Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 53 · 2 months ago

The Rise of Andrey Tarkovsky

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

In this episode, we take a close look at the early films of Andrey Tarkovsky, from his early student efforts to his first passion project.

We will briefly touch on The Killers (1956) and There Will Be No Leave Today (1959) before we go into depth on his first three solo efforts, The Steamroller and the Violin (1961), Ivan's Childhood (1962) and Andrey Rublev (1966).

Yes, we will dissect their endings, but don't you worry, if you have not seen one of them there will be a clear spoiler warning allowing you to use the timestamps below to skip to the next film.

Timestamps:

00.00.00 - Intro

00.02.06 - Our views on the progression of Andrey Tarkovsky

00.06.56 - The Killers

00.10.11 - There Will Be No Leave Today

00.12.22 - The Steamroller and the Violin

00.33.29 - Ivan's Childhood

01.03.20 - Andrey Rublev

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Welcome back everyone. I'm Chris and in this episode we will look at how Tarkkoski became Tarkovski, how he found his voice, how he learned, how he evolved and got more agency, filmed by film in the early days of his career until he arrived at the point that is instantly recognizable style and voice was known. Will start by quickly going over his early student efforts, which actually resulted a totally well made short adaptation of the killers and that co direction credit on the one thousand nine hundred fifty nine TV movie. There will be no leave today, and then we will start getting far more into details and truly dive into it as a break down his forty five minute graduation film, the Steam Roller and the violin, from one thousand nine hundred and sixty one, before we continue through to his first international success, Evan's childhood and evocative take of lost innocence in wartime, before we finally finish off the episode by discussing and Dissecting Tarkoskist first true passion project, two three hour epic and Ray Rub Lev. In some ways this is a story of artistic liberation. In oders is a story of just instant success, and that claim. If you have not seen one or more of the three films so this just today, they will be spoilers. But don't worry, these will being compact sections after discussion of each film and with a clear spoiler warning. If you want to jump out of these sections, just go to our time stands in the description and nothing will be spoiled for you. So, with that said, and before we dive into the actual films at just love to introduce my three absolutely wonderful cohost starting with mature, and I'll just ask each of you because obviously now we have all been rewatching these films leading up to this episode, some of US watching them even for the very first time. So I would just be very interested in hearing your overall experience and what you think of the cosis progression over these early films. Py Chris Hi everyone. I had seen his early features already Ivan Childhood and on the hookless, but I watched the similar and the violin for the first time, as well as the kidders the short film, and I guess the impression I get from it's what the Kiddos is a bit of how to pin down within his philmography. I guess it's just an early shot, but the similar end of the Adin and Ivan staggled you really seeks ki starting out working within the Soviet system and trying to express himself within that and then with them who b left him kind of wreaking out and doing his own thing. As you said, his first fashion project might really the first film that looks and feed this that Coo Takovsky film, even though they are, I think, the elements the other two. And what about you, Tom What? What was your takeaway from these early films? Hi, Chris, so Tarkovsky is a director I hold in high esteem. I ad my his craft, even though all of his films don't resonate with me in the way that some of them I would consider masterpieces do, and seen all of his features prior to discussing the films today. There was interesting to go back and check out is earlier short and see how his talent and scale had been developed. So looking forward to discussing them in more depth today and finally saw what was your experience going through these early films? So Tarkovsky is a director who have a large amount of respect for because he directed Lauras, which I've mentioned a few other podcast is one of my our time favorite best films of all time. So I'm very big on Salaris. So is interesting to watch these three films that laid up to with, although my impression after watching them, and I'm sure get more into a discussion, that you know, these three films don't quite indicate, you know, what was to come from Takovski with, you know, getting into Solaris and Stalker and later the sacrifice. So look, it's always interesting to see where people have done, some of your favorite films have come from, and I guess I was approaching it from this point of view. Evan's childhood was a re watch and that proved a roof fruit for re watch. I really like that. Upon re watched, the other two films didn't really do much for me, but I respect...

...that they are part of the progression and I guess part of their claim that got tacos to the point where was able to make something like Solara. So I appreciate how they able to help him further. Here is Kore apart. That's to be clear. Someone is saying this early film that helped him progress. Are you including and a Rublevin that? Yeah, look, Andrea Ruglave was a first time viewing for me this week. It's a film that I put off for a while because and never look too interesting to me. And look after watching it. Yeah, look, I don't think it's a particularly amazing film. I do think it's a good film. I'm sure discussed a bit more later. I don't think it holds a candle at or to Salaris or even stalk or the sacrifice, but I'm sure get up to that later. Yeah, that'll be a fascinating discussion because, even though it's not all of my very favorite the little getting and yeah, let's go secome at you. Without getting into is it better or not, I do agree that on the WHO blift is still very different from what came later. Right, it's a lot less internal, a lot less mystical. I mean there's a bit of that, but I can definitely see how one would be like his face and Stalker and not really respond to an the HOOPLA. Okay, that's that's actually really good here, because you know, when watching it I was like scratching my head, going, you know, is it just me or does this see nothing like the films he could in the sevent s or arms or sacrifice, and I guess it's good. If it's not just me, although it's interiously, will get to it a bit lighter. Outside that, I do massively prefer Evan's childhood to android Rublev. I'm sure I'll get onto that later on. Yeh Say, I will be a very good debate because I can mentioned that, if very called correctly, that is mature and Tom's favorite. Oarkoski, right, Yep, yeah, that's right. It's his best film, shadow a doubt. So yeah, that will be a very fun little teaser of what's going to come up later. But before that let's go back to when it was actually a fairly young ish student and made his very first short film, granded, with two other directors as well. So he adapted the earth coming away short story, they killers, which, of course it's gotten pretty big American adaptations. The only one of them was before this film came out, to me at least, a very basic film. Anyway. It feels a bit it's only nineteen minutes long. It feels very compressed, but it's totally well done. The composition, everything there. If the spot on, but it's also a very obvious student film. Is No way. Well, what do you guys think about it? I would agree, Chris. It is a basic film, as you put it. It's, you know, compelling adaptation of this inestimimay short about the pair of gangsters. You turn up at. It down it with sinister intent and it is a wellmade student film and it builds tension throughout. Though it doesn't share any of the visual excitement that you will come to see in intarcosky's later work, it's clear that it's made by someone who's got an awareness of their craft. But you have to be fair here. This is his first out in and for what it is, it certainly exceeds. Yeah, I guess it's hard to really put it in with in context of his other films. It could be directed by anyone, aside from the fact that it's they well directed. Right, I think you can see that he has an eye for composition, that he yeah, he films it very efficiently. It's it's a great scene in I guess I haven't haven't read the M Mingue story, but it's a great scene already in the about shot Mac and yeah, it works well. It's funny, by the way, that one of the actors here, I think he kind of looks like but Lancaster, but he's playing the Batender. But yeah, I guess I don't have much to say about it. It's clear that it's shot by someone with talent, but it's not really indicative of much of what Tacosky would do afterwards. I think it's very American. It's genre sin, which is not really what Tacosky did after so it's a bit of a curiosity. I think you're right. There Matcha it's with notes in it. If you saw this film without any awareness if who created it, you'd have no way of pinning down that it's a Takosky film. Yeah, and I mean it's only one third at the Goalski film as well. There's two other directors involved here and well, all the imagine is very American and it's obviously inspired by gored. So it's also has a lot of the very classic Toba Dies Ethics of the time or how they interpret American isthetics. I think a lot of of the shots are interesting because the game is some flashes to Evan childhood or even like this. Obviously the bar scenes in stock it doesn't quite look like this at all, but it's it's obviously the bar scenes incedcker...

...are quite important as they work as the early and late framing devices. But yeah, I know it. You could not really pin down at this is there goosky. And I feel exactly the same way about the next film he did as well, which is forty five minutes. It's technically a feature. Is a TV feature. One of the directors he worked with on the killers, Alexander Gordon or Gordonna, don't court on. I don't know how the Russians would pronounced that, is his care director. Here as well. It was a TV movie. It's fairly compact. It's once again harder heavy. It's a bit of a suspense film with, you know, essentially handling of explosive materials, perhaps like the military version operators of here. So a little bit. I think it actually does suspense very, very well. It's a good TV effort. Again it doesn't really feel like it, or rather a supposed the previous film I wouldn't necessarily have guest this was made by students, but it is again that fairly basic film that just applies tools very well. Again, I would agree with your assessment there, Chris. It's nothing spectacular, but it demonstrates competent filmmaking from young Talkov skin is student collaborators whilst they were owning their craft a film school. It is actually based upon it a true incident and it depicts the dangers of unexploded bombs when in army unit is called upon to save save a town from certain disaster. As you mentioned, Chris, the use of suspenseful music enhances the tension is the soldiers carefully work and extracting the bombs, and we're both this and the killers. Seems like Tarkovski is having been in a slightly directions to where he ends up, because they're both big on suspense and tension, something that isn't necessarily use that much throughout the rest of his career, and it's interesting to see the Tarkosky explores the themes of heroics and nuble sacrifice early on in his career, because they are things that we saw time and time again and his later work. So this outs in it pales in comparison to any of his features, but it is certainly worth a look for anyone who's curious to see how Takosky pags his way to greatness. And that brings us up to the steam roller and the Violin, which is approximately forty six minutes long, which again, you know, semi qualifies as a feature. It was his last student film, Interestingly Co written by Andrey Konsalski, who would actually go on to co write his next two films as well, bringing all of the three major films will be talking about the little bit closer together. And of course, and Ray Lostalski is actually a very good director in his own right, even great. He made some of the best Soviet films of the S. He had a holywood career. He's still active to this day. We're making, you know, their comrades in two thousand and twenty, which was one of the big films, off well now, two years ago. So it's interesting that even they, I guess, if Tarkoski hadn't died early, he might still technically be around and making great films as well, which is just very sad to think about if they lost him so early. But right now we're talking about a tar Koski who is still in his twenties. At the time he made this, I believe he was twenty eight or twenty nine. It's it's like we mentioned, his graduation film. It's his first solo effort as a director and I think it's to be frank, I just think it is absolutely stunning. I've been talking for a little while, but what I can just say is that the colors are phenomenal. This is a color film. It uses ristrules an incredibly poetic fashion. Once again, like you talked about the others, it really has nothing to do with what he would do later in his career and it even has, in our continge off story propaganda there rich I'm sure we'll talk about a little bit later. And it's quite a cute film, a tale of hero worship between a young boy and a steam roll operator. You know the kind of adult man child friendship is to in the early days of Sind them. It's very innocent, it is very soft, but there's a just so much going on here with this film. I frankly love it. I think it's his first great work, though, and that might be under dispute. So I'd love to hear your takes on his first solo effort. Yeah, I don't know if I would go as far as you, but I was quite impressed by it and it's also very much it stands out right because it's very much looks like so viet propaganda film in many ways.

