Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Mosfilm Film Concern – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
After numerous demands to cut the film short due to its excessive length (according to members of the artistic councils of the association, studio, and other higher-level organizations), Andrei Tarkovsky was forced to agree to cut some scenes and objects, including:
List of scenes and objects to be cut
Only after these cuts was the ACT regarding the release of the full-length film "The Passion According to Andrei" sent to the Cinematography Committee on August 25, 1966. The prepared text of the ACT stated: "The film was presented to the Main Directorate of Artistic Cinematography of the Cinematography Committee on a single reel on August 6, 1966, and approved by the Cinematography Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for release with edits." This ACT was submitted for approval to V. Baskakov, Deputy Chairman of the Cinematography Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. However, even this abridged version of the film was not approved, and Tarkovsky was "proposed" to further alter the seemingly finished film.
On August 30, 1966, Tarkovsky wrote a letter to the acting Head of the Main Directorate of Art Cinematography, E. Surkov:
“…Due to concerns about inaccurately edited scenes and cuts, the following episodes have been shortened and thus improved in editing;
….2) The scene of Andrey, Kirill and Danila leaving Trinity was thrown out due to the unclear plot development and its plastic variegation in connection with the junction with the subsequent passage of the heroes across the field in the rain.
3) The first scene with the buffoon has been shortened – half of the circular panorama before the appearance of the warriors has been thrown out.
This entire scene was re-recorded with the aim of making clear the social motive in the content of the buffoon's song.
Some shots within this scene have also been re-edited.
….5) The text of the “writing” that exists as Cyril’s internal monologue in the scene of Theophanes inviting Andrei Rublev to Moscow has been shortened.
6) The scene with the messenger in the episode of Andrei’s invitation to Moscow was shortened.
…8) The scene of Theophanes, Andrei and his disciple Thomas in the spring forest has been greatly shortened and clarified.
The overly illustrative “flight” of the swan at the end of this episode was thrown out…”
Tarkovsky was forced to agree to all the comments; this letter listed 23 points, which were subject to major corrections and cuts.
However, at the end of the letter, the director tries to convince management to allow the necessary additions:
A letter from director Andrei Tarkovsky
By this time, the struggle for the film had exhausted A. Tarkovsky to the extreme; his strength – moral, physical and creative – was running out.
On September 9, 1966, the director of the film, T. Ogorodnikova, and the director of the VI Creative Association, P. Danilyants, at the request of A. Tarkovsky, approached the management of the Mosfilm studio to grant him leave due to overwork.
“…On September 2, 1966, at an extended meeting of the Board of the Cinematography Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the participation of leading masters of Artistic Cinematography, the film “The Passion for Andrei,” submitted by the studio on July 29, 1966, and accepted on August 25, 1966 by the Cinematography Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, was discussed.
While noting the film's ideological and artistic merits as an outstanding work of cinematic art, the meeting participants, along with a high assessment of the film's quality, considered it necessary to propose to the director A. Tarkovsky that he make editing cuts in order to free the film from individual shots and episodes of a naturalistic nature and to reduce the useful footage of the film as a whole.
Director A. Tarkovsky, having agreed with the need to make a number of editing corrections, requested that he be given leave due to overwork and allowed to complete the clarifications in the film's editing in parallel with the production of the source materials.
Taking into account the above, the General Directorate and the leadership of the Main Directorate agreed to satisfy Comrade Tarkovsky’s request to grant him leave and allowed him to resume work on editing and the production of source materials after returning from leave.
In this regard, we ask that the deadline for submitting source materials for the film “The Passion of Andrei” be extended until December 20 of this year.”
On October 24, 1966, the next meeting of the Artistic Council of the 6th Creative Association took place, at which a heated discussion about cuts took place:
Yuri Bondarev (writer, editor of the association)
"…I really like the film 'Andrei Rublev.' I think there's a lot of genius in it. There are some long stretches, sometimes little plots, like the woman swimming, for example, which is a bit of fiction, the bell sequence, and the river sequence. There were also some other long stretches, a lot of pulsating blood… Overall, I really like the film."
