Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GIRALT
he concept of pictorial adaptation in film has been defined rather loosely, and
some film scholars have even denied the possibility that a painting, a pictorial narrative, could be adapted to film at all.1 However, film adaptation has always
been related to literature because of its natural correlation with the narrative and
the narratives unfolding in time. It is precisely this aspect of time, the experience
of the narratives temporal duration, that makes painting and film distinct from
each other.
In spite of such a fundamental difference between painting and film, film is
able to assimilate the pictorial event into the cinematic temporal action. This is
possible because painting and film share an affinity for articulating a visual narrative and reproducing the three dimensional world on a two dimensional plane.
A good example of this kind of adaptation is found in Luis Buuels Viridiana
(Spain, 1961) as he makes use of Leonardo da Vincis The Last Supper (1495).
Buuels adaptation is a conscious effort to recreate Leonardos pictorial composition. In this particular instance, the result is a shocking tableau vivant as
Buuel substitutes a drunken orgy of beggars for the sacred event of the pictorial narrative. In the case of the film, The Sacrifice (Sweden, 1986, Andrei
Tarkovsky), with its adaptation of the pictorial composition of Leonardos The
Adoration of the Magi (1482), there is not a one-to-one correspondence.2 Instead,
Andrei Tarkovsky establishes a close correlation with the Adorations theme,
sub-themes and visual imagery. That is, the transposition of the painting into the
film is interpreted thematically, rather than as a faithful narrational and representational matching.
Although Tarkovsky clearly relates the film to the painting, interestingly
enough he never makes any allusions either in his writings or in interviews to
any specific connection between the film and the painting. We dont know
whether his interpretation is intended to be explicit or is symptomatic of something else. The fact is the film stands as witness to such a correlation, which is
invariably revealed the moment we try to answer the obvious questions: What
is the paintings role within the narrative of the film? How does the film relate to
the painting itself?
Whatever the answers may be, the similarities between the film and the
painting are so striking that some authors have commented that although the
visual and thematic relations are not direct translations of one medium into
another, it would not do justice to Tarkovskys creative talent if we were to suggest the contrary. Peter Green in his tribute to the film wrote, The Sacrifice is of
a kindred spirit to the painting, and Leonardos work contains not merely a similar central statement to that of the film, but also motifs that could be seen as
specifically Tarkovskian.3
A few basic reasons suggest why there is such an interface between these
two works: Tarkovskys film narrative and Leonardos iconographic representation of the narrative of the Adoration of the Magi both fit the description of nontraditional narrative. Both works enigmatically prompt the viewer to question
why the story is told in the way that it is. Both utilize imagery of devastation and
destruction as a backdrop. The film adopts some of the paintings concrete visual imagery, tightening the relation between the two. For example, the film begins
with Alexander planting a leafless tree as he tells his son a story of two monks
and a barren tree that after being watered faithfully, day after day, miraculously
comes to life. The embedded motif in the painting comes alive when Tarkovsky
juxtaposes the tree at the center of the pictorial compositiona tree covered with
leaves symbolizing an age of plenitudewith the tree in the opening of the film.
There are other allusions to the painting, which will be described more fully later
in this study.
Therefore, based on Tarkovskys comments about the film in his book
Sculpting in Time and on the film itself, I intend to show how Tarkovsky intertwines the painting and the films action. My intention is not so much to critique
the accuracy of Tarkovskys interpretation of the painting as it is to investigate his
adaptive procedure. In other words, Tarkovsky not only re-interprets Leonardos
pictorial narrative but, in the process of incorporating the painting into the film,
he highlights the painting as a motif for the films dramatization and meaning.
This is done both in the opening credits and throughout the narrative.
Furthermore, the very fact that The Sacrifice borrows from such a notable work
72 GABRIEL F. GIRALT
Leonardo da Vinci,
The Adoration of the
Magi (1482). Courtesy
of The Uffizi Gallery,
Florence, Italy.
