ANDREI TARKOVSKY’S ADAPTATION OF MOTIFS · PDF fileRésumé: En incorporant le tableau “L’Adoration du Magi” de Léonard de Vinci à la structure narrative de son film Le Sacrifice,

Résumé: En incorporant le tableau “L’Adoration du Magi” de Léonard de Vinci à lastructure narrative de son film Le Sacrifice, Andrei Tarkovsky fait plus que simple-ment établir des liens iconographiques entre son œuvre est celle du peintre. Ilexprime plutôt sa propre interprétation du tableau en inversant la vision historiqueet spirituelle du monde au moment de la naissance du Christ pour présenter uneimage prophétique sombre de l’avenir de l’occident.

The concept of pictorial adaptation in film has been defined rather loosely, andsome film scholars have even denied the possibility that a painting, a pictori-

al narrative, could be adapted to film at all.1 However, film adaptation has alwaysbeen related to literature because of its natural correlation with the narrative andthe narrative’s unfolding in time. It is precisely this aspect of time, the experienceof the narrative’s temporal duration, that makes painting and film distinct fromeach other.

In spite of such a fundamental difference between painting and film, film isable to assimilate the pictorial event into the cinematic temporal action. This ispossible because painting and film share an affinity for articulating a visual nar-rative and reproducing the three dimensional world on a two dimensional plane.A good example of this kind of adaptation is found in Luis Buñuel’s Viridiana(Spain, 1961) as he makes use of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper (1495).Buñuel’s adaptation is a conscious effort to recreate Leonardo’s pictorial compo-sition. In this particular instance, the result is a shocking tableau vivant asBuñuel substitutes a drunken orgy of beggars for the sacred event of the pictor-ial narrative. In the case of the film, The Sacrifice (Sweden, 1986, AndreiTarkovsky), with its adaptation of the pictorial composition of Leonardo’s TheAdoration of the Magi (1482), there is not a one-to-one correspondence.2 Instead,Andrei Tarkovsky establishes a close correlation with the Adoration’s theme,

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FILM STUDIES • REVUE CANADIENNE D’ÉTUDES CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUES VOLUME 14 NO. 2 • FALL • AUTOMNE 2005 • pp 71-83

GABRIEL F. GIRALT

ANDREI TARKOVSKY’S ADAPTATION OF MOTIFS

EMBEDDED IN LEONARDO DA VINCI’S

THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI

sub-themes and visual imagery. That is, the transposition of the painting into thefilm is interpreted thematically, rather than as a faithful narrational and repre-sentational matching.

Although Tarkovsky clearly relates the film to the painting, interestinglyenough he never makes any allusions either in his writings or in interviews toany specific connection between the film and the painting. We don’t knowwhether his interpretation is intended to be explicit or is symptomatic of some-thing else. The fact is the film stands as witness to such a correlation, which isinvariably revealed the moment we try to answer the obvious questions: Whatis the painting’s role within the narrative of the film? How does the film relate tothe painting itself?

Whatever the answers may be, the similarities between the film and thepainting are so striking that some authors have commented that although thevisual and thematic relations are not direct translations of one medium intoanother, it would not do justice to Tarkovsky’s creative talent if we were to sug-gest the contrary. Peter Green in his tribute to the film wrote, “The Sacrifice is ofa kindred spirit to the painting, and Leonardo’s work contains not merely a sim-ilar central statement to that of the film, but also motifs that could be seen asspecifically Tarkovskian.”3

A few basic reasons suggest why there is such an interface between thesetwo works: Tarkovsky’s film narrative and Leonardo’s iconographic representa-tion of the narrative of the Adoration of the Magi both fit the description of non-traditional narrative. Both works enigmatically prompt the viewer to questionwhy the story is told in the way that it is. Both utilize imagery of devastation anddestruction as a backdrop. The film adopts some of the painting’s concrete visu-al imagery, tightening the relation between the two. For example, the film beginswith Alexander planting a leafless tree as he tells his son a story of two monksand a barren tree that after being watered faithfully, day after day, miraculouslycomes to life. The embedded motif in the painting comes alive when Tarkovskyjuxtaposes the tree at the center of the pictorial composition–a tree covered withleaves symbolizing an age of plenitude—with the tree in the opening of the film.There are other allusions to the painting, which will be described more fully laterin this study.