Elizar Maltsev (writer)
"…The film 'Passion for Andrei' has the potential to become a sublime work of art. But I've always been haunted by the feeling that the director lacks a sense of proportion. I'm driven by a desire to help the film, and I'm deeply convinced that the film is too long and too cluttered. The buffoons are uninteresting; they're artificial and forced, and I don't like the men fighting."
Vladimir Kreps (writer, screenwriter)
"…I'd like to draw a parallel with the film 'The First Teacher,' which at one time also sparked much discussion about the need for cuts, particularly in terms of graphic violence. Now that film has enjoyed great, well-deserved success. So, in my opinion, the film 'Andrei Rublev' now has global significance."
Vladimir Naumov (director, head of the 6th Creative Association)
"…The film as we saw it today is in grave danger of being devoured by the microbe of boredom. The film is excessively drawn-out. I lose the sense of coherence in this film; it breaks down halfway through. This film is so powerful in its truth and chronicle of events, so we must eliminate all falsehoods…"
Lyudmila Feiginova (editor of the association)
“Everything is conceived and filmed in large chunks and has its own rhythm; it’s practically impossible to throw anything away.”
Alexander Alov (director, head of the 6th Creative Association)
"Our shared position, our association's attitude toward the film 'The Passion According to Andrei,' throughout all the difficult stages of its creation, has been absolutely impeccable. We were always with Tarkovsky at the most critical moments. Now the film has been accepted, and our statements are guided not by fear of some dire consequences, but by a single, ardent desire to make the film better. The film is very drawn-out, hence its significance."
I'm a huge fan of the film, but I still agree with everyone that it's excessively long. The buffoons are insanely drawn out, Vladimir is too long, and there's a lot of cruelty. I simply can't stand the scenes with the horse and the dog. Naumov's suggestions are very specific. I'm in favor of shortening the film by 300 meters."
Andrei Tarkovsky:
We are at odds with each other.
My Artistic Council is broader; many people saw the film, and their opinions were conflicting.
…Of all 24 points related to editing amendments, only 3 amendments are perhaps not taken into account in today’s version.
I agree with the comments about philosophical conversations, which, of course, should be more specific and unique, but this problem and error are inherent in the script itself, which included a disproportionate meaning of what was said in relation to the amount of text.
I tried to cut out the first part of the execution, but it didn't work. I don't know what to do with Vladimir; the footage of him falling from the wall can be cut.
The old man with the stick cannot be removed, because without him there would be no episode, everyone is talking about this shot, and I agree with this, but it cannot be cut.
If you listen to everyone, it turns out that we need to throw out another 300 meters; wishes prevail over possibilities.”
Just two days after this meeting, members of the Artistic Council gathered to discuss editing changes to the film. Once again, Tarkovsky had to defend his position:
"…The discussion at the Artistic Council meeting left an overwhelming impression. The Artistic Council members' proposals failed to find a common solution in terms of concretely fulfilling the shared desire to make the film shorter. I'm in a difficult position, as nothing concrete was proposed at the Artistic Council meeting, despite the lengthy and detailed discussion.
Today the proposals are more constructive and concrete.
But if I cut out: the second part with the blinding, shorten Vladimir (Petra, the horse) by half, throw out the dog, the execution, Kirill’s cell, the flashback, the scene after the scene with Marfa, part of the scene between Feofan and Andrei – the ending, Kirill’s return plus what was suggested at the Artistic Council – can you imagine this picture?… The picture will lose its face.”
As a result, the Arts Council makes an unambiguous conclusion:
Decision of the artistic council
A. Tarkovsky decides to continue fighting for the film's fate. To be continued.
Photo: Mosfilm-Info Information Center. When using this image, a link to the source is required.
CONTINUATION
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source. It represents an accurate account of the source's assertions and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