Right. It's it has this very iconic shots of that look like propaganda posters at many times, and the base is basic subject of it is something that you can see how, for the Soe Union it's a great subject for young filmmaker to tackle. Right. It's all the steam molar and the violin. They're both equally valuable. That's, in the sense, what the film is saying. It's saying you can find the greatness in both this artistic expression, which is very bogeois, and in this, you know, work, essentially, yeah, the workers art in a sense, and so you can see definitely how that was a good thing for Takovsky to do at this point in his career when he's just trying to prove that he can do the job and at the same time he finds great shots all over the place. It's weird because it doesn't look like a Takofsky film in the sense that it's very bright, very sunny, which is definitely not something associate with him, and yet you can see his style still he still finds some water in there at it's a suniday after it's been raining and as we get into later Takovsky does love water all the time, everywhere if he can. Yeah, I think it's a it's an impressive debut for a student film. It looks it looks extremely professional. I think it's maybe also because there's people are budget in student films in the Suet Union that they would be and swhere. But yeah, I think it's an impressive debut. I don't know if I would go as far as your Chris, but I quite appreciated it. Pay I'm in the same ot as Matteo here. It's a nice, warm and colorful film which it's certainly memorable, and the storyline is very easy to follow, which differs quite a lot from Tarkovsky's later where it's more complex and more in depth, and it's an impressive technical accomplishment that it kind of bridges the gap between his early student films and as masterful feature films. As you both mentioned, there's some hypnotic shots in here involving reflections and KALEIDOSCOPIC imagery that give us an insight into Tarkovsky's appreciation for dazzling cinematography and also provide glimpses of the brilliance that is to develop later in his career. Now, I felt that the story about the friendship between the young boy and the road work of strengthened by too solid performances there, but it did feel that their relationship often play second fiddle to the scenery chewing as it does feel that it's largely a vehicle for Tokofsky to demonstrate his spurgeon and talent, and I'd also say that it lacks the debt for symbolism of his later work. But I mean that's kind of understandable. There it does hold the film back from being anything more than a minor note, which is, you know, still worth seeing, still a good film in an otherwise exceptional filmography. Yeah, I'm probably going to be the least positive on steam roll on violin so far. I don't think it's his first great filming. His first great film came a year later, which we'll get too shortly. I do agree with what Thomas said, that it's an easier to follow film than Tarkovskis later films, although for me I don't know if that's necessarily a plus I sort of prefer something like sacrifice or stok or se last, which will change me a little bit more. I also understand and agree with a lot of you what you guys have been saying about different shots and cinematography. Like Tom Though, I agree that takes and makes these storyline become second fiddle. It's really good description to the our camera work and the way the whole thing is shot. And most of my issues with the film is heartworks as a narrative. I mean, on one hand I appreciate the story because as the type of story that could never be made today. If you made a story today about a young boy getting into a friendship with the guy four times as age or the sinister overtones, it instantly be ready into so it would be a little bit creepy if it came out today. All these people would read them to be creepy. So it shouldn't have to be creepy automatically and I like the way that it's not creepy, but it is interesting. It's very much a product of its era that they are to have a child and strange adult friendship movie without any sinister overtone. So I like that as a narrative, though, I didn't think there was much else to the film beyond their relationship, which is we've already established, is already playing, you know, second fiddle to all the visuals are. So the story, you know, look, there's a lot of subplots in there that coming go. So, you know, he starts of being bullied, so we think it's going to be about him learning to overcome the bullies, but you know it isn't. And then you know it's he scoffing and other violens students. So I think it's going to be about him versus the violin students. It isn't. Then at one point he leaves his violin unattended at the back of the steam roll and I thought, I awesome, this is the way it's going to get interesting. The violins got to get broken or smashed or something, and it doesn't. So there wasn't really much to the film, I...

...guess, other than the friendship. And I guess I feel there should have been more to it, especially as all these things left hanging in there, and then it just ends on a really brought note. I mean, I guess in retrospect the Broughton note not too bad. I guess it is kind of interesting a note to end on, especially with the man looking up, which, without spoiling it or anything, it's an interesting note to end on. But as a narrative, you know there's people on letter box to a combating saying, you know, this is amazing for a student film. Whatever. If you know, I'll stuck offsky teacher. I'll turn the tout around and get to Covsky to teach me. I'm like looking at this. If I was got a graded, I wouldn't give to cops. Get ask excellent. I might give him a good. It is cinematically good, but as a narrative I think it really struggles and there's a lot of things left hanging which, if it was a longer film, I think would have maybe been fleshed out. So I had to be the most negative on the film, but as a debut, unfortunately it didn't really impress me. Well, I'm very happy that you're not Tarkoski's teacher. I'll have to say, since it's so he might not have been able to go out to make the feel see did. Yeah, he wouldn't be out to like my third favorite film of all time. Yeah, it's exactly it's like. It's like this is just an adequate effort from no whay. You're going to get even childhood here, some TV projects for you. Now we can do some Soviet soap opera. That would have been a very, very different than very potentially sad career. So at the one who likes it the most, I guess I can talk a little bit more about why I like it, because, while the sold propaganda is a little overbearing, actually think Tarkoski does a lot with the imagery here and I don't necessarily think that there is a contradiction between the friendship and the visuals. I think that these things play very strongly together because of the narrative that Tarkovski is trying to present, which is what mat you mentioned earlier, this relatively obvious subtext of these two things, that is, operaking a steam roller and playing a violin are equal, and while that is a little bit forced, I think there's also a lot of poetic beauty and that. And there's something that I don't think it's done today, but I've really taught at this is standard so e propaganda in many ways, but the way Turkoski was shooting the steam roll operate there and the way he was shooting the workings of the steam roller itself. You actually get a bit excited. You can see these kids, you know, watching on in awe as you know these steam rollers pay this event, and you get caught up in that. You can you can kind of feel how exciting it is to see this happening and kind of how they really would like to do this themselves, and I think that's very masterfully done. And not to mention that there's some victual simple listen, therefore, to, for instance, the yeah, the two steam rollers. We see our colored in the red and gold there's are obviously the colors of the Soviet flag. So there is an overbearing element there is a little bit too obvious, but I think the fact that the way you actually shoots the steamroll operator as something so honorable, so something so exciting, it's, at least now in this day and age, very refreshing and it's excitingly that even as it's so clearly shown to be propaganda, it as I can understand it's so clearly propaganda, it still works for me. I still think that that's very powerful and motive shots that really make us be that the quality between this steamroll operator and the young violinist, and that works really well. And then you also have the kind of very putty get. It's very short again, it's forty five minutes and I don't think student films usually went on that longer. It will be hard to put that much more into it, but this kind of walk around the city where they start to bond, and this kind of visuals of a progress, well again into sort a propaganda, but this this feeling of all throughout that think the cost you really manages to nail that, with the rain, with the light, with all of the visuals going on, even some very poetic editing there. That makes the film comm alive. It makes it, you make it, makes you feel it very much from the child's perspective and the it's not many directors that are able to do that, though. That's all the things that really impressed me about the steam roller around the violin. So I think two things that I'd like to add to what you said, Chris, is one on the propaganda aspect. I think, if you're going to do so, that propaganda this subject is a subject I can get behind with. Right. It's a dignity of work that that's completely fine by me. I think there are auto small parts of the film that bought nearly two more like at one point there's a building being demolished and then there's this very triumphant shots of brutalist Soviets building replacing it. Basically, I mean in terms of the frame, which I think, yeah,...