Therefore, based on Tarkovsky’s comments about the film in his bookSculpting in Time and on the film itself, I intend to show how Tarkovsky inter-twines the painting and the film’s action. My intention is not so much to critiquethe accuracy of Tarkovsky’s interpretation of the painting as it is to investigate hisadaptive procedure. In other words, Tarkovsky not only re-interprets Leonardo’spictorial narrative but, in the process of incorporating the painting into the film,he highlights the painting as a motif for the film’s 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

of art further endows it with “a certain respectability, if not aesthetic value, as adividend in the transaction.”4

THE FILM’S PICTORIAL ADAPTATIONIn specific terms, Tarkovsky’s interpretation and integration of Leonardo’s paint-ing into the narrative of the film is accomplished by centering attention on thedramatic unfolding of the painting’s visual tension between the foreground andthe background, as well as the themes portrayed in those two different planes ofaction. Leonardo’s painting conveys a dual action in its foreground in a non-tra-ditional manner. There is the adoration, that is, the acknowledgement by thebystanders of the world’s salvation in the image of a little child and his motherwho holds the fragile infant in her arms, and there is the offering of a gift by theMagi to the infant Jesus. The painting’s background clashes discordantly withthe foreground’s serene action. It depicts a world in chaos with ancient buildingsin ruins, horsemen fighting in “forms either fading or incomplete, conveying thevisual markings of a world order that is collapsing.”5

The narrative of The Sacrifice adopts the painting’s foreground action andits theme of salvation implied by the role of Mary, representing salvation comingthrough a woman. In the film this theme is mirrored by the character of Maria,the housekeeper who becomes the vehicle for Alexander’s own redemption.Tarkovsky takes the implied salvific role of Mary in the painting as mediatrix ofthe Messiah and replaces it with the character of Maria who humbly surrendersto Alexander’s irrational demand for sexual love as he threatens to commit sui-cide. Her sacrificial self-surrender will allow him to transcend his sense ofimpending doom. According to Tarkovsky, the scene is not so much about

TARKOVSKY’S ADAPTATION OF THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI 73

Leonardo da Vinci, The Adoration of theMagi (1482). Courtesyof The Uffizi Gallery,Florence, Italy.

Maria’s redeeming sacrifice as it is about “a question of spiritual regeneration,expressed in the image of a woman.”6

This same theme of salvation is further introduced into the film by the fig-ure of the child Jesus, the Messiah who is the embodiment of personal sacrifice,without which there can be no salvation. This sub-theme of salvific sacrifice/mar-tyrdom is intrinsically connected with the narrative of the Nativity.7 Tarkovskypresents this as the central theme in the film personified in the role of the maincharacter Alexander, the immolative victim who willingly offers himself andeverything he holds dear as a final plea to God in an attempt to save his familyand friends from the abominable consequences of a nuclear war. For Tarkovskythe salvific aspect of self-denial is the sacrifice that sets the narrative and its maincharacter in motion. “I am interested above all in the character who is capable ofsacrificing himself and his way of life regardless of whether that sacrifice is madein the name of spiritual values, or for the sake of someone else.... The man whoacts this way brings about fundamental changes in people’s lives and in thecourse of history.”8

The film’s theme of sacrifice is subtly introduced in the opening titles as thecamera frames a small portion of the painting. The focus is not on the infantJesus who is the central protagonist of the adoration, but on one of the Magi,kneeling, in the act of offering a gift. The image is accompanied by the ErbarmeDich from Bach’s Saint Matthew’s Passion. The singer expresses Peter’s deepaffliction and contrition for having denied Jesus: “Have mercy, Lord, on me.Regard my bitter weeping. Look at me, heart and eyes. Both weep to Thee bit-terly. Have mercy, lord!” Bach’s accompanying music, together with the Magi’sposture of offering oneself together with the gift, forms a cinematic synthesisthat blends aesthetically with the supplicating tone of Bach’s lyrics.