In specific terms, Tarkovskys interpretation and integration of Leonardos painting into the narrative of the film is accomplished by centering attention on the
dramatic unfolding of the paintings visual tension between the foreground and
the background, as well as the themes portrayed in those two different planes of
action. Leonardos painting conveys a dual action in its foreground in a non-traditional manner. There is the adoration, that is, the acknowledgement by the
bystanders of the worlds salvation in the image of a little child and his mother
who holds the fragile infant in her arms, and there is the offering of a gift by the
Magi to the infant Jesus. The paintings background clashes discordantly with
the foregrounds serene action. It depicts a world in chaos with ancient buildings
in ruins, horsemen fighting in forms either fading or incomplete, conveying the
visual markings of a world order that is collapsing.5
The narrative of The Sacrifice adopts the paintings foreground action and
its theme of salvation implied by the role of Mary, representing salvation coming
through a woman. In the film this theme is mirrored by the character of Maria,
the housekeeper who becomes the vehicle for Alexanders own redemption.
Tarkovsky takes the implied salvific role of Mary in the painting as mediatrix of
the Messiah and replaces it with the character of Maria who humbly surrenders
to Alexanders irrational demand for sexual love as he threatens to commit suicide. Her sacrificial self-surrender will allow him to transcend his sense of
impending doom. According to Tarkovsky, the scene is not so much about
73
74 GABRIEL F. GIRALT
stands at a crossroad faced with the choice of whether to pursue the existence
of a blind consumer.... Or to seek out a way that will lead to spiritual responsibility.10 This dilemma is articulated in the second half of Alexanders monologue
as something closely connected to the malaise of a world that has deliberately
turned away from its proper course, replacing spiritual truths with materialistic
goals. That is, a world which has fallen into the fallacy that the technological
race is for the sake of progress when actually what lies behind it is the desire for
power:
The result, [Alexander exclaims] is a civilization built on force, power, fear,
and dependence. All our technical progress has only provided us with
comfort, a sort of standard, and instruments of violence for keeping power.
We are like savages! We use the microscope like a cudgel!... If that is so,
then our entire civilization is built on sin, from beginning to end. We have
acquired a dreadful disharmony, an imbalance if you will, between our
material and our spiritual development. Our culture is defective, I mean our
civilization. Basically defective!
Alexanders words remind us of another Alexander, Tarkovskys compatriot
Alexander Solzhenitsyn.11 Twelve years earlier, Solzhenitsyn gave a sensational
speech known as The Harvard Address, denouncing the West for its materialism and spiritual decadence. Solzhenitsyn saw the West as a world that had lost
its spiritual foundation and become an economic and political power without
moral restraints. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself
our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any
task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern civilization on the dangerous trend of worshipping man and his material needs.12
For Solzhenitsyn the moral blindness that has permeated Western culture since
the Renaissance has made manifest its own deficiencies. This humanism overlooks humans free will to choose good or eviland history has shown that more
often than not, they have chosen evil.13
Alexanders monologue echoes Solzhenitsyns bleak vision of the West as a
materialistic culture that undermines spiritual values: a rational, secular culture
immersed in a technological race in pursuit of power. Tarkovsky fast-forwards
Solzhenitsyns view to a point where history has reached an apocalyptic crisis:
a nuclear holocaust which threatens the decimation of the human race.