...that does not places almost as comedy to be that does not all that great. And another thing I'd like to note. You mentioned the editing and someone and said can aid this copy at one point, and I think there's a lot of sudden cinema technique early on, like especially when the kid at first goes into the city, I think, and you get this kind of Giga Vertav like symphony of a city editing with very disconcerting right and that's something that I cos kid really didn't do afterwards. I think it's very stighty stick note that real feud like something he just did not come back to, but it works here. I thought that was pretty noteworthy. Just to be clear. None of you have issues with all the subplots that come and go and never be developed. Me In the film just kept feeling for me like was pulling in different directions like it might be about the bullies, it might be about violinness and and not liking any other students. It might be about wanting to be a steam role rather than be a violenist. It might be about this violin being in danger of being smashed and a year ended up being about none of that. So I guess to me I found that disappointing and look like with there's a lot of symbolism and as I color film of nearly s it is very striking and well done. But I guess just to me as a narrative, I was just expecting a lot more. Well, to me they didn't really feel like subplots. That just felt like side plot stuff or kind of there throughout. I mean the violinist is kind of an outsider with his friend group or break with his peers, perhaps because he is a young violinist and they don't see him someone would who they would play with. So I think that that actually plays through the entire film. You see it from the very first scene. You know that they bully him. They didn't start to envy him a little bit when he raised the steam roller. There is some bullying scenes and he learns to stand up for himself. So I think that's actually a fairly consistent tread that pulled through the film and I think it also ties into a little bit with the ending where the is this discrepancy that's also shown, which it's interesting that maybe the violinist and the serial or breator can't actually be a match, which is a very interesting thing to do, in ever in a propaganda film, if you want to hold that of this kind. So I don't think that's a series of subplot that this think that's part of the overall plotline. Yeah, look, how yeah, I agree the ending is really interesting and especially what it says about that way man relationship. And I guess that's probably one of the reasons why the film isn't read and such sinister terms as it might otherwise be by contemporary audience. And I guess maybe I put the revers of the film at some point with knowing what to come, maybe everything would be a bit more cohesive to me. But I guess when I was watching the film with just it really felt to me like a student film rather than, you know, the debut of some of going to make my third favorite film. That's all right, you know, McCann or like Hounter, our favorite directors first films. Yeah, that's perfectly fair and I think it does still have the aura off a student film in many ways they it is him actually playing with the medium a little bit, seeing what they can do, pulling out the things just learned, like the silent techniques, etcetera. So I don't think that's a bad read, but I do think it's probably one of the best student films that I've seen and it stands out as a student film. But, as we promise, do a quick dissection of the ending. Let's drow up very quick spoiler warning. For those who have not seen this film yet, you can jump ahead spoiler warning. So I thought that was really interesting. How it ends on a fairly sad note. So they made this data of social meet for a cinna mine kind of continue their friendship, but the boy is rather understandably held up whole by its mother act. She does think it's rather all that this kid is hanging out with much older man and he tries to contact the zemeral operator. Heachries to follow of this sheet music, that a note, and send it out as a paper plane, but it it doesn't reach the Zeero operator, the styber operator just waits and waits. He looks around. It's quite a sad moment and this this relationship be kind of left under sold. But in the process of that he runs into his fellow steamroll operator, a woman who he might have a semi flirty relationship with, a never actually connected with on that level, and they end up going to the cinem instead, which is a bit of a bitter sweet happy ending in a way, that they might find love. And then, of course, in the final imagery you have this metaphorical element with the steam roller driving out the words to see. You have rain, you have son. It's a beautiful shot and the boy is running after the steamroller. It's fairly puttic it. It met met symbolize that there is this discrepancy between the fine arch and and work and that there's something that can't be connected there, or it's something else to leave us thinking about. But it's mixed messaging in a way. It is like sought.

That a little bit abrupt to you. Wouldn't have expected it the saily to end that way. So I'd love to hear some thoughts on the ending. Yeah, I think it's a bit of a subversive note in a sense of saying that all this kind of idyllic world of the classes being completely in harmony and in agreement, it's not exactly reality. Right, the mother doesn't want her son to be learning how to drive a steamholder. That's not what she wants for her son. She wants him to learn the violin. So it's not this idyllic right, and maybe you can interpret again the very sunny day you have way in interrupting at some points which I think maybe there's a way in which Takof K he's saying, well, I'm doing something that is the ideal world that the Soviet you didn't wants to present. But maybe it's a bit more complex than that, I think. I think it's definitely an interesting touch and a beautiful ending. I would agree it's it's a nice ending and it fits well with the story that precedes it. And it also add that if we weren't aware that this is a student film, I didn't think we ever consider it it's being a student film. So just thought I'd throw that one out there. Maybe that will raffles all some more. Look, I don't know, IT SOS of being a student film or not whether I be abtell does. I guess same to me. I early work just because I do it. Quite a few issues with of how it works as a narrative in terms of the ending. Yeah, I guess the most striking part of it for me is not the boy so desperate to leaving, get out and send that paved Arrow plane through the window and, you know, then going off at having this stream sequence where he is still chasing off the steam roll. I guess what stands out to me most is, as I mentioned or a lunar too earlier on, the man staring up and looking up in like total dismay that a little kid isn't coming up to join him. And I guess something I've got to mention is that when he's actually getting the boy to drive the steam roll, either's got the boy sitting on his lap and I'm thinking, you know, how different a film would this be if this boy who is taken out, is got to sit in his lap, actually came out of the end ran up to him because they actually got reunited to see the movie and gave him big Hug and he went into a darkened theater to watch a film with him. I mean I know it's hard to not read the film with twenty one century eyes, but you know, it would add a little bit of creepiness to it. And I guess that ending there with the man looking up, it doesn't really quite resolve to me how the man feels about the boy, which is something which I said. They're about the runtime being quite brief or whatever. I mean, if it was a bit longer, whatever, it bit more character. Background we found. Well, maybe he lost a sign and therefore this is a sarrogance something him or or something like that would make it maybe a bit more wholesome. Knowing nothing about the steam rolls background, we have no idea what his intentions is. All you know at the end there is it is really longing to be with this boy. Body has to set up a warm instead, which I guess is kind of interesting reading in the social conventions or whatever, and he has to go up the with a girl his age rather to go with the boy. But anyway, look, I shouldn't be reading into it this way, but you know, it's just very hard not to a twenty one century eyes. Well, that's a very somber no to thrend that dump. I suppose we can take this opportunity to continue to the story of another boy with close relationships two adults, this time in much doctor scenario, though. So, and I've not your course, of Evan's childhood, which, to speak a little bit more serious about. It is a rioting story of Childhood in wartime. For very follow this young orphan who wasn't joined the war effort, with great pains to his own body, with which it is almost completely destroyed, and his psyche, which is also on the hinsist of keeping everything together. It's not a visually evocative film, with striking dream sequences, but also, I'm very strong narrative, and this is probably the last or Koski film with very strong Soviet elements. You have, you know, the Hooray for the Soviet war efforts, the bravery of all Soviet citizens, including a young child. It is, in some ways he's real full length abet, with the steam will violin only being forty six minutes. This was the film he broke true it, and it makes sense that it would be a more great narratiive.

He injects so much power there. But, at least to me, it's not quite that are Collski, with the come to know even though I definitely agree with soul. This is just a thoroughly great film. Yeah, I haven't childhood is as you said, it's interesting. It's again Takovsky walking within the Soviet system. I think there's nothing less acceptable for young Soviet director than to make of him about to World War, I write, the great spatriotic war, as they call it. So in that sense it's very much conventional, but obviously Takovsky does have an approach that makes this subject matter but interesting. But the basic idea of loss of innocence, obviously Ivan himself, but also the female soldier right also kind of represents starts and even just generally the soldiers. There's this idea that they're very young, never inexperienced, like the officer that first meets him. It's been this team that clearly runs through the film in the way that I find and almost too simple compared to later takofsky films. But not that that's it's quite well executed and Takosky definitely finds a lot of great shots in this, like this shot where the female soldier is held by this aggressor essentially above this then this ditch. That's a great shot. Generally you see him developing his style. It looks a lot more like his letter films would then the similar undervold, and I think especially it's the start of his love affair with swamps and bogs, which is something that's is an all obvious films and really a lot in this one. I haven't struggled is if he might like. It's obviously good film, but to me it is the lesser of the Takovsky like full features and even even counting them steaman underboling. I think Ivan's child as a really striking film and it showcases a lot of the talent and dazling cinematography that Takosky would display in his later filmed it does lack for me the emotional resence they don't see in most of us is latter films. I mean it's fascinating to see the tragedy of war through the eyes of a young boy and, as Chris mentioned, this bookmarks by fantastical dreamlike sequences which are also scattered throughout the central narrative. And here the war has taken Ivan's parents and he's fallen in with a group of soldiers who reluctantly allow him to engage in under cover operations due to his ability to you creep around unnoticed, and Tarkovsky's arresting cinematography fans beauty in the harsh environment of the new man's land between German and Soviet forces, this bog like area, this one that Mattia mentioned, and he uses gliding camera work which is as precise as the considered actions of the protagonist who, like Tarkovsky, displays it ammaturity beyond his years. Okay, so in the chat we've just had a little bit of a discussion about whether it should be Ivan or Ivan and I guess you know I mentally always call it Ivan's Childhood, but I know with Russian probably should be your bunds childhood. Anyway. Yeah, evon's childhood, Ivan's Childhood, however you want to call it. I do, as I mentioned before, think it's the best of the three films at the Kovsky made during the S S, although it was a really into my recent re watcher, but that really, you know, couldfer to me. This is really, you know, a great film. I can't have it down as my fourth favorite Takovski film. So I do have to disagree with mature that. I don't think it's one of his lesser films. I think you know, it's sort of like the top half of what he put out. So of course he didn't make that many films. Just to get back to what some of my co hosts have said, look, I do agree with like mature, that there are a lot of great shots in there. One of them which I do want to mention is one where they're looking down a will and it's like looking back up at them. I thought there's just some amazing some of the compositions in there. Tom Did talk about emotional residence, maybe a bit of a lack of it. I guess I find this one baby a bit more emotional because it's actually a bit more in Ivan or Vann's mental space. I mean so much the film is dreams and night as. I didn't even remember that because I first saw it around four years ago. And the film, the thing is that struck me the most. Words interactually with the soldiers, but are probably watching it. There is actually a lot of dream and a lot of nightmare sequences in there and they just amazingly done. I mean the first one is absolutely beautiful. Is Imagining himself flying through the air and then he's got a great one at the end which I'm not going to mention the spoilers yet. But also there's just a lot of the nightmare parts and they're also is he's remembering as pre war times and it's unlike lashes and he's actually in reality. And I just love the choice of targer because it's actually not Yvan's childhood. The film is actually Van's lack of childhood and in that sort of like what Tarkovski is showing. You know, you've got this kid or whatever who is still a kid in his head. He's dreaming about...

