The scene may only serve as a metaphor in relation to the mystical undercurrent that flows throughout the film, in that each of us can find momentary happiness in the simplest of things, just before we have to pay for them. This theme in a way relates to the Shelagh Delaney’s play “A Taste of Honey” and the similarity in their naturalistic styles is also noteworthy.
The main thematic concern of the movie seems to be that of art and the question of good and evil. The protagonist, Andrei is a monk artist who struggles to find meaning in both his Christian Orthodox faith and his religious art. Historically , the environmental turmoil represented by the hedonistic peasants, pagan rituals and Tatar invasions serve as a metaphor for his own ambivalence and spiritual bankruptcy. Andrei begins as an “outsider”, that is to say that he doesn’t involve himself in the matters of others, for example at the start of the film when the Tatars take away the village entertainer and break his instrument, Andrei only watches them and leaves. In a way, his main purpose for the first half of the film is to guide the audience and allow them to absorb the information needed to understand the specifics of life at that time and eventually to use his background knowledge to understand Andrei’s character and belief which are only revealed in the later parts of the film.
The themes of control, censorship and negative authority over the peasants by the Tatars may in an indirect sense reflect Tarkovsky’s own experiences for the struggle of free art and the right to express his opinions during the Soviet times. In much the same way that George Orwell expressed his views on communism in the novel “Animal Farm” Tarkovsky deplores the existence of totalitarian control in Russia, through showing the negative power which the Tatars exercise over the poor peasants.
Cinematically, Tarkovsky employs extraordinarily long shots, together with continuous editing to create smooth running sequences. The aim of this technique is to make the audience feel as if they are simply observing the events taking place on-screen rather than participating in the action. This distances the audience from becoming emotionally attached to specific characters and leaves them rather to analyse and understand the message which the director is trying to convey. As in Brecht’s theatre, Tarkovsky’s cinema attempts to educate and enlighten its audience rather than trying to shock them or appeal to their more primitive senses of sentimentality or humour.
The cinematography used in Andrei Rublev is also very distinctive to Tarkovsky’s work. The camera usually follows one character at a time, revealing the events through him. Point of view shots are also frequently employed to show the world through certain
character’s own eyes, for example through that of the flying peasant at the very beginning of the film.
Another formal concern adopted by Tarkovsky is the use of framing. For example, very early on in the film, in the scene where the peasants are being entertained by the dancing, singing man, the brick hole in the wall of the building in which they are sitting, represents a divide between their inner, happy careless world and the outer glum, repressed society. The women, peering into the holes observing the reckless fun, which the men are indulging in, shows how they are excluded from these moments of pleasure adding a possibly sexist message to Tarkovsky’s film “Andrei Rublev”. The door of the building also serves as a framing device, in a meaning identical to that of the hole. For example, the Tatars intrusion into the peasant’s happy lives takes place through the borders of the door frame, and when the entertainer is commanded to go with the Tatars, he is only beaten and harassed after he steps out of the door. The same rule applies to the instrument, which the Tatar only breaks outside of the building. All these events of contrasting natures taking place inside and outside of the building are observed through the framing of the door.