A few notes on Tarkovsky's "The Sacrifice"

In times of apocalyptical thinking thanks to the current coronavirus crisis, it is perhaps an interesting idea to watch films dealing with the end of the world or similar themes, if only to feel mentally prepared in case it really happens. 

A few days ago I watched “The Sacrifice” by Tarkovsky, fully, for the first time (I had watched part of the film before but not the complete movie).

While I can’t say that I like it as much as I like “The Mirror” (my favourite by far among Tarkovsky’s films) or “Solaris” (my second favourite), I enjoyed it more than I expected.

Some seem to be confused by the movie, especially by its apparent mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs, its references to Bergman, and its location in Sweden.

I think this essay by Elena Dulgheru explains it better than most.

One of the problems of the film, at least for me, is that it was shot in Sweden. It feels a bit artificial. I think it would make more sense and perhaps be a better film if it was made in Russia, as originally planned. Of course, it was impossible because Tarkovsky was in exile and could not go back to the USSR.

But because it was shot in Sweden, and there is an obvious connection with his beloved Bergman, including the use of famous technicians and actors who worked with the Swedish director, and even the location (close or similar to Farö), people see many things in the film that are not necessarily meant to be there.  

On the other hand, one of the reasons behind the film is exactly the director's forced exile, and the distance it created between him and his son, who remained in the Soviet Union; the film, clearly concerned with paternity, is dedicated to him.

(Ok, after this, there may be some spoilers, so you can click on Read More to continue)

One of the main questions of the film is related to a subplot in which the main character, in order to "save the world" from nuclear annihilation, first prays to God and promises a personal sacrifice, but afterwards, in what some interpret as a secondary deal with pagan forces "just in case", he has sex with Maria, a "witch", who supposedly has the power to turn back time and make things normal again. 

Let's put things in perspective. If anything, she is not a pagan witch, but a Christian woman, as it is pretty clear from the objects and pictures that are displayed in her house, including a pretty large cross. In the essay I mentioned above, she is compared to a grown up version of the little girl who also performs a type of miracle at the end of “Stalker”. And it is true: she has the same covered hair, the unusual face, the "paranormal" powers.

But also Maria, with that name, can only be related to the Virgin Mary, or if not to other biblical Marias (Mary Magdalene?).  

Also, the original title "Offret": "Offer", instead of sacrifice, would be a more adequate translation. We tend to think of “sacrifice” as more associated with Jesus in the cross, or perhaps with Isaac’s (attempted) sacrifice of his son. But the main Biblical story with which the film is concerned is the Adoration of the Magi, and the offers or presents that they make to baby Jesus. The painting by Leonardo with that theme is constantly shown and referred to in the movie. So it is clear that the film is about an “offer” – a gift, which is also a sacrifice, from Alexander to his son (to mankind – “Little Man”, unless we interpret him to be literally Jesus, i.e. "The Son of Man").

Maria is not a pagan witch, she is clearly shown surrounded by Christian images, and so a more apt term would also be “seer”, or perhaps even saint. There are no references in the film to Nordic paganism, although references to Nietzsche, Japanese music, the yin-yang symbol, and goat herders bring other elements that are not necessarily Christian and can be somewhat related to a pagan or naturalist view. Perhaps Tarkovsky was becoming more syncretic at the end of his life? 

It is true that having an adulterous sexual relationship with a “witch” or at any rate an unmarried woman seems more related to a fertility cult than to anything in Christianity, but even this does not need to be taken literally. In fact their embrace is not shown in an erotic, sexy way, but as a sort of ethereal encounter, as they completely still bodies lift and rotate in the air, in a scene slightly similar to the one of weightlessness at Solaris.

It is obvious then that Maria is an angel, or perhaps a medium that transmits Alexander’s “offer” to Christ, as he cannot do it by himself, as is alluded again the mentioned essay: Maria as a mediator of Alexander's offer to God. 

The film is dramatically slow and is less interesting visually than "The Mirror" or "Solaris". Again, I think because it focuses mostly on internal scenes and anguished discussions in what seems more an homage to Bergman than a typical Tarkovsky film. But the final scene with the burning house, and the one with the tree that ends the movie, more than make up for it; they are decidedly Tarkovskyan, and worth the whole movie.