...things like flying, like you know kids would do, but you know at the same time he's stuck in this war situation where you're sort of like caught running errands just as a way of like surviving or getting by. So yeah, I just absolutely really admired the film. Really like the Tony but I liked how dreamy it was because that's my favorite time Tarkovski and will probably get into that more we get to Andre Rublev later on, but my favorite world takhov scares that sort of dreamy meditate of Takovsky, which is what Salaris is like and what sacrifice and store coal like also the degree in this one. For me it's just such a dreamy film. It's so different to me from same role in Violin, which is a very conventional narrative, and I just love how our conventional and it just absolutely gorgeous it looks in, you know, start black and white. I'm just going to agree with two of the things it says. The first one is very obvious. This is a visually stunning film. I mean, to me, this here roll of Rayland was beautiful as well, but this is like the craftsmanship that went into this film is spectacular. The camera angles, the immersion you have, the way the camera even moves and feels alive, especially in those dreams you mentioned, and how veried it this visually. You have this Bulliak and start real world, which is shot with very stark contrast. It's a lot of darkness. It feels a lot like an are even or if it maybe coming back to his early short work with the killers. You have that kind of really tight visual suspense. But then you have these dreams which are in the center the often end on really tragic notes and it just bring in so much more light. They feel more eerie and you you feel his degree of play going in there and the contrast is wonderful, the way to or coosy handle both styles. It's wonderful and I think it hits something very important there that it keeps reminding you of Evans Missing Childhood, because these dreams really makes you feel what he could have had, of what was taken from him, and it makes the film much stronger than it otherwise would happen. I do think the way Takovsky incorporates these dream sequences or fantasy sequences is very interesting. Right, there's basically no delineation between reality and dreams. As you said. They are shot differently, right, but there's not an obvious points where you go from one to the other. The transition, I think, is quite interesting because Takovski is clearly someone who is fascinated with the world of the mind, I guess, as we see in his later films, and there's something of that already here in how he explores essentially the internal psyche of Ivan, who wants to be who, he laungs for that right, he longs for that childhood he didn't have. I think that's perhaps the most unique part of the film compared to other similar films of the era. I do think it's very well shot. A certainly agree with that, but and most of the films of this era. I mean maybe I haven't seen enough, but it did not seem that exceptional to me, except I think Takovski has a great visual sense. Right, but I agree. I have a childhood. Looks Great. I guess it did not strike me that much compared to other similar films. I mean visuals here definitely be the strongest aspect of a film. There's staggering shots of reflections in mirrors and ripples through water or natural light flickering through trees, and you breathe life into this cold and Harroin tail, as Tarkosky paints a picture of pure poetry amongst the ruin and desolation of this God landscape. I think it's also easy to overlook the incredible performances, as it is the strike an imagery that tends to haunt you the most whilst you're watching this film. There I think it's notable that Nikolai Bill Yayev, who would work with Tarkovsky on his next film, and a rublev, in a stunning sequence involving about that has surprising parallels with their first collaboration. Think that's maybe something we'll get into as we discuss Andrew Rublev, but it's definitely a strong and assured debut feature that it doesn't demand as much from the view as most of Tarkosky's later work, though it is still rife with the symbolism that would come to define the ortis philosophical approach to filmmaking, and it's certainly deserving of its status one of the classic Soviet war films of its area, even though I think that it's not necessarily one of Tarkoski's greatest films, but I do still think that it's a very well made film. Yeah, I'll go just a little jump with a couple things which mature. Third Number One. I do think it is that will shock compeared to other Soviet films of the era. I know there are quite a few, you know, classic Russian films or Soviet films to...

...the S S, but I've also seen a lot of you know more I don't know. Adam from the UK or whatever he he would regard them as terrible. There's a lot of like Russian comedies that I've seen from the S and you know, they don't look at anywhere near you know as studying as Ivan's childhood does. So No, I think it is certainly one of the more unique looking films. I do really like the point, though, that mature made about there's no obvious distinction between dreams and reality in Ivan's child and I think that's one of its yet best features, because it reminds me so much, then, of Solaris, where the characters are stuck between knowing what's real or not knowing what isn't isn't real as go sort of get that same sort of feeling with Ivan's Child. So really reminds me of what I really like the most about Tarkovsky as a director at his peak. I will say that the standard of filmmaking in this Sovid doing then in the one thousand nine hundred and sixty. This was incredibly high, armed the ramatic efforts, especially on war films. I mean we need to remember that you had films like the cranes for flying, but the face soldier told many absolutely bectacularly shot films from this time. But these are also generally regarded to be masterpieces, or close. I wouldn't use that as a negative for Tarkowski. I'man for instance, Mikhail Calotoso, who did the crane, so are flying. I mean he's considered all the most important directors of all time on the back of like four films. So again that I don't think that SARGUMENT. That should be little even childhood, even though I can agree that, if we look at the rest of Tarkowski's work and we look at Evan Childhood, it is clearly the most conventional, if you can use that term for it. Even more so didn't steam roller and the violin. It is more narrative driven. The characters are alive, you focused into their drama there suspends in a lot of ways comes from the direct threat of war and the how these characters respond to it. There's a lot of direct dialog specifically about the plot, rather than time into larger philosophical teams. So in that way it is more of a straight film. But I mean it doesn't really that's not a negative. It is a spectacular war film. Is just not quite what are coolski would do later. Okay, I think I think I need to clarify a bit. I think I did not maybe express myself the best way. It's not that I don't think Ivan's Childhood Looks Great. I think it does. It's a thing my like, I think. I think it's successful and all that. I think it's just I'm trying to understand why I didn't quite have the same reaction to it that's, for example, soldd and I think maybe it's because it's, as you said, because it's a little more conventional, and even if it is quite accomplished visually, I find that it does not offer me something uniquely visually stunning in this and in the way that basically every Takosky film after that does. So I appreciate it as a very well done film and I also think it's the fact that it's has this relative simplicity in what it's saying, which is not a problem, but I think that's why, to me, when I compare it to other works by Takovsky, it feels a little lesser, even though it is a good thim. I I definitely appreciate it and yes, I agree that the fact that there are other very good themes of this time does not diminish it. I agree with that. One thing that I'd like to pick up on is the start contrast between life and death that is portrayed in childhood. There's a scene that really stuck with me, which Mattie I mentioned earlier, which is when the young girl Masher and the soldier in the forest have an encounter and there's this beautile scene where the soldier holds Masher over ditch and the camera work is excellent. Lots of inventive come work for out the film. And then afterwards Masher climbs up a fallen tree as the camera glides alongside it, and that's a repeating motive throughout the film. You know, at the start we have I've been floating through the sky with this clouding camera and I think it's a beautiful touch by Takosky. But getting back to what I said about the start contrast between life and death is that the subsequent scene we see Masha, who's handful and head of the heels, with almost in all consuming lave that makes it dizzy in the trees after this encounter, and then it's just a harsh court to two corpses tied against the tree of assign saying welcome. It's obviously, you know, worn into your soldiers and it's really harsh view of life that Talkovsky shows that,...

...but I think it's an incredibly well done seen and for me those two scenes, the juxtaposition between the two, was one of my favorite moments are in the film. I actually had some problems with those things, especially on the rewatch. So I the first time I saw it, which was like over a decade ago. DDC is probably see absolutely studying and they are still to this day. But I'm not sure if, first of all, I'm not sure a focus saying like a fifteen minute after the film suddenly on the Adult Characters and this love triangle, if you will, between the young officer e Mons, Essential Handler Colin and this girl Musha, is that important to the plot or that interesting for the plot. I'm not really sure why it is necessarily there. I think it takes away tension from even and I suppose it builds up these are the characters a little bit. Or maybe it's just so there's a weird wanting to have a love story or some kind of or a woman character in there to make the feel more bankable it with audiences in some way. But it does to me feels like a diversion, if it's a little bit totally different, because you have this kind of very childish behavior from the young officer where he's clearly really, really jealous, and it's good time withoutimssion earlier that just pointing out how young these some of these people are. But it also felt like it wasn't as serious or as involving as the more devastating portions of the film. At well, the same time, it didn't really elevate it either. And with an addition to that, with twenty first century eyes, that romancing seen if you will, also comes off as pretty extreme sexual harassment. But it's essentially at threatening her, pulling rank, holding her against her will over, you know, a steep gap. It's a bit uncomfortable to watch them. At the end of that. He does censer away. He doesn't do anything that either. who doesn't does alter, but it's it's a very creepy and durving scene and when she runs away you can see that she's actually falling in love, a little bit of getting interested, but up until that point it's a very odd scene. When actually disagree here, Chris, because to me it's clearly is supposed to be harassment. I'm too it's never supposed to be a woman's seen for me and I think it's quite relevant to what the film is doing, because it's the loss of innocence, right, and there's this contrast between Masha, who is very again innocence, and Ivan, who has already lost at all because he's been here, right, and generally the officers are more innocent than he is. I think that is the contrast that Takovsky is drawing and besides, I think that film, that scene in the forest is perhaps the most visually striking to me in the whole film. I mean, there's the stuff later on with the the mission in the swamp that that's also great. I agree that it stands out, but I think it sends out in a way that actually makes the film more interesting to me. And there's even this this whole song which is about Masha right later on. It's not about her, but guess Masha is the name in the song, which is probably also coincidence, and is again about about losing one's innocence. To be definitely fits in the film because it's thematically hammering the same point home. Oh, and I also I'd I'd add that it's a big subject actually, women in the Soviet Army in the in World War II. Write, because no other army had women as integrated and there was whole it's a whole thing, because the reality of it was that there was a lot of harassment, a lot, a lot of rape. I mean it's a big subject that I don't know how where Takovsky was of it. I don't know exactly what the consciousness of it was at the time in the Soviet Union, but maybe he's also kind of obliquely tacking that subject. Well, if he is, I think is undercutting it a little bit by that scene ending with her not necessarily wanting to leave. So I'm still a sure exactly how I feel about that. See, yeah, I guess, I guess I didn't interpret it that way, but I did not interpret it as hurting in love. I don't let no, no, that's not what I got from it, but it's a's for debate. Okay, I can't really bring anything more to the deblate about the martial subplot and whether or not you know it's harassment or falling in love, because that's really the part of a film where I began to Chune out and I notice that the first time there's the second time I really watched the film. You know, that's my least favorite part of either or Evan's childhood, just because the rest of the film is so much said. It is mental head space where he is flipping in and out seamlessly between dreams and nightmares. You sort of got that blurred reality and then the film goes on this entirely different deflection following another character around. Yeah, look at it's the one thing which, you know, makes the film a great film for me rather than an excellent film. It was all about Evan and his experiences are probably right on the same sort of you...