Tarkovsky places this chaotic historical crisis, which is the result of humanitys
self-serving humanism bereft of morality, in the context of the chaos taking place
in the background of Leonardos painting. The threatened nuclear holocaust
serves as a background for the action of the film just as Leonardos depiction of
a world in chaos serves as the background to the birth of Christ. In other words,
the paintings representation of the destruction of a world order, is reinterpreted
75
76 GABRIEL F. GIRALT
The ideological and spiritual consequences of these two eras, the Technological
and Christian, are symbolically present in the image of the tree. Immediately
after the opening credits, the camera moves upward to reveal a prominent tree
in Leonardos paining. It is covered with foliage, in contrast to the leafless tree
planted by Alexander. Leonardos tree has been interpreted in two ways. It may
be a carob tree, which may be associated with John the Baptist, the figure below
the tree in the painting,15 or it may be associated with Judas who, in traditional
belief hanged himself from a carob tree.16 Neither interpretation seems to suit the
films theme of salvation, however. Instead, Tarkovsky offers a new meaning by
contrasting the barrenness of the films tree with the vitality of the paintings
tree. In Sculpting in Time, he says the barren tree represents the state of faith in
a strict spiritual/theological sense.17 The nature of this faith is expressed in
Alexanders story of the monk who believed that if he were to pour water on a
parched tree, day after day, without ever doubting that in the miraculous power
of his own faith in God he would live to see the tree come back to life.18
Tarkovskys juxtaposition of the two trees creates an arboreal iconography
that by inference becomes emblematic of two distinct historical periods. The
fully leafed tree signals the importance of the Incarnation and symbolizes an age
of plenitude, completion and fulfillment; whereas the barren tree symbolizes a
technological era characterized by materialism and the lack of spiritual maturity.19 Salvation for humankind can only be achieved through faith, the same faith
that is required to bring new life to a barren tree.
77
NARRATIVE INTROSPECTION
Tarkovsky touches upon the paintings background theme of war and destruction
as he structures the narrative of the film around a future nuclear war. His presentation of the apocalyptic event challenges the conception of reality set forth
by the classical Hollywood narrative, where reality is processed and simplified,
that is, presented as a clear construction of events that flow in a consistent and
logical pattern. The Sacrifice shows reality not as a logical construct, but as
something complex and, at times, ambiguous. It presents the apocalyptic war as
real at both the objective and subjective levels: a blurring of the distinction
between reality and illusion that the film never resolves. The films narrative
blends Alexanders internal and external worlds into one continuous reality
without a stylistic cue separating the two, thereby creating an ambiguity that
governs the entire structure of the narrative. This is illustrated by Alexanders
dreams in black and white and the juxtaposition of Leonardos painting with the
78 GABRIEL F. GIRALT
Alexander sits on his couch after power is restored, and the lights come on.
Still courtesy of Lars-Olof Lthwall.
films narrative of war. Perhaps this ambiguity is felt most powerfully when, suddenly, the war seems to have vanished. The lights come on; the telephone works
again. Nothing indicates that there has ever been a war. There is not a single
mention of the war by any of the characters. Since everything seems to be normal, the audience is left to wonder if the images of war are a product of
Alexanders imagination. Tarkovsky tells us that an understanding of the narratives meaning is designed for the audience to reach independently.21
So what are we to make of the apocalyptic images of war in The Sacrifice?
I would like to suggest that Tarkovskys use of the nuclear war engages two distinct but related levels of meaning. At one level, he recreates the present decadent condition of Western postmodern culture and links it to the end of the
Christian era. That is, he reverses the paintings theme in which the promise of
a future world of Christian culture triumphs over its pagan past. At another subjective and transcendent level, he uses the war imagery as metaphor for his own
inner anxieties.
The films relation to the paintings war-like background warns the viewer
of the impending self-destruction of Western civilization uprooted from its
Christian spiritual, social, political, and moral past by a godless ideology based
solely on technological progress. In this respect, the films narrative is distinctly
futuristic. It poses the question: Where is this new historical era taking us?