Those lyrics resonate in a later scene where Alexander, in his darkestmoment, kneels down, mirroring the Magi’s posture and reverent attitude, as heoffers himself up in a prayer of supplication and self-sacrifice:

Lord deliver us in this terrible hour. Do not let my children die, my friends,my wife. I will give you all I possess. I will leave the family I love. I shalldestroy my home, give up my son. I shall be silent. I will never speak withanyone again. I shall give up everything that binds me to life, if You only leteverything be as it was before, as it was this morning, as it was yesterday,so that I may be spared of this deadly, suffocating, bestial state of fear.

It is apparent, therefore, that the appearance of the Magi in the film’s openingcredits foreshadows Alexander’s sacrifice of himself, and “that is, [for Tarkovsky]the step which becomes a sacrifice, in the Christian sense of self-sacrifice.”9

The film’s theme of self-sacrifice emphasizes the dilemma of having tochoose between two polarized lifestyles. In Tarkovsky’s own words, Alexander


“stands at a crossroad faced with the choice of whether to pursue the existenceof a blind consumer.... Or to seek out a way that will lead to spiritual responsi-bility.”10 This dilemma is articulated in the second half of Alexander’s monologueas something closely connected to the malaise of a world that has deliberatelyturned away from its proper course, replacing spiritual truths with materialisticgoals. That is, a world which has fallen into the fallacy that the technologicalrace is for the sake of progress when actually what lies behind it is the desire forpower:

The result, [Alexander exclaims] is a civilization built on force, power, fear,and dependence. All our “technical progress” has only provided us withcomfort, 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 haveacquired a dreadful disharmony, an imbalance if you will, between ourmaterial and our spiritual development. Our culture is defective, I mean ourcivilization. Basically defective!

Alexander’s words remind us of another Alexander, Tarkovsky’s compatriotAlexander Solzhenitsyn.11 Twelve years earlier, Solzhenitsyn gave a sensationalspeech known as “The Harvard Address,” denouncing the West for its material-ism and spiritual decadence. Solzhenitsyn saw the West as a world that had lostits spiritual foundation and become an economic and political power withoutmoral restraints. “The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itselfour guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see anytask higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern civi-lization on the dangerous trend of worshipping man and his material needs.”12

For Solzhenitsyn the moral blindness that has permeated Western culture sincethe Renaissance has made manifest its own deficiencies. This humanism over-looks humans’ free will to choose good or evil—and history has shown that moreoften than not, they have chosen evil.13

Alexander’s monologue echoes Solzhenitsyn’s bleak vision of the West as amaterialistic culture that undermines spiritual values: a rational, secular cultureimmersed in a technological race in pursuit of power. Tarkovsky fast-forwardsSolzhenitsyn’s 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 humanity’sself-serving humanism bereft of morality, in the context of the chaos taking placein the background of Leonardo’s painting. The threatened nuclear holocaustserves as a background for the action of the film just as Leonardo’s depiction ofa world in chaos serves as the background to the birth of Christ. In other words,the painting’s representation of the destruction of a world order, is reinterpreted


in the film as an impending nuclear cataclysm. This first encounter with the painting at the diegetic level (as a prop) begins

with Otto, the postman, looking at Leonardo’s painting and asking “what onearth is that?” Alexander explains that it is “‘The Adoration of the Three Kings’by Leonardo.” To which Otto responds in a frightened tone, ”My God, how sin-ister it is! I’ve always been terrified of Leonardo!” After Otto leaves, Alexandercontinues looking at the painting with great intensity. As he moves closer to thepainting, we hear an off-screen voice from a television set downstairs telling itslisteners to remain calm and be courageous in this difficult time of war: “We arenow being organized nationwide. This is even the duty of all officers of the army.Every responsible citizen is expected to behave with courage to keep a cool headand to help the army in its effort to re-establish peace, order and discipline.”