...know, wouldn't be quite so large, probably rank on the same flot of level as stoker and sacrifice for me, but it's from the one thing it keeps a little bit lower for me in my steam. Yeah, but agree with that. I like Stalker far more than you, but it would certainly have mooded up from a great film to my favorite if it dove further into Irun's head space and the leftist diversion on the side. But I take much to US point that it does add things that play with the same kind of subtext and the magic elements. So I can see where Tarkoski was coming from there and and actually the point that it's kind of like this dual focus on much that's innocence versus Ivan's innocense. It's interesting and I think it can work, though obviously Musha is an adult woman in the army, so I would necessarily say the entirely comparable. But, like you, we talked about too that it's just shows how the soldiers, in some way, especially this young officer, maybe even less developed or as even less mature than Ivan. Is something that's interesting to the look at too. So very good points, but you and with that debate out of the weight, let's take a closer look at the ending here, because there's a lot of things that are going on and, as you mentioned, there's this mission to cross the river. The adults and Ivan go over and then we just leave Ivan. He's gone, he disappears. We left with the adults and they're very perilous path of trying to get back to the other side, with a lot of threat out of hiding, a lot of shooting, a lot of suspense, and Ivan is technically not seen again. We get these scenes with the adults and then we cut until after the war. We're in Germany in as they go through a prison, the young officer, now clearly met, cured, or at least broke a bit more broken by the war, complete with the scar, discovers that Ivan was captured and executed. It's a very dark scene. There's a lot of visual imagery there. But from that point we actually cut to Ivan playing games on the beach with his friends. It is this very simple game. It's on the beach, is running into the water actually almost automatically. Visually it's very similar to the steam roller and the Violin's final shot, which is very interesting for it that runs towards this tree, to the kind of end the game, and that's where the field man's and I think you have this play. But I also think that when he runs to the tree that is the meeting point as well, because they mentioned earlier in the film that they own that they're going to meet at a tree and in his division, after his dad, that he has his childhood, he runs an makes it to the tree, which I guess it's meant to be very vocative, and it is. It's very interesting because it's so fantastical, it's so peaceful. I guess it's in many ways just shows the childhood that he could have had if this had not happened. I think it's very strong. It hits quite well. How how did it affect you at it was a powerful ending and it's interesting Chalkosky's choice to not necessarily show the atrocities towards the end. They're all hinted that through the flashbacks and you know, there's the suggestion of these really having experiences were in the prison, but we don't get to see them in depth and I think that the final flashback which, as you mentioned, Chris, it just demonstrates the child up there Ivan should have had. It's fascinating to see. There's lots of unusual monochromatic lighting and I think it's a powerful piece of cinema and it's really brings an end to the film and in a way that stays review and haunts you, because this is getting very interesting, because I only really watched the film about five days ago. But for the reason, parts of the ending of scape me. The most memorabal part for me is the part we's running along and, you know, chasing a girl who's about his age and that just seems, you know, an amazing note to end on, you know, going back to the whole idea of the film being about his lack of childhood and his dreams and is nightmare's or the any parts we can really be like a child. And you know, initially seems like this childhood game of Chase. who was going to go chase after the girl's a guy about his own age or whatever. So maybe there's even something, you know, pre romantic about it. But it actually goes past it actually ends up running past the girl and into the ocean. And maybe it's me misinterpreting it. Maybe the game was who gets the ocean first. But the way the whole scene is cut together, it's cut as him chasing her, so shoes running, then he is running, she's running, he is running to its kind of team chase, sing after and it's sort...

...of why where? We think, you know, that he's got, you know, sort of like normal childhood there where or normal child or ideas about wanting to run and play with girls. But actually, no, it's not. And that sort of the thing where he goes the ocean for your sort like that. Well, but we go no, you know, he's not a normal child or whatever, not after all these wartime experiences. He's not going to be able to go out again and just play with girls his own age. That's a that's a good take. So I quite like that. I think it's actually not worthy that, unless I'm mistaken, and May I guess, aside from the sacrifice, we never see the ocean in Takofsky's films. I could be long, but so far, as much as he loves water, he doesn't shoot the ocean that much. The ocean is are often used to represents, you know, death or eternity, and so I think your interpretation so on makes sense. Whet, he's running towards death essentially. Yeah, I think think that's that's a very good read. And obviously it's the same girl, at least I believe it's the same girl he's chasing after, that lost on the apple cart with him. So so this is clearly someone that he knew in real life and had some connection to. So, whether or not it's a flashback or whether or not that is another vision of some sort, I didn't actually consider to be a flashback. I thought it was more symbolism of lot he'll now never have, but it could actually be a flashback as well. I think it's very beautiful the way when he runs after his really overtakes her and it just continues into the ocean without her, and it could have ended there and there to this disapeine years into ocean, this stead but then he runs back and it touches the tree, you know, completing the game in a way, and I supposed also ties into how you just doing. Didn't complete his final mission, and it's interesting that you can, when you can play an ending that's some ways untaken. On his own, is very happy and free, but obviously in the context of the fact all of the torture instrument we saw in the previous see in the fact that you know, we we know he has been killed by the Nazis. We know that this entire child it was destroyed. I think it's just so harrowing and I think it's a very good choice by Tarkowski to end it on that note. I think it's also interesting that this is obviously his last child protagonist. I think we can move on to and ray ruble from here, because you can have a lot to discuss about Andrew Ruble, but these two films are even these first or films, the film to include a shortness TV movie. They are not necessarily what we would come to know Tarkowski for. I mean that's you discuss early. This is a really Tarkos to working within the Soviet system, showing what they can do, with Ivan childhood being the proper big break true. We showed everyone that he was a master at his craft. And as soon as that happens, you know he leaves this child protagonists behind. I don't think it's a really interested in childhood because children never really aside from flashbacks or memories or visions or the small big character, children never really play a big role in Arcos keys later films in in the way that they do here. And he would also move further and further away from more traditional plots. And I think most people agree that Andre Rupelev is well, it's just known that it's first true passion project. This is a film he really thought to have made. It is at three hour long epic showing the life and times of Andrei Rublev, a thirty the fourteen century Russian monk and iconographer. He's now venerated as a saint, but he that had not yet happened at this point in time and Turkleski really just went all out of this symbolism here. She no longer let leaned into Soviet propaganda. This is him for more and it's what the one of the things he himself said about it, which is that he wanted to contemplate Christianity and Russia. It's joint history. Even said that, you know, this was a way of looking at Christian Tis an axiom of Russia in a way just show how intertwined the histories are. But at least to me that history is not really shown in an overly nice way. There's a lot of darkness there. That's all of hypocrasy. It's a series of long segments, many of them, and in fairly horrowing way, as we see ruble both as a man, as an artist, and as someone perhaps a little bit more transcendental towards the end. There's something more than a character. In some ways it's a visually spectacular film. It's a film there colty clearly poured so much of his heart and soul into, but it's also a film where we have a complete clash. So...

