I just got done watching this film (brilliant) and there are some concepts in the film that I believe has to do with the Virgin Mary. So I was just wondering if Tarkovsky was Catholic? I originally thought he was Orthodox, do they hold Mary in such high regard the way Catholics do? Thanks!
Check out the National Youth Filmmakers Society at:
www.nyfs.tk
in russia, the main religion is orthodoxicism, so I think Tarkovsky was orthododox. But I haven't seen the film (yes, I know, I'm ashamed), so I don't know how Mary is represented, but if you see "Stalker", (wonderful film), you can see that Tarkovsky is very christian.
- Who is God ?
- When you close your eyes and make a wish, God is the one who doesn't care about.
I haven't noticed the Marry thing apart from the Leonardo painting.
shareIn the house where Alexander goes to visit the "witch" Tarkovsky makes clear a painting of Mary (Jesus' mother) in the Witch's house. Since Tarkovsky payed such close attention to details, I figured this could not be a coincidence. Since posting this question, I have found out that Tarkovsky was a member of the Orthodox religion, but they share the same beliefs on Mary as Catholics do. I guess this provides a little more support for my theory.
Check out the National Youth Filmmakers Society at:
www.nyfs.tk
Just for the information, Virgin Mary is also important to us Muslims. There is a whole chapter in Quran dedicated to her and named after her.
~~~ Allez Yazid! ~~~
[deleted]
"Stalker" is one of the human greatest crations :) ...
"I'm thirsty & your daughter is a cow ! Do the math ! "
Just after the antibiotics.
~~~~~~
Yes, Tarkovsky was Russian Orthodox. All his films relate in one way or another to this, particularly Andrei Rublev which was about an Orthodox monk and icon painter.
It's also no co-incidence that the servant/witch was called "Maria" (Mary) and that she is associated with his mother (when he "lies with her" there is voice-over which recalls a woman comforting a child).
I think it would be terribly reductive just to see this as a religious film however. I suspect Tarkovsky would have intended a more universal significance and the theme of self-sacrifice is after all not exclusively religious.
The entire 'war and bargain with God' part of the story is filmed in a different, bleached out, style intended to suggest that it may all be a dream. If that is the case, we are to regard all the events within it as being the work of Alexander's subconscious, and the symbolism needs to be interpreted with that in mind. Of course the idea of sleeping with a mother figure takes us directly into classical Freudian territory, but I think the bird sounds, sheep, road/pathway, earth, water and so on all had pretty intense metaphoric value for Tarkovsky.
A simple way to look beyond the Christian reading is to remind oneself that essentially the gospels are works of fiction. Whatever the real events they may have been based on, these accounts were constructed many years later, and the processes of selection and mythologisation will have been as present as in any Hollywood bio-pic. In particular, themes of motherhood long predate "The Virgin Mary" and this figure can best be seen as an expression of more primal concerns.
So although "The Sacrifice" looks through the prism of religion, the things it is looking at are more universal.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
[deleted]
Like most major artists, you cannot interrupt the film from one base perspective. Tarkovsky was a religious director (like Bresson, Dryer, and Bergman), but his films weren't about one particular religion. I think he intended them to be much more universal. There is much Christian imagery in his films, but that aren't specifically Christian.
This statement is false.
Bresson, Drayer and Tarkovsky were VERY religious (Christians; Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) while Bergman was an atheist.
Just a small correction.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A completely unsatisfactory response:
"1. Read your own post again without the bias of a "secularist"
I dont see the point. It would just divert attention away from the content of your post which you have failed to address. This is the usual tactic of the erring party. I do not believe im guilty of confirmation bias as I have appreciated films for many years and have the capacity and patience to experience a film on its artistic merits first and then to follow this with critique and interpretation which im entitled to do. Besides bias is not the issue here, its intolerance that has caused this argument. Intolerance of an alternative viewpoint of which you are guilty of.
"2. Read Tarkovsky's book "Sculpting in Time"
I may or may not do so. An artist is only as important as his art i.e. What Tarkovsky says about himself, his work or other art at a particular point in time is not as important to me as what I can take from his films. Artists are better at expressing themselves through their art especially if its very personal (which much of his work has obviously been) than merely talking about it which can be quite boring and pointless.
"If you can successfully manage both of these things, then you will learn why you come across as:
A) Uninformed
B) Pompous and arrogant"
Baseless and petty accusations which can just as easily be turned back on you.
"Its too bad she wont live... but then again who does?"