At this moment, the camera shows the painting from Alexander’s point ofview, with Mary at the center holding the infant Jesus and a crowd of bystandersgazing at the Holy Child. The camera frames the foreground of the painting, can-celing out the war in background, which is replaced, as it were, by the impend-ing war being announced on television—no longer a battle of swords and hors-es, but a nuclear holocaust.

In Leonardo’s painting, the pictorial juxtaposition of the foreground action,the Magi’s adoration of the infant Christ, against the background action of a rag-ing war represents the transition from one period of history to another, the endof paganism and the dawn of Christianity.14 For Tarkovsky, Leonardo’s histori-cal theme is reversed: it is the waning not the dawning of Christianity thatAlexander is experiencing. Tarkovsky gives us a personal interpretation ofWestern culture five hundred years after the painting of The Adoration. The his-torical reversal is revealed through Alexander’s monologue and more concretelywhen he is shown paging through a book of Christian icons and laments, “All ofthis has been lost.”

The emerging era is defined by Alexander as a godless culture whose onlyconcern is the acquisition of power, the need to dominate by force and thethreat of destruction. The clash of these two eras, the fading Christian era andthe dominant technological era of secular humanism, marked by great advance-ments in technology—a technocratic culture whose technological benefits havebecome highly questionable. In the film’s narrative this is explicitly conveyed inAlexander’s monologue as he declares, “All our technical progress has only pro-vided instruments of violence for keeping power, power that we have put to useat the service of evil.” Alexander’s distrust of the emerging era is based on itsinsistence on disguising its course of action under the name of progress andwelfare for all humanity. For Alexander this relationship between technologyand power has reached its final hour, as society is now capable of self-destruction.


TWO SIDES OF A COIN The ideological and spiritual consequences of these two eras, the Technologicaland Christian, are symbolically present in the image of the tree. Immediatelyafter the opening credits, the camera moves upward to reveal a prominent treein Leonardo’s paining. It is covered with foliage, in contrast to the leafless treeplanted by Alexander. Leonardo’s tree has been interpreted in two ways. It maybe a carob tree, which may be associated with John the Baptist, the figure belowthe tree in the painting,15 or it may be associated with Judas who, in traditionalbelief hanged himself from a carob tree.16 Neither interpretation seems to suit thefilm’s theme of salvation, however. Instead, Tarkovsky offers a new meaning bycontrasting the barrenness of the film’s tree with the vitality of the painting’stree. In Sculpting in Time, he says the barren tree represents the state of faith ina strict spiritual/theological sense.17 The nature of this faith is expressed inAlexander’s story of the monk who believed that if he were to pour water on aparched tree, day after day, without ever doubting that “in the miraculous powerof his own faith in God” he would live to see the tree come back to life.18

Tarkovsky’s juxtaposition of the two trees creates an arboreal iconographythat by inference becomes emblematic of two distinct historical periods. Thefully leafed tree signals the importance of the Incarnation and symbolizes an ageof plenitude, completion and fulfillment; whereas the barren tree symbolizes atechnological era characterized by materialism and the lack of spiritual maturi-ty.19 Salvation for humankind can only be achieved through faith, the same faiththat is required to bring new life to a barren tree.


Alexander and “Little Man”plant the barren tree at thebeginning of The Sacrifice.Still courtesy of ArneCarlsson.