...we have mature and Tom Holding it up as their favorite Tarkovski, we have saul who is just not that impressed, and then you have me, was actually somewhere in between. I think it's a great film, but I don't actually think it's one of their col skis through stand out films. So I suppose we can pick up this debate very left off and we can start with you tom then go to mature and had just how you guys tell us why this is your all time favorite Tarkowski film. Andre Rue, life is without it out talkoffs these masterpiece. Now, although it's three hours long, it's not an intimidating film because it's broken up into distinct chapters which tell the incredible story of Rub life through various parts of his life. I think it's interesting to note that when I rewatch a film for the PODCAST, I usually take notes to help me out. When we're doing these recording sessions now and evens childhood, I wrote a couple of pages of notes and a Rubife, I didn't write any notes because, although I've seen the film before, I was just that engrossed in what was going on. I didn't touch propelling paper. I was just happy to get lost in this chaotic poetry that Tarkovsky represents to us. It's a really savage and bleak depiction of fifteen century Russia. The violence is all too real and, Saraal it's framed with within Tarkovsky's beautiful eye for exquisite cinematography, and he captures the savagery in a way that leaves you shaken to the core, particularly in scenes where troop of stone carvers are blinded. And then there's an unsettling torture sequence in which malten metal is poured into a man's throat, and these are harrowing, disturbing scenes that really stay with you. I won't go into the overarching themes of the film, but they're also excellent. I'll there let mattio explain why he loves it as well and then we'll get into that bit. Fever on. Well, it's funny that you mentioned the notes term, because I usually don't take notes, but I did preparing for this podcast and, contrary to you, I took like two pages of note on the whole life and much less for the other ones. Be Guess it's an't that is so rich. There's a lot to say about it, but I think to me the reason why it stands out so much weight to my favorite Akofsky and one of my favorite films of all time time is. You said it's divided into various spots Tom and I think it's like eleven parts in totally, if you count prolog and epidog. To me it's really two parts, right. There's the past, are focused on, on the WHO left, and there's the church better sequence, which is my genuinely be my favorite forty five or fifty minutes of cinema ever. With that's sequence, you really is reaching something transcendental for me, something that is touching, at the core of what Takovsky wants to do in all of his films, which is to really elevate the human spirit, right to kind of what elevate maybe not the right word, but to find, yeah, to find the transcendental in here the human experience, and I think with that moment, with that feat of making that bell, he finds it. And it's also a great metaphor for making a film which I did not clock the first time I watched it, but we watching it now it seems so obvious. Right. It is this huge endeavor where you don't really know what you're doing at first and it involves so many people and so many steps and right until the end you're not quite sure if it would work right that this whole thing about the your finished the clock, but it has to ring right you. You can't know if it works before you hear it wing, and that's kind of like before you've projected the film right you, or maybe before you don't do editing, I don't know. It's so rich and it's the whole film is really embodying Takovsky's ethos, which is this idea of talents, this idea of, I guess, what you're born to do. Of To him, Takosky clearly is a very spiritually, even religious man and for him, on knowing God is to fulfill what you're put on earth to do what, in a sense, and that's what you see. You see what the difficulty of that is in that film and how it is the ultimate reward what and I think that's a very powerful idea, whether or not you are religious, whether or not you believe, you know, in anything metaphysical. I think it's an extremely powerful idea and the way Takovsky puts in on screen, especially in that bead sequence, but the whole film is magnificent to me. It's one of the most popful moments yet ever. And then there's that ending, which is clearly for Takovsky, the absolute emination of the film. Little less so for me, but it still works and it's it has that mystery of Takovsky because of the way it ends. Right at first you get these icons of Andre whope left and clearly its supposed to be our with this was his life's work. It's presented very piemphally and then the music fades out and it starts to be this sounds of nature and you get this final image which I still can't explain.

I'm would be very interested to know if you guys have ideas this image of these horses just eating grass. I guess so. To me it's both a very well mastered film right where where Tarkovsky has this his ideas and he's expressing them to me in a very clear manner. It also has that mystery that his later films have a lot of, with that scene and with a few other ones. So yeah, that's why, for me it's his best term, and I'll tear a little bit from the opposition there's. So why is this one of the lesser the course gifts for you. Yeah, I just realize I'm not going to make any friends with this podcast. What can you do? Look at all I can do is good. My honest impression of what the film was like and might be one of those films where maybe if I had seen it twenty years ago when I first got into cinema, it might have made more of an pressure with me. If I hadn't watched the Laris seven times before sitting down to watch this, maybe I wouldn't have that to mensically compare it to. But if I thought, I'd first start off by sharing an email exchange I have with a friend. After he saw my letterbox dream that I'd finally watched Andrei Rublev and he's written out yet to see it myself, not only because it looks so boring, but because of the animal cruelty, which you know I can't stomach. And my reply to that not about the animal crulty, because I'm sure get into that later some. I reply to him was yes, Andre is fairly boring, but cinematically more so than an as a narrative. I'm sorry, no, it's controversial, but how somebody goes from something as dreamy as Ivan? We're half the film is spent in his dreams and nightmares, to something as relatively straightforward as Andre and then back to something as dreamy as Solaris. Oh well, so that's what I wrote in the email and I guess I just want to expand that a little bit. I guess, even though it is broke it up into eight chapters, I guess I find the basic narrative of and Joe Rublev to be fairly conventional. I mean, I know it's not, why a biopick as such, because it deviates a bit from the facts and I appeal describe as more of an epic than a biopic, but you know, it is basically a live story film, especially with it compared to something like Ivan's Childhood, which gets so lost in his dreams and nightmares that we don't even know what to make that final sequence. We's running it, and you get something like Solaris, where the characters can't even trucolate's going through their minds, and then you've got this rather even if it does look quite stunning at times, it's just as a narrative, it's just doesn't really do anything to elevate the medium for me. I mean, like Solaris is just such a crazy, out there narrative. Ivan's childhood again, the same thing over there, stuck between dreams and nightmares, and then you get this more conventional film. At least for me it's a bit more conventional in between. But you know, not to half on too much about the negatives. I do agree with time about the visceral violence. It's obviously one of the most striking elements of the film. I'm not going to go into the animal cruel because we'll get to that later on, I'm sure, but you're just some of the violent stuff and they had some of the pagan rituals and you know, they've got the crucifixionary in argument. That's all showing grizzly detail and that was like really awesome and I was probably a part of the film where I was most in gage and I guess is subsequence you know, decide to take a vow silence. That was quite engaging for me. The first nineteen minutes of the film they were a much more uneven ride for me. I couldn't really work out exactly where I was going on and I was a very captivated I was at first because opens with this amazing hot air balloon rise, which is so very ristically shot as the hot balloon goes up in the air and I thought this is breathtaking. And then it becomes, you know, two more standard following Andre along until it gets to the point there were actually I makes that vow silence. I'd agree with mature that the bell see, which is striking, and I think the metaphor that he's come up with comparing it to making a film and every even throw ow that that's brilliant. I think, yeah, that does really work as a metaphor there, and it is a really interesting sequence. Is probably what's of the sequence that has the best photography. Beyond the hot air balloon sequence, you've actually got these great crane shots or the cameras going up in the air and pulling away from a distance, and that's the closest the film comes to mimit mimicking the shots at Ivan's childer, which I liked so much. But I guess maybe the clincher for me is I'm not a religious person and I guess viewing it as somebody who could say the seals agnostic or just doesn't have religion as part of their life, I guess the whole faith story of Andrei Rub left just didn't do much to resonate for me. So I guess it's a car a nation of the prayer relegious.

After combination of the fact that it's more of a biography rather a dream nightmare thing or cantrust reality thing, it's just less of an enticing narrative for me. But you know, look, after twenty years of being a Sinophon, I guess it is always interesting to sit down and watch one of these major films and actually have my own opinion on it that out. Yeah, that was an interesting take and I love that you ended that with the compliment for my too as well, just to ease those punches, and I will start by saying I completely agree. I had. I also never thought of the bell as a metaphor or some kind of reference to filmmaking itself. So that's a very interesting read and one that's certainly works, as I'm somewhere in between you guys do. I still think it's a great film, so I guess I'm closer to Tom and that you, even though it's just so far away from Darker Mirror to the Ares, etc. that it that distance feels very big. I just I just can't understand how Andrey ruble could be described as more conventional because if anything, it is well anything but that, like you mentioned. So you start off with this really immersive, very confusing as well, prolog which can only really have thematic references to the rest of his film. It's doesn't involve Andrey it it's about this glorious light in the air and conquering in the ear and perhaps also failing at it's dundingly shot film. The camera work is is amazing and then, once that is done right, it does become more calm, but I don't think that the kind of episodes they start to get are in any way normative. I mean the first episode are literally just these three months walking through the rain, taking shelter, watching this play and in one of them, being implied to it the report report the person for blasphemy and then having him taken away. It's just these monks is coming in, sitting watching and then an engagement of violence comes in. And in so much of this work, despite the film being called and they ruble, Andrey is just watching. He is very rarely the driving force. Things are happening around him. And these things can be done in either very quiet scenes like that first real episode, or it can be all out wistral extion of a gun sat like in the Pagan scene where you have the dancing and the chase, in the massive raid sequence which is so thoroughly violent and the of truly epic proportions. And the film feels very varied. It feels like it is really trying to cover so much of Russia's history rather than Rup love himself, and also interplay these religious elements that you mentioned, soul, and I really agree. I think people who are not religious may take slightly less away from this work simply because of all of the religious gravitas and implications from the ending that I think we talked about much later, but but wish clearly could have much higher resonance with people of the Christian religion. But it is just such an large epic with truly varied visuals, going from this for quiet, serene moments to all out battles, if you will, and I just I could never consider this film conventional. It just seems to break almost any conventional narrative strength just by its episodic nature where it's protagonist is farmer, often just an observer than did this active force driving the plot forward. I will say unlike automo mature, it's probably the Tarekoski films that loses my attention the most. Not a lot, but it feels like some of these scenes perhaps go on a little bit longer than the true tabor. It doesn't feel as tight as some of his later work, but it is a great effort and it's just such a spectacularly impressive work. I just how jumping in clarify, maybe I didn't make it clear before. It's not so much that I can said Andrea Rube love to be a conventional film. I just considered to be conventional by comparison. See, you've got Ivan's Childhood, which is going out between dreams, nightmares and reality with it or getting very blurry, and then you've got sto large and the other style, which is again very blurry between what is real and what's not real, and then you've got this film wedged in between, which for me is conventional by comparison. So I agree the chapter structure and everything. It's not entirely conventional. It's not like the average...