[deleted]
I will not attempt to deny Tarkovsky's religiosity and I will accept that you are more knowledgeable on the man himself. But that is not important... his films on the other hand are. He made some of the most fluid and thought provoking films of the 20th century that dealt with many themes other than religion; madness, memory, grief, the environment etc. His memorable body of work has made a huge impact on world cinema, and for us, his audience who never knew him personally, it is his work his art that is important. One of the great aspect of his films is that the meditative quality of the work allows us generate more than one interpretation of what is being depicted. To say his films need to be viewed from a religious perspective to understand them "correctly" (simply because he was a 'religious' man) is reductive, backward and irrelevant... completely contrary to appreciating fine art.
'Knowledge' and 'acceptance' are the opposite of ignorance and intolerance respectively. Christian (and other) religions are largely guilty of ignorance and intolerance because they are power structures that are built on and that promulgate myth. Despite this they speak in deterministic language which is laughable if you dont consider the physical and psychological tyranny they have imposed on humanity for thousands of years. If theres one thing religions should avoid it is determinancy (because they practioners of fiction and DO NOT have all the answers), but again they are power structures so it goes with the territory.
In conclusion, to limit experiencing Tarkovsky's work to a religious perspective would be ignorant and intolerant.
Rowan-Morrison, my dear, you sound like quite a religious man.
"Its too bad she wont live... but then again who does?"
[deleted]
Apologies on the gender miscalculation.
"Its too bad she wont live... but then again who does?"
I partially agree, you may understand Tarkovsky's body of work related to madness, memory, grief, the environment etc. but there is no denial that is pretty much impossible to fully experience central subject of his whole opus and that is God and spiritual nature of the things around us if you are skipping that religious part that easily.
It seems to me that the individual today stands at a crossroads, faced with the choice of whether to pursue the existence of blind consumer, subject to the implacable march of new technology and the endless multiplication of material goods, or to seek out a new way that will lead to spiritual responsibility, a way that ultimately might mean not only his personal salvation but also the saving of society at large; in other words, to turn to God.
Perhaps the meaning of all human activity lies in the artistic consciousness, in the pointless and selfless creative act? Perhaps our capacity to create is evidence that we ourselves were created in the image and likeness of God?
[deleted]
A few more (late) words:
It's not reserved for Catholics only to relate to the Virgin Mary-myth. It's present in other Christian churches as well and it has become an important cultural icon. It's rather the Protestants only who, for some reason, have dispersed of it. In a Protestant world the realm of God is 100% masculine.
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
"So although 'The Sacrifice' looks through the prism of religion, the things it is looking at are more universal. "
Sure, religion may be a prism, but what is more universal than the Christ? "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John)
I say it is more reductive to see anything that has some beauty or truth in it as anything other than pointing towards Christ and his work.
"There is not a square inch
in the whole domain of our human existence
over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all,
does not cry: 'Mine!'" (Kuyper)
[deleted]
He was Russian, so most likely he was thus Russian Orthodox. However, Eastern Orthodox churches and Catholic churches often have close resemblances.
Last film seen: The General 7/10
Tarkovsky was part of the Russian Orthodox Church, but he was also interesting in Eastern philosophy and Zen as well. He wasn't a Catholic.
shareRowan-Morrison, your response to Krustallos' post is ridiculous and is typical of the brutish ignorance displayed by religious zealots attempting to defend their faith (im not implying that you personally are a religious zealot trying to defend your faith). First of all can you provide evidence where Tarkovsky 'ABSOLUTELY did not see the gospels as "works of fiction" (emphasis added). Secondly your comment about any reading that even implies that he did must be 'considered false' is breathtaking in its arrogance and presumption simply because only Tarkovsky and Tarkovsky alone could say that. You compound this folly by saying Krustallos is on 'the wrong track'. Not only is this comment severely irritating, but in respect to any integrity that a message board can maintain (in that it provides an outlet for personal opinion and a variety of interpretations for films) you are boorishly trying to deride what was an insightful, articulate and fresh alternative interpretation of 'The Sacrifice'. I can only guess that Krustallos was unfazed by your response.
"Its too bad she wont live... but then again who does?"
[deleted]
He was Eastern Orthodox. But that's no reason why The Virgin Mary shouldn't be emphasised, she's very important to them, too. For more about her, see Tarkovsky's Nostalghia, there's a brilliant prayer just at the beginning of the film, probably the most heartbreaking prayer i've ever heard.
------"Are you an American? I'm not an American, i'm a nymphomaniac"------
The success of a fine art film depends on the level of ambiguity (on any meanings or morals inherent in it). While it is inaccurate of me or anyone else to say his "sacrifice" was just a symptom of his madness it is just as obnoxious to say it his "sacrifice to god" that saved the world, as you infer it very literally to be a spritual or religious event. The end of 'The Sacrifice' was a wonderful resolution to what was otherwise a quite tedious, plodding film, not only because of the beautiful cinematography but also because of its ambiguity, that to the viewer has equal weight in it being his madness or his spirituality that comes to the fore.