NARRATIVE INTROSPECTIONTarkovsky’s introspection about history is reflected in the tension between thetwo periods represented by the juxtaposition of the two trees. That juxtapositionelevates the narrative of the film to a metaphorical level. By contrasting theworld of the film with the world of the painting, Tarkovsky brings the fatal trans-formation brought about by technocratic culture into the narrative of the film. Ata symbolic level, the narrative is not concerned with tangible reality nor withconcrete, objective exposition of the action as is the case in a typical Hollywoodfilm. Rather, it evokes an abstract reality that escapes what we perceive at a sen-sory level. As Tarkovsky explains,

The Sacrifice is, among other things, a repudiation of commercial cinema....What I wanted was to pose questions and demonstrate problems that go tothe very heart of our lives and thus to bring the audience back to the dor-mant, parched sources of our existence. Pictures, visual images, are far bet-ter able to achieve that end than any words, particularly now, when theword has lost all mystery and magic and speech has become mere chatter.20

Tarkovsky acknowledges that a narrative representation either representsrealistically the outer-world or departs from a realistic representation by search-ing for an inner-world. For him, the narrative of The Sacrifice relates more close-ly to an introspective level of drama. In other words, the film’s narrative focus-es on the psychic rather than the somatic or realistic aspects of life. To take thetheme of war as an example: at the story level, the film addresses reality throughdepicting a war, albeit an imaginary war in the future; at the psychological level,the conflict is not between nations at war: the war is taking place withinAlexander’s mind.

THE NARRATIVE’S APOCALYPTIC IMAGERY Tarkovsky touches upon the painting’s background theme of war and destructionas he structures the narrative of the film around a future nuclear war. His pre-sentation of the apocalyptic event challenges the conception of reality set forthby the classical Hollywood narrative, where reality is processed and simplified,that is, presented as a clear construction of events that flow in a consistent andlogical pattern. The Sacrifice shows reality not as a logical construct, but assomething complex and, at times, ambiguous. It presents the apocalyptic war asreal at both the objective and subjective levels: a blurring of the distinctionbetween reality and illusion that the film never resolves. The film’s narrativeblends Alexander’s internal and external worlds into one continuous realitywithout a stylistic cue separating the two, thereby creating an ambiguity thatgoverns the entire structure of the narrative. This is illustrated by Alexander’sdreams in black and white and the juxtaposition of Leonardo’s painting with the


film’s narrative of war. Perhaps this ambiguity is felt most powerfully when, sud-denly, the war seems to have vanished. The lights come on; the telephone worksagain. Nothing indicates that there has ever been a war. There is not a singlemention of the war by any of the characters. Since everything seems to be nor-mal, the audience is left to wonder if the images of war are a product ofAlexander’s imagination. Tarkovsky tells us that an understanding of the narra-tive’s 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 Tarkovsky’s use of the nuclear war engages two dis-tinct but related levels of meaning. At one level, he recreates the present deca-dent condition of Western postmodern culture and links it to the end of theChristian era. That is, he reverses the painting’s theme in which the promise ofa future world of Christian culture triumphs over its pagan past. At another sub-jective and transcendent level, he uses the war imagery as metaphor for his owninner anxieties.

The film’s relation to the painting’s war-like background warns the viewerof the impending self-destruction of Western civilization uprooted from itsChristian spiritual, social, political, and moral past by a godless ideology basedsolely on technological progress. In this respect, the film’s narrative is distinctlyfuturistic. It poses the question: Where is this new historical era taking us?Tarkovsky’s view of the future is not the result of studying data from current andpast history. Rather, his approach to history comes out of a conviction that thepresent situation is in need of a spiritual turning point that will spare the world


Alexander sits on his couch after power is restored, and the lights come on. Still courtesy of Lars-Olof Löthwall.

from self-destruction. This self-destructive element of the current post-Christianculture is encapsulated in Alexander’s ambivalent personality as he wandersbetween the realms of dream, reality, and illusion.