...biopic, but still it's not quite the reality mind bender for me that Ivan's Childhood and so Laris both are in different ways and not to be in negatives, going to end up with a little bit of a joke or something that's going to mintionable, but I forgot him. So that metaphor about the bell sequence and about the bell being like constructing a film, it's really great one and the whole idea that maybe you know this is what how Taikovsky feels, that creating this film is like creating the spell. That's awesome and I'm warning all, if he's also got the sphere, that he would end up being beheaded if he doesn't actually successfully complete the film. I guess O, how I'll pass onto somebody else now. Well, I mean given how the so your union worked. I mean that's not a newlistic fee. I mean not not literally be headed right, but not being able to work anyway. That actually leads into what I was going to say about the film. Quite nicely but feral. I just wanted to touch upon the pure wonder of the first scene that both soul and Chris mentioned. I think I remember the first time I've watched Andrew Rublev I was just totally transfixed and enchanted by this scene. It's just incredible. There the camera work on it is amazing and it really brings you into this strange historical world. You know, we get to see this man who invite invents a flying machine and potentially he's being scorned and chased by lots of people who, I imagine, they're thinking it's witchcraft. And this ties into the overarching themes of the film and why it's such an important opener for the film, because Andrew Rublev is about people who dedicate their lives to their craft and the tragic told that this can take upon them if their work perhaps isn't appreciated or isn't appreciated during their lifetime, and this marriages up with souls do because, you know, perhaps this plays into Tarkosky's own fears of how his work is going to be appreciated and also plays into the idea of of censorship of art, which is something that happened with this film as well. Now it's interesting that, as well as this man who invents a fly machine, later on you've got the young man who is charged with creating a huge ball and he faces certain death if it is not completed. To the expected standard. Then, of course you've got Andrew Rublev, the infamous iconographer, who is so dist wrought when his work is destroyed during the raid, which is this breathtaking battle sequence which culminates in a devastated sequence when a beautiful church is completely ravaged and destroyed, and he takes of our silence because of this. And I just think it's a beautiful piece of cinema. It's an astonishing work and every time I watch it I just get completely lost within and transported to this area in history that feels so alive. And Yeah, I think that's why it's a masterpiece for me. A lot to respond to, I guess. Regarding the the conventional, the notion that hoopleft is conventional, I do think it's more conventional than Takoski's later works. I can see that. I don't think it's more conventional than Ivan's Childhood. Definitely not. Yes, Ivan's childhood has this real sequences. But on the whole, Blafe, I mean in, starts with this hot air balloon sequence which is not connected to anything, and at one point that a third of the film is dedicated to character we've never met before doing something that has nothing to do with anything in terms of narrative with the church beld sequence. So I don't know. And and end in terms of being visually less interesting. I strongly, strongly disagree. You guys obviously mentioned the more impressive sequences, as a sout said, right the but the opening sequence and the church beld sequence have the impressive shots. It's also shot in white screen, which I personally tend to prefer. But yeah, a great shots throughout the film during the the Pagan thing, the end of that, right, is this this woman who saved him under who left, is fleeing from soldiers who want to capture her, right, and she is crossing this river. She's swimming and she swims right by on her who left on his boats and he's just watching helplessly, right. He doesn't help her. He's feeling guilty, and this shot is magnificent. You you, you follow her, just as you change focus from her to him and then back to her, and it's full of great shots like that. In the first sequence also, you have these shots from inside the shack where there's all getting shelter from the rain and you see if there's, I guess, an opening in the shock where you see the CEI yeah, there are shots of horses that are beautiful. I don't know, I think. I think it's a him that is gorgeous throughout. Yeah, I'm surprised that you would say it's less visually interesting. I I strongly disagree with that. Regarding the religious aspect, personally I'm also an agnostic. I guess I...

...was waste Catholics, or maybe I have more of a connection, but I think it's more question of spirituality, of finding your place in the world, of knowing what's you're here to do, of giving a meaning to your life. Right, and maybe people can respond to that or not right, but clearly the whole fame is about these people who find something to do that is elevating them in some way. I mean literally, with the guy with the hot air balloon at the start. But you've got the jester who is entertaining the people who we meet again at the end. We've got to use the all of the artists and what's Tom talked about, I think, well, about the relationship between the artists and the people who, who, I guess, make his work possible. What both with the whole thing about the whop lift going to another place, having to have a master and having to compromise in some ways, then losing his faith, and I mean it's really explores essentially how you find meaning of your life, which I think is not an ID that is exclusively religious. I think it can speak to many people who don't have a redigious faith. Yeah, I'm sorry we can't agree on the visuals of Ando rubbler. I guess, you know, it's just again for me just the comparison and I guess maybe having Ivan's Childhood fresh and mind, I guess just absolutely love the nightmare dream sequences in Ivan's Childhood and you know, other than those like crane ones, are the ones that come up, you know, up into the sky where it pulls back the visuals. For me, I don't know. I mean the camera does move around a bit, which is nice, but a lot of it is just shot in medium shot and I guess maybe I don't know for just clearly type of sequences it in quite stand out to me the way that sometimes in Ivan's child I'm like wow, this is really a really gripping nightmare that when the middle of. So Yeah, look, I don't know. It's not a visually boring film. As such, but it's just one where a lot of it really just felt just me just looking at filmed actions, aside from those, you know, striking parts or whatever. But even you're the first one with the other balloon, hot air balloon going through the sky, which probably my favorite part of the entire film. Even that's actually very similar to was already done the beginning of Ivan's Childhood, where Ivan is imagining himself going through the sky. It's not quite the same thing, but it is really interesting that both films begin with a similar shot or similar sort of sequence, and I guess I was charter as my favorite of those two sequences, but it actually is interesting else similar puts films are, at least on how they begin. I'm not sure if we've mentioned the length of the shots in Andrew Rublev yet, because that is one of the things that works really well for me, because Tarkovsk you've got these huge epic action sequences with Brilliant Room in view of the action and they go on for quite some time, and that to me is really impressive. The amount of work it must have taken to coordinate everything, particularly in the the bill sequence at the end. It's really impressive when you consider all the actors involved and all the stuff that's going on in the background, because you've got like these I think it's like the castle walls and you can see people wandering around around them far away and it really just brings the whole story to life for me. And one thing that I didn't notice on face viewing in the film, because I think I saw Andrew Rublev and Adams childhood with quite some time between them initially, but rewatching them within the same week, I obviously realized that the active played Ivan in Ivan's childhood is the same who plays the man who is constructing the bowl and Andre Real live and it really struck me that there's a scene in Ivan's childhood where Ivan raises about in this tissue is building and rings it and it's just a nice little touch that to cost gears then combat this idea and his next film. Whether it was planned or unplanned, who knows, but I just found it a really nice little link between the two films. Yeah, I noted the bell to in Ivan's Childhood. They are definitely a few echoes throughout his filmography. So I mentioned a similar first scenes right in Ivan's Childhood and in Onoy Hood Left. You also have a shot here which is a shot that maybe in inocuous, and remember which section it is, but he's shooting just plants in the river which are kind of flowing with the river, and it's a shot that's almost identical to a shot in sais which I know I remember very well from Surahs. I don't know. I find it a mobal shot. It's arguably better in color, but it's a very fair similar shots as I think in Ivan Childhood. You also see some icons which I guess made me thought of this and obviously in his later films he comes back to Johandre, who blefs a few times. Yeah, I think that's a really great point and will things. I was thought in here was that a lot of the techniques he would use later this career if finally showing up. Like you mentioned that it's been shooting water before, but this is really literally see true textures at variables in...

