waiting for something else
by Douglas Messerli
Andrei Tarkovsky (screenwriter and director) Offret (The Sacrifice) /
1986
Compared with the epic works such as Andrei Rublev and even Stalker, Tarkovsky's last film seems
narratively simpler. His roving and constantly shifting images become, in the
hands of cinematographer Sven Nykvist (also Ingmar Bergman's cinematographer),
a series of longer and more focused scenes; in a film of 149 minutes there are,
reportedly, only 115 shots.
Also
because of its Bergmanian and, particularly, Chekovian influences, the
narrative shifts from Tarkovsky's emblematic method of story-telling in his
previous films to a more traditionally Western story-line—although Tarkovsky
often purposely thwarts the more normative dramatic results.
Isolated on Bergman's island of Gotland, the family at the center of
this film live, as does the family in Chekov's The Seagull, in what might be described as a summer house, this
located by the sea instead of a lake.
Their home, a place that seemed to call out to both Alexander (played by
Bergman actor Erland Josephson) and his wife Adelaide (Susan Fleetwood) upon
their first encountering it, is something they both still love and yet is a
container for all their hurts and pains. Dressed almost as turn-of-the-century
women right out of Chekov, both Alexander's wife and his daughter (Valérie
Mairesse) quietly spar with each other. Indeed, something seems to be sickening
all the inhabitants of this house. The young son, nicknamed "Little
Man," has just undergone some sort of throat operation, and is mute
throughout most of the film. Alexander, a former actor, and now, a successful
aesthetician, journalist, and professor, is undergoing a kind of existentialist
crisis, and is unable to find meaning or belief in his life. Alexander's
behavior alternates between long philosophical monologues and self-consumed
silence. As his friend Otto chides him, like a Beckett figure he is one of
those desperately "waiting for something else."
Otto, a part-time postman, collects strange incidents and falls into
temporary faints. The Icelandic maid, Maria, to put it simply, is most strange.
Yet, as their doctor friend and visitor, Victor later reveals, it is Adelaide
and her incessant attacks on her husband and her outspoken dismissal of those
around her that most makes this house an unbearable place in which to exist. By
film's end, Victor is determined to leave it for Australian, as well, apparently,
is their daughter.
The
day in which the film begins is Alexander's 50th birthday, and all have
gathered here to endure a celebratory dinner. At this point, however, Tarkovsky
turns the tables, so to speak. What has been a Chekov-like family comedy-drama
is suddenly transformed into an international event as the radio and
television, in blips of static, report that the world is on the throes of
another great War, with the certainty of a nuclear holocaust.
While we hear the roars of jet planes flying overhead, the family, some
now sedated by Victor, quietly wait out what is suddenly a real tragedy, reiterating their personal pains and failures. Otto,
who has previously left, climbs secretly through a second-story window to
ludicrously reveal to Alexander that he must go to the house of the Icelandic
maid—who is a witch, but of the right kind—and lay with her through the night
in order to save the world.
Suddenly we begin to suspect that Tarkovsky is pulling out the rug from
his story once more. Just as we might have imagined that the original
comic-tragedy has reverted into an allegory of horror, by now combining pagan
acts with Christian prayers, we begin to see another kind of comic potential in
this work.
I
argue that Tarkovsky purposely combines both the pagan and the Christian
worlds, symbolized by the gentle drama of the turn-of-the-century combined with
images of the horrors of 20th century wars. What some critics have complained
as a murky mix of paganism and Christianity or seen as a narrative incongruity,
is, in fact, a kind of delicious pot au
feu in which Tarkovsky's character pluckily mixes religions of the present
and the past represented by various dramatic genres in order to transform the present
into another kind of reality, pointing up both the past and the potential,
different future. The witchcraft of Maria weaves its spell, just as the
Christian moral choices of abstinence motivates Alexander's acts.
Waking the next morning, the electricity has returned, and all seems
like it was earlier the day before. The other figures quietly share a breakfast
table, seeming to have forgotten what they have undergone during the night. Was
it all just a dream, a horrible nightmare spawned by Alexander's troubled
mind? In some ways, it does not matter.
The house is still sick, the patients still in need of a cure, even if the
world at large has been salvaged.
Tricking them to take a morning walk, Alexander dances and trots around
the house, almost comically snacking on tabletop leftovers as he prepares a
fire which, once he has set, quickly creates an inferno.
As
family and friends come running back to the burning pyre, an ambulance
miraculously arrives to cart off Alexander, a man apparently gone mad. Such a
truth-teller must be put away immediately. Whether or not he has redeemed their
lives or has managed to resurrect the lives of his family and friends, he has
redeemed his own life; for once he has acted instead of passively waiting for
the end.
Tarkovsky's brilliant film closes with a scene in which "Little
Man," a future Alexander, lays under a tree which the two of them have
planted in the very first scene. The child, in his first and only lines of the
film, speaks: "In the beginning was the word...why is that, papa?" If
Alexander is determined to spend the rest of his life in silence, to give up
all that life has meant, the boy will continue to speak in a dialogue with and for him in the next generation with its new possibilities. The magic,
Christian or pagan, has been accomplished.
When I first saw The Sacrifice, I was
immensely moved by it, and had the feeling that when I fell asleep that night
that I dreamt the movie all over again, as if it had somehow rewound itself in
my head. I did not know at that time that Tarkovsky had had a somewhat similar
instance occur during the work's filming. When they first attempted to film the
burning house, the camera jammed, and they lost the crucial shot. At great
expense and time that Tarkovsky, ill during the shooting, did not have, they rebuilt
the house and filmed the scene again with two cameras. Moliterno points to this
ironic situation that might have reiterated one of Tarkovsky's themes: "Is
that life? Well then, once again!"
Los Angeles, April 15, 2010
Reprinted from Green Integer Blog (March 2010).
No comments:
Post a Comment