Tarkovskys view of the future is not the result of studying data from current and
past history. Rather, his approach to history comes out of a conviction that the
present situation is in need of a spiritual turning point that will spare the world
In speaking of The Sacrifice, Tarkovsky tells us of the true poet/artists unbearable gift of being able to foresee the future. He believed in the artists mysterious
powers to reach unknown truths and make contact with a higher reality through
his or her own work: I dont know what this means. I only know that it is very
frightening, and I have no doubt that the poetry of the film is going to become
a specific reality, that the truth it touches will materialize, will make itself
known, andwhether I like it or notwill affect my life.24
Tarkovskys adaptation of The Adoration of the Magi offers evidence of both
positive and negative interaction with the painting. His reversal of Leonardos
pictorial theme is made manifest in Alexanders monologue, in which he laments
humanitys changed relation with nature. Today, nature is regarded as something
to be used, as raw material to be exploited. Here Alexanders monologue echoes
Romano Guardinis judgement that, Man today distrusts Nature. He cannot
speak of Mother Nature. Nature has become alien and dangerous to man. The
religious sentiments expressed calmly and clearly by Goethe [in his Tiefurtur
Journal] as he stood before nature are not the sentiments of man of today.25
For Tarkovsky, this technocratic view of the world is manifested in the
eagerness of technological culture to satisfy its creative urges by controlling
nature without any regard for moral restraint. The traditional moral principles of
80 GABRIEL F. GIRALT
the Western civilization rooted in Natural Law no longer apply in todays technocratic world order:
Our human world is constructed, modeled, according to material laws, for
man has given his society the forms of dead matter and taken its laws upon
himself. Therefore he does not believe in Spirit and repudiates God. He
feeds on bread alone. How can he see Spirit, Miracle, God, if from his
standpoint they have no place in the structure, if they are redundant.26
The attitude noted by Tarkovsky not only places humanity completely in charge
of nature, it denies us control of our own destiny. Humankind itself becomes
exploited by the present technocracy.27 In the final analysis, Tarkovskys film is
a postscript to the death of God proclaimed by Nietzsche and fulfilled by todays
technocracy. His statement becomes prophetic when we consider that in 2002
the representatives of the European Community were unable to agree upon and
approve a final draft of a constitution that would minimally acknowledge the
historical fact that Europe is Christian and that it has grown on the foundation
of the Christian faith.28
THE END
Tarkovsky warned that the significant events [The Sacrifice] contains can be
interpreted in more than one way.29 For instance, at the beginning of the film,
the juxtaposition of the tree in the painting and the actual tree in the film symbolizes two ideologically opposed moments in history. However, at the end of the
film the actual trees significance changes as it serves to illustrate Alexanders
story to his son about the barren tree that blossomed through an act of faith.
Although the tree at the end is not directly contrasted with the pictorial tree, the
two trees are related through Tarkovskys use of similar camera movements. As
at the beginning of the film, when the camera moves up to the foliage on the tree
in Leonardos painting, it now moves up the trunk of the tree until it reaches the
top where it remains for a good thirty seconds, allowing us to examine the
branches for any signs of life. This final long shot is accompanied by Bachs
Erbarme Dich, which we heard in the opening of the film. Tarkovskys repetition
of Bachs lyrics works like an antiphon, providing additional meaning to the narrative. This time the contrite tone of the lyrics seems to suggest confidence similar to that expressed in Psalm 51 by the declaration, My sacrifice, a humble and
contrite heart you will not spurn.
This masterful final shot begins with Alexanders son, Little Man, lying at the
foot of the tree as he speaks for the first time, In the beginning was the word.
Why is that, Papa? The scene with the tree, Little Man and Alexander has
received varying interpretations. Mark Le Fanu describes it as plain and very realistic, and suggests that in Little Mans recovery of speech the film offers its final
message of humanism and hope.30 Maya Turovscaya finds a spiritual connotation: Through the stumps we see the sky and the flat sea, depth and distance
and height. The effort of resurrection.31 For Johnson and Petrie, the shot has a
magical effect: The dead tree which Little Man is watering at the end does
come to life in a shimmering vision of light through Alexanders sacrifice and
his sons belief.32 All of these interpretations stress a sense of resolution and
closure. Yet, this open-ended closing also seems to suggest that the next generation may find a way to escape the emptiness and futility of the present culture.