...the water. That way he captures home and shoots things that are at the bottom of the river. It's just visually spectacular. This is also where you see, you know, how he will added dust or things floating in the air. A lot of the techniques that it essentially will follow through his entire career are done for the first time right here and the it is just beautiful to just see the origin of it all the right doesn't there's that scene with the snow in the church. I mean, come on, son, what more you need? He Look, I'm sorry, I know it's one of your favorite films. Yeah, I don't know, I'm just giving you honest reaction to it. And, as I said before starting, I was talking about you know, I've seen this film after twenty years of being a cinephile. I've seen this film after watching solar seven times, talk of three times. I have a childhood twice or whatever. So I'm coming at it from a different angle, I guess. Coming from different angle with that sort of baggage. Yeah, obviously I'm going to look for the sort of ques in an earlier work by am and if I can't find those cues, then yeah, I think it's true inevitable that it's going to you know, bought me to react in a different way. I think that's a good point in the way because under it is probably the calmest office films. I mean this is actually one of the ways it is the most unique work it then, because this more transcendentally, is more about what's going on in the subtext and well and raised observing, or the just the fact he is observing rather than participating in all of the questions the audience is left with because of that, because it is a film that asks a lot of questions of the audience and have a give some loots to ponder on in terms of at the events and their relationship between the Shurch and the state and these people living in these times. But it is even with this, no big battle sequences or the sudden violence. There's a film that is in many ways very calm and serene. It takes its time, and stoker obviously does that as well. Many of his films have long sequences, but these films, like you mentioned, Sol they tie in with something more overworkly magical or suspenseful, and Andre Rublood doesn't do that. It's in that way it's a bit of an oddity in intercostals first. I think that might also be why it is so important to thom and mat you in particular, why it's this is the one that stands up, because it does something that none of Tarkowski's other films really did that. I do think, like when you mentioned, there's just so much to dive into her discuss that. I think we've been talking for about this film for over half an hour, maybe not very edit is down a little bit and you listen to it, but I think we've been definitely talking about it. Actually, I'm looking at the clock. I think we're talking about it for about forty minutes at this point and we haven't you've been diving into most of these sections or most of the situations and how ruble delt with it or how we're left to respond to it, and I think that just speaks so much to the richness of Andrey ruble. Yeah, it's an epic. I mean that's how I would describe it's right, which is definitely not something we can say about his later films, which typically I love as when you write that stalk on sort of he said, are much more internal, even though this obviously is asking many in tonal questions. That is this grand spectacle to its where are these sequences with those horses and of the church sequence? It has a billion extras. Yeah, it's definitely has this decade of Grand Spectacle which is not in any other attack. After what's quite interesting is that while obviously the most common a tract, when you go out and you read letter box and whatever, the most common thing which is said negatively about Andro rublerv is that it's boring. And well, I don't think it really was boring, getting quite engage with the same way as Ta Cox is other films did. But the second most common complaint is about the animal violence. Now, for me, as a film go I guess I always have a very I don't know. I don't know if it's say, emotionally withdrawn or whatever, but I always got a very discipline way of looking at it when I see animal violence on screen. I don't, you know, mentally process or was this animal really heard or was it just made to look like was hurt for the sake of filmmaking? But I know there's a lot of people out there who do research and to it they find out whether animals a really killed or not. And a lot of the negatives for Andre Rube level on that a box beyond the epic length and being boring. In verticom is is complex about the animal violence. So look, for me it wasn't really an issue because for me, I guess they're like what happens to like the horse when like it falls down or whatever? Those were the parts that stood out the most to me. But I'm just wondering for any of the three of you whether you've had issues with the animal violence in the film. I guess I'm like hues on in that when I watch a film I don't tend to think too much about how it was done. It's not just a question of Ad Mother violence. It's just generally right and I'm generally into the fim into the reality of the film. I don't think about it that much and so I definitely did not...

...even notice anything the first time I watched it, and this time I knew there was those some planes, and I guess I don't see that much of it now. There are two different cuts of on the hoop left and I watched the short o one. She's just around three hours as opposed to three hours and twenty minutes, so that it has more I guess I see there's a horse following down at one point and maybe it was hurt. I was dumb defend and reculgy if there was any whichure. It looks like there was, but I guess it doesn't really affect me in terms of watching the film. So I don't have much more to add on that. I think I'm in a similar position to Mattheo. For Sae, I don't condone animal violence and it is a sensitive subject and quite a delicate matter. But when I watched films, are shy and, you know, focusing on the film for what it is and try not think outside of how that imagery was made. So to me it didn't really have a huge impact on the film, but I can say you understand why would detract from ultim joining it to the film. Yeah, I think have a similar outlook on it, though there knowing that the horse falling out those stairs was like, it was quite clear that that horse was really hurt and I think it was killed. That is obviously I'm not sure if that scene was really needed either, but I think, you know, terms of ruling the film, for me it certainly didn't. I think it's it would be happy with it being cut or since happened, it is still there's part of its history. Perhaps not, but it did rud the film for me and going from that, perhaps important topic to a slightly more conventional one for us and leading us to watch the very end of our episode. That's just quickly go into the end of and Ray Rublev. Yeah, I also noticed not got the request from Saldier to use specific line which fit with what it is said. So he's say speaking of ruining the film, now we will ruin the ending, which is just a perfect way to lead us into this boiler section. Spoiler warning. But there's a lot of pack cares. Obviously there is the final shot itself where the tires the signs up, but the final small epilog itself, where the entire film has been in black and white so far, but then, as our oral story ends, were cut too and Ray rublevs art and it's in color and you get to experience them fully and it's such a contrast to the rest of the film. But I think the PROHAP more interesting thing to dive into a this guess, is the ending of the final chapter where for this young bell maker for the last forty minutes or so, it's a very long section. You seen him be so a sure of himself telling everybody how to make this spelt but once it comes together he's suddenly breaks down in tears. Throughout all of this, and a ruble has been watching him very quietly, and as the bell is revealed, it's beautiful somehow. After everything seems so imperfect, it just as he said. He breaks down in Andrey Rublev's arms in tears and he confesses that he lied. He was so starving that he took on this job at the peril of death, pretending that his father, who was a master bell maker, had passed down the secret, which he had not. He was sure this would end with his death. But the bell is perfect and I think, as is my reading of this, is that there's a very strong implication on the part of Darkowski that the miracle has occurred here, that and a ruble, who is now a venery to Saint, made this miracle come true, that the bell worked and save this boy's life, and that we, as the audiences, are meant to feel, or at least contemplate this possibility and feel a sense of awe. And I think, tying in with what we discussed a little bit earlier, this is possibly where people are religious, or perhaps have a religious upbringing, and people who don't make clash slightly because, unlike his later films, which do dive into faith but then more on the psychological level of what it means to do the victual characters, here in this moment I think the emphasis is also more on what the audience takes away from it. But I would really love to hear your thoughts on it. That's an interesting take, Chris. I did not interpret it that way. I don't know if that COS key would. He believes in miracles. He has a story about making on the hoop left, where he said he had lost the script. Of on the hoop left the whole script and there was no other copy and twenty minutes later he lost it in the street to it and twenty minutes later a tax he pulled up and gave him the script back. But he does not describe that as a miracle. He's just like wow, that's amazing. So I did not interpret it that way. I just interpreted it. As you know, hoo bless faith in the possibility for humanity to do something great has been restored by by what happened, because he lost it earlier, because of his own failings and because of the...

...brutality and the violence he has witnessed but I guess I just saw it as something more, don't earth than that's but it's definitely an interesting interpretation. I also didn't interpret it is a miracle, but it is quite a nice possibility to think that rubus presence had some grand implication for the construction of this ball. I'm much more larned with Mattheo's relation of events, whereby it's just chance that the ball waker has managed to pull off this grand feet of constructing a bow when he when he hadn't been passed down the information promise father before him, and that action, the fact that it comes together, restores rublevs faith and humanity, and I think it's a beautiful scene between Andrey Rublev and the young bell maker. It's a great note to end the film on, and they also think the subsequent scenes where we changed to call and we get to see all the imagery that we have actually created. It's just a nice touch to end the film in a way that it allows the audience to contemplate what was happened before him, to just, you know, bask in this beautiful imagery and just kind of digest what you've just seen and think about it in some way, and then with the final images of the horses and kind of struggle to interpret really what Tarkovsky was was going for for them. Now I think a read on line something about Tarkosky saying that the horse is a symbolic image or a synonym for life and that's how he interprets it, but it doesn't really come across clearly like that. So I'm not sure if that's entirely successful those final images, but for me overall it's still consider the film to be his masterpiece and, as we mentioned before, quite a transcendental piece of filmmaking. Just we are going into a bigger miracle. Actually. Think what I would say is maybe M it's Providence. Why there's this idea of again, what's your bond to do right, of what's your punsion in this world? has is what you meaning of your life is, and maybe it's more like the Ben Maker found the meaning of his life, which is making a Ben, even though he didn't know exactly how to do it, which is kind of me like an aspect. It's that difference. Like my other cohosts, I didn't take Chriss's interpretation island, but I do like it about it being, you know, a miracle, I guess, seeing a miracle restoring our rublevs faith. In terms of the actual ending, I think that ending with the guy breaking down in and raise hands is quite pot and I guess the subsequent part that doesn't quite do so much for me. I mean is interesting seeing all his paintings, but we're seeing all of them in like degraded so I not in really, you know, good light condition. So I don't know. This sort of me let me go. But then again, I guess, you know, it's sort of shows, you know, maybe history hasn't been kind to maybe that these are artworks this create hasn't been restored. But Anyway, that left me questioning that choice, especially because it's like a five minute sequence. I did really atly spent that long in it. And then we get the horses there, which just feel a bit round. But I guess to me between you know, I was already mentioned with the I'm hot air balloon, a lot of the film thought a bit round and to me so I guess I overall, did it really, you know, stand out of so much of a negative for me? Yeah, absolutely, with all the food that the horses feel a bit off. I also did the research online and that's what I found as well. So I I can see the reason it was included and it doesn't hurt to film anyway, but it's a bit of an odd note to when it on. I would actually said this, though. I think that matures interpretation here is fantastic and next time I rewatch Andrew Rubleo, I will definitely be watching it with that in mind to see if it worsion we're reading of and raise faith in humanity being in store arrestored, rather than something more theological. so that is absolutely fantastic. And also I really love that your interpretations, Tom and mature, of the film being about human craft and people making something of their lives and creating something from scratch, be at the hot air balloon or indeed a beautiful, stunning bell, because that is also such a great metaphor to looking into, your metaphor about filmmaking, for Andre Tarkowski's career and the kind of madge shake and purpose he managed to bring out there, and that's also just such a lovely note to end the entire episode on. That and the Ripley in so many ways to show us, along with the Ivan Childhood and the same roller and the violin what and rater Costki was capable of, and we can promise you we will get back to other Tarkowski films later. We have more episode planned. We also already discussed so they are is in quite a bit of detail. The grand that was in a versus episode. So you can go back and you can find two thousand and one versus solly is in a epic...

...ti fi space exulation show down. A highly recommend that you listen to it and, as always, thank you so much for listening. Join US again soon. You have been listening to talking images, official PODCAST OF ICM FORUMSCOM.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (58)