knows if they've even begun working on them.

A beautiful 2k restoration from the original negative was carried out a few years ago by Mosfilm - so it would firstly be a question of gaining access to this. Since the negative has been lost for the director's cut material, the challenge would then be to incorporate those scenes into the film in a way that isn't distracting, ie. digitally restored to the highest quality available (I assume this is where the 'work' comes in that Criterion are referring to). One has to accept that the restored scenes will not match the theatrical material in quality (albeit it will not be difficult to exceed the quality of the extant twelve-year-old non-anamorphic release); if they are concerned about this particular aspect, they could perhaps offer the theatrical cut on the disc as well, via seamless branching. All of this will cost money, yes, but, from a creative perspective, a restored Rublev director's cut blu-ray would be worth most everything Criterion have released in the past two years three times over, so...

...actually, you're right, more like Hunger, Monsoon Wedding and Revanche, please.

Given how contentious the 204-minute so-called "director's cut" is (Tarkovsky said on more than one occasion that it's an early rough cut and the 186-minute version is the final one - though of course public comments like that by Soviet directors, even in exile, should always be taken with a pinch of salt), I think a truly definitive edition would have to present both cuts separately - but whether this is contractually feasible is a moot point.


Or Brakhage on Blu-ray? Something tells me a restored Andrei Rublev would be a rather bigger moneyspinner than that - and probably cost a fair bit less to put together as well!

If I'm not mistaken, there's been more than one digital restoration of the film. Mosfilm released a new high-def transfer of the standard release version (3 hours) of Rublev on DVD through Krupnyi Plan, which underwent some digital restoration as is usual for KP's premium line. (Some of those transfers are really nice, BTW - their unsubtitled disc of The Mirror looks absolutely gorgeous!)

After that, the DP Vadim Yusov did his own restoration of what he has called "Tarkovsky's original version" or something like that. I haven't been able to figure out whether it's the 205-minute cut entitled The Passion According to Andrei, or a third version of the film that Yusov reconstructed. Apparently it was projected digitally in Russia and may be showing elsewhere, but I'm not sure. Wish I could find an answer to this, but everything I've read so far is rather vague. The only thing that's clear is that Yusov was *not* referring to the standard 3-hour version of the film.

So we may already have restored, hi-def masters of both versions that can be put on DVD.

Nothing is SPOT ON here. A restored AR Blu-ray would eclipse anything that Criterion have done / announced to date.

Unfortunately, I was not able to make it up to LACMA for the AR screening a few weeks ago. Does anyone know if they screened a restored version?

I saw a "restored" version in London a few years ago - 2005 or thereabouts - and was none too impressed, though the truly dreadful subtitles probably didn't help.

You get told off for behaving like a troll all the time. Are you at all capable of making criticisms without acting like someone has just kicked your dog?

The only reason I'm not deleting your posts is because other members have actually managed to contribute something interesting with their responses. I might reconsider, tho'.

My position on retroactive director medling has already been debated in the Che thread... Anyway, I believe the general consensus is that the longer cut is better (to take the most obvious example, there is a show-stopping plan sequence during the attack of the Tartars which is spliced right in half in the censored theatrical cut). But, yes, they should present both versions (and with time, will and money, one can accomplish anything, etc).

I hear the first Brakhage set sold much better than expected. People like to think of the American 'avant-garde' as, well, avant-garde, but something like Brakhage's oeuvre is actually pretty undemanding in terms of intellectual engagement and patience. Indeed, he fits right in in the You Tube era.

The Mosfilm 2k restoration made it into cinemas on 35mm prints. There was a run at the ICA if memory serves, although I caught it at a midnight screening in some country or other, I can't remember where exactly. It looked beautiful to me. The ICA is such a depressing, dinky little cinema, perhaps this didn't aid your viewing pleasure, Michael?

Exciting to know that there's a competing version out there, jsteffe; hopefully this will tour outside of Russia soon, then.

It was indeed the ICA, but I don't remember it being digital. I've got no problem with the main screen provided I'm in a good seat, so I don't recall anything about the venue - but I do recall the subtitles being jarringly American in a way that I don't recall from the old Artificial Eye print ("Gee, where's my whip?"), and also that they were surprisingly hard to read.

I know two people who went and they both said it looked bad, but I don't know if either of them are accustomed to seeing old prints and have much to compare it to.

Why exactly was my post removed?

Because it was taking the thread off-topic.

ok, my apologies