Isnt this the sense we get from Little Man lying on the ground under the barren
tree waiting for it to come to life after having watered it?
IN CONCLUSION
The film certainly exploits the paintings Gospel message that salvation comes
through sacrificial offering, that is, suffering and innocent child-like faith.
However, Alexanders own sacrificial action seems to contradict the biblical
meaning of Christian sacrifice embedded in Leonardos Adoration of the Magi.
The key to understanding Alexanders sacrifice lies in his prayer and ensuing
destruction of his house and everything in it, which seem like attempts to escape
his overwhelming anxiety and fear of doom by trying to bargain with God. Christ
did not bring suffering and death upon himself; he surrendered voluntarily to
Gods will. Alexanders sacrifice, on the other hand, is self-imposed and selfserving, in the sense that he hopes to appease God and avert the war.
At a different level, however, the paintings and the films messages reinforce each other. The paintings foreground and background set up a tension
between the orders of nature and culture, respectively, and the films premise is
that the order of culture (i.e., technology) has come to dominate and at times
replace the natural order. As a consequence, humankind faces imminent destruction. Nevertheless, the films conclusion leaves open the possibility of restoring
the natural order by joiningwith child-like faithAlexanders son in watering
the barren tree.
NOTES
1.
Alicja Helman and Osadnik M. Waclaw, "Film and Literature: Models of Film Adaptation
and a Proposal for a (Poly) System Approach," Canadian Review of Comparative
Literature 23.3 (1996): 649.
2.
Here the term one-to-one correspondence is used in a broad sense. It refers to a close
similarity between the film image and its pictorial source.
3.
Peter Green, Apocalypse & Sacrifice, Sight and Sound 56.2 (1987): 113. See also, Mark
Le Fanu, The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky (London: British Film Institute, 1987), 133-135.
4.
Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 98.
5.
Giancarlo Maiorino, Leonardo da Vinci: The Daedalian Mythmaker. (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 6.
6.
Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), 220.
7.
Adolf Adam, The Liturgical Year. (New York: Pueblo Publishing Company,1981), 141-142.
82 GABRIEL F. GIRALT
Liturgically speaking, the three feasts following the birth of Christ are directly connected
with the theme of sacrifice/martyrdom. They represent the three possible forms of martyrdom: voluntary and executed (Stephen), voluntary but not executed (John), and
executed but not voluntary (Holy Innocents). Thus, sacrifice/martyrdom are implicit in
the pictorial representation of the birth of Jesus.
8.
9.
Ibid., 218.
10.
Ibid., 218.
11.
Andrei Tarkovsky, Time Within Time, The Diaries 1970-1986 (London: Faber & Faber,
2002). Tarkovskys knowledge of, and admiration for, Solzhenitsyns work are evident in
his diary entries for September 1 and 7, 1970; May 30 and June 16, 1984.
12.
Ronald Berman, ed. Solzhenitsyn at Harvard (Washington, DC.: Ethics and Public Policy
Center, 1980),16-17.
13.
Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956), 97.
14.
Maiorino, 61.
15.
16.
Ibid., 33.
17.
18.
Ibid., 229.
19.
Ibid., 218.
20.
Ibid., 228.
21.
Ibid, 224.
22.
Maya Turovscaya, Tarkovsky: Cinema as Poetry (London: Faber and Faber, 1989), 154.
23.
Vida T. Johnson and Graham Petrie, The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 183.
24.
25.
Guardini, 71.
26.
27.
Guardini, 74-75.
28.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, interview, March 2002, News Agency, The World Seen from
Rome, http://www.zenith.org
29.
30.
Le Fanu, 135.
31.
Turovscaya, 149.
32.
GABRIEL F. GIRALT is a Professor in the School of Communication, The University of Akron, where he teaches new media production, television production,
and cinema studies.