Finally, the unresolved conflict expressed in this ambiguity between realityand illusion brings us to the other level of the representation. The image of warhere is used as a metaphor to convey not only Alexander’s mental state but, per-haps, Tarkovsky’s sense that the end of his life was drawing near. MayaTurovskaya suggests that Tarkovsky’s apocalyptic vision could have been influ-enced by his knowledge that he was afflicted with a fatal illness. “By the timehe filmed The Sacrifice,” she writes, “Tarkovsky knew what he had, even havingto interrupt the filming for spells in the hospital.”22 Johnson and Petrie, howev-er, argue the contrary. They refute Turovskaya’s argument with the fact thatTarkovsky’s diary indicates that, “he was diagnosed with cancer in December1985 after the film’s completion, but before the final cut had been completelyedited.” Nonetheless, they seem to accept the possibility that Tarkovsky mayhave struggled with a premonition of his own impending death: “He [Tarkovsky]was a highly intuitive man, and his general ill health that year may have con-tributed an even more poignant personal tone to his final film, and it may wellbe legitimate to see it as a final testament, despite what his original intentionmay have been.”23 Andrei Tarkovsky died in Paris on the fifth day of the Octaveof Christmas, December 29, 1986.

A PROPHETIC VISION In speaking of The Sacrifice, Tarkovsky tells us of the true poet/artist’s unbear-able gift of being able to foresee the future. He believed in the artist’s mysteriouspowers to reach unknown truths and make contact with a higher reality throughhis or her own work: “I don’t know what this means. I only know that it is veryfrightening, and I have no doubt that the poetry of the film is going to becomea specific reality, that the truth it touches will materialize, will make itselfknown, and—whether I like it or not—will affect my life.”24

Tarkovsky’s adaptation of The Adoration of the Magi offers evidence of bothpositive and negative interaction with the painting. His reversal of Leonardo’spictorial theme is made manifest in Alexander’s monologue, in which he lamentshumanity’s changed relation with nature. Today, nature is regarded as somethingto be used, as raw material to be exploited. Here Alexander’s monologue echoesRomano Guardini’s judgement that, “Man today distrusts Nature. He cannotspeak of ‘Mother Nature.’ Nature has become alien and dangerous to man. Thereligious sentiments expressed calmly and clearly by Goethe [in his TiefurturJournal] 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 theeagerness of technological culture to satisfy its creative urges by controllingnature without any regard for moral restraint. The traditional moral principles of


the Western civilization rooted in “Natural Law” no longer apply in today’s tech-nocratic world order:

Our human world is constructed, modeled, according to material laws, forman has given his society the forms of dead matter and taken its laws uponhimself. Therefore he does not believe in Spirit and repudiates God. Hefeeds on bread alone. How can he see Spirit, Miracle, God, if from hisstandpoint they have no place in the structure, if they are redundant.26

The attitude noted by Tarkovsky not only places humanity completely in chargeof nature, it denies us control of our own destiny. Humankind itself becomesexploited by the present technocracy.27 In the final analysis, Tarkovsky’s film isa postscript to the death of God proclaimed by Nietzsche and fulfilled by today’stechnocracy. His statement becomes prophetic when we consider that in 2002the representatives of the European Community were unable to agree upon andapprove a final draft of a constitution that would minimally acknowledge the“historical fact that Europe is Christian and that it has grown on the foundationof the Christian faith.”28

THE ENDTarkovsky warned that “the significant events [The Sacrifice] contains can beinterpreted 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 sym-bolizes two ideologically opposed moments in history. However, at the end of thefilm the actual tree’s significance changes as it serves to illustrate Alexander’sstory 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, thetwo trees are related through Tarkovsky’s use of similar camera movements. Asat the beginning of the film, when the camera moves up to the foliage on the treein Leonardo’s painting, it now moves up the trunk of the tree until it reaches thetop where it remains for a good thirty seconds, allowing us to examine thebranches for any signs of life. This final long shot is accompanied by Bach’sErbarme Dich, which we heard in the opening of the film. Tarkovsky’s repetitionof Bach’s lyrics works like an antiphon, providing additional meaning to the nar-rative. This time the contrite tone of the lyrics seems to suggest confidence sim-ilar to that expressed in Psalm 51 by the declaration, “My sacrifice, a humble andcontrite heart you will not spurn.”