I choose to infer it as his madness as I (of moderate intelligence and critical capabilites) cannot see how it should be seen in such a limited, self indulgent, and nonsensical "sacrifice to god".
"What business is it of yours where I'm from, friendo?"
[deleted]
I did not imply that I was smarter than you, your inference is too sensitive and self interested. The comment about intelligence and critical capabilities was a self deprecating statement to assert that I am not obnoxious enough to think I know everything or that what I think is right and that's it.
I did not say only good art is ambiguous, another innacurate inference. I said the success of a fine art film depends on the level of ambiguity displayed. Art films, such as the work of Tarkovsky, are supposed to be challenging and philosophical as well as being expertly shot. If an art film comes out biased it will stink. The whole point of an art film is to make you think, become involved. If it is overtly political or one sided it loses its art potential as it diminishes the viewer's involvement, all it does is just re-assert or anger your beliefs. Tarkovksy was never so boorish to state that his films can only be inferred one way, a religious way, he knew better because he was a skilled filmmaker. That is why he is appreciated by many people. religious and non religious.
To answer your question: I believe there was no world to be saved, the apocalyptic drama plays out through the window of his madness. Its filmed like this to allow us resonate with and understand the character better. There is no apocalypse. The environmental events are around him compound his psychological problems. He sees it as the end of the world. He is the only one.
I live on Earth and I love and cherish it. I know right from wrong. My values stem from my own nature and what I know to be true. I don't base my beliefs on fiction or persecute people because of silly little differences, as some religions have done for thousands of years
"What business is it of yours where I'm from, friendo?"
He was orthodox.In Orthodoxy the Virgin Mary is praised almost the same as in Catholicism.The only difference is that is Catholicism the praise is more in churches and in rituals,rather than at home.I am an Orthodox,from Romania where more than 90% of the country is,and I can tell you that many people here,when they are praying,they pray to the Virgin Mary rater than God.It is thought to be more merciful than God and Jesus Christ.
So yes,a lot of people pray and praise the Virgin Mary in Orthodoxy and it is praised as much as in Catholicism.And about Tarkovsky,I don't know for sure but I can tell you that more than 90% of Russians living in the Europe(so excluding the whole eastern Russia,in Asia) are Orthodox.
Mr Tarkovsky originally hails from central Ukraine - from a city now known in Ukrainian (since post-Soviet/Russian independence) as Kirovohrad (and Kirovograd in Russian).
His father joined the military at the outset of WWII when Andrei was just a child, snd his mother moved/evacuated the family further east away from the fighting, settling in/around Moscow.
I'm not sure if he identified more as a Ukrainian or a Russian, but I can tell you that the most prevalent Christian traditions of his native Ukraine when his family lived there were...
1) Eastern Orthodoxy, as the 'Ukrainian Orthodox Church', who continue to celebrate the Greek/Byzantine rite, using the Old Slavonic liturgy, and are under authority of the Patriarch of Moscow (as opposed to the Bishop of Rome), hence making them the Russian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. Generally, the further east one travels in Ukraine towards the Russian border, the higher the Russian Orthodox population grows.
2) Eastern Catholicism in the form of the 'Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church' (who still celebrate the Greek/Byzantine rite and Old Slavonic liturgy, instead of those of the Latin liturgy associated with the Roman rite, yet maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome, aka 'Catholic Pope'). The largest numbers typically have been seen in the central heart of Ukraine, and is often thought to be the most non-Russian, non-Pole, pro-Ukraine, pro-Rusyn institution.
3) Roman Catholicism - mainly found in far western Ukraine where the country shares a border with the heavily-Catholic Poland. The far-western city of L'viv/Lwow used to be the focal point of this phenomena, with a majority/plurality of the populace being Catholics. Generally, in western Ukraine both Greek Catholics from the Ukrainian/Rusyn communities and Roman Catholics from the Polish communities often outnumbered most Orthodox.
As for Turkashevy himself, I'm not sure where his heritage lies. He could just as easily be E.Orthodox or E.Catholic (I don't think his family were R.Catholic, just a hunch).
But to answer your question, yes Eastern Orthodox Christianity venerates the Virgin Mary (including any other saints) every bit as much as Catholic Christianity does. The same goes for Oriental Orthodox Christianity, while we're at it. But it wouldn't really matter, as all of them celebrate mass and take the same sacraments, and in more or less the same way.
Sometimes in the US ppl can forget that most Christianity looks like this (and has so since the days of Christ) because of the right-wing non-mainstream Protestants, who tend to be loud, abrasive, and frighteningly Puritanical in outlook, and have so many crackpot ideas that it's important to remember that those who wave the flag of 'evangelical', 'mormon' or 'conservative religious right' have more in common with the fundamentalist offshoots of other religions.