This masterful final shot begins with Alexander’s son, Little Man, lying at thefoot 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 hasreceived varying interpretations. Mark Le Fanu describes it as plain and very real-istic, and suggests that in Little Man’s “recovery of speech the film offers its final



message of humanism and hope.”30 Maya Turovscaya finds a spiritual connota-tion: “Through the stumps we see the sky and the flat sea, depth and distanceand height. ‘The effort of resurrection.’”31 For Johnson and Petrie, the shot has amagical effect: “The dead tree which Little Man is watering at the end does‘come to life’ in a shimmering vision of light through Alexander’s sacrifice andhis son’s belief.”32 All of these interpretations stress a sense of resolution andclosure. Yet, this open-ended closing also seems to suggest that the next genera-tion may find a way to escape the emptiness and futility of the present culture.Isn’t this the sense we get from Little Man lying on the ground under the barrentree waiting for it to come to life after having watered it?

IN CONCLUSION The film certainly exploits the painting’s Gospel message that salvation comesthrough sacrificial offering, that is, suffering and innocent child-like faith.However, Alexander’s own sacrificial action seems to contradict the biblicalmeaning of Christian sacrifice embedded in Leonardo’s Adoration of the Magi.The key to understanding Alexander’s sacrifice lies in his prayer and ensuingdestruction of his house and everything in it, which seem like attempts to escapehis overwhelming anxiety and fear of doom by trying to bargain with God. Christdid not bring suffering and death upon himself; he surrendered voluntarily toGod’s will. Alexander’s sacrifice, on the other hand, is self-imposed and self-serving, in the sense that he hopes to appease God and avert the war.

At a different level, however, the painting’s and the film’s messages rein-force each other. The painting’s foreground and background set up a tensionbetween the orders of nature and culture, respectively, and the film’s premise isthat the order of culture (i.e., technology) has come to dominate and at timesreplace the natural order. As a consequence, humankind faces imminent destruc-tion. Nevertheless, the film’s conclusion leaves open the possibility of restoringthe natural order by joining—with child-like faith—Alexander’s son in wateringthe barren tree.

NOTES1. Alicja Helman and Osadnik M. Waclaw, "Film and Literature: Models of Film Adaptation

and a Proposal for a (Poly) System Approach," Canadian Review of ComparativeLiterature 23.3 (1996): 649.

2. Here the term “one-to-one correspondence” is used in a broad sense. It refers to a closesimilarity between the film image and its pictorial source.

3. Peter Green, “Apocalypse & Sacrifice,” Sight and Sound 56.2 (1987): 113. See also, MarkLe 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.

Liturgically speaking, the three feasts following the birth of Christ are directly connectedwith the theme of sacrifice/martyrdom. They represent the three possible forms of mar-tyrdom: voluntary and executed (Stephen), voluntary but not executed (John), and executed but not voluntary (Holy Innocents). Thus, sacrifice/martyrdom are implicit inthe pictorial representation of the birth of Jesus.

8. Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time, 217.

9. Ibid., 218.

10. Ibid., 218.

11. Andrei Tarkovsky, Time Within Time, The Diaries 1970-1986 (London: Faber & Faber,2002). Tarkovsky’s knowledge of, and admiration for, Solzhenitsyn’s work are evident inhis 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 PolicyCenter, 1980),16-17.

13. Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956), 97.

14. Maiorino, 61.

15. Carlo Pedretti, Leonardo: A Study in Chronology and Style. (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1973), 33.

16. Ibid., 33.


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.


25. Guardini, 71.


27. Guardini, 74-75.

28. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, interview, March 2002, News Agency, The World Seen fromRome, http://www.zenith.org


30. Le Fanu, 135.

31. Turovscaya, 149.

32. Johnson and Petrie, 213. See also, 183-184 and 201.

GABRIEL F. GIRALT is a Professor in the School of Communication, The Uni -versity of Akron, where he teaches new media production, television production,and cinema studies.


Documents

ANDREI TARKOVSKY’S ADAPTATION OF MOTIFS · PDF fileRésumé: En incorporant le tableau “L’Adoration du Magi” de Léonard de Vinci à la structure narrative de son film Le Sacrifice,