I only made it through half of it. The scene with the one person crying was so physically uncomfortable (truly one of the most physically unpleasant things I've experienced) that I needed to take a break, and I never ended up finishing it.

you mean that annoying broad wailing?

tud, i tend to have a similar experience with all tarkovsky movies, not just "sacrifice" (well, with the exception of "ivan's childhood")... because i found them all confusing and complicated on first view... but usually after a second viewing i realize how basic they are, in essence...

to me, the movie attempts to embody the birth of religiosity... the attempt of a modern/rational man to reimmerse himself in spirituality because he feels the futility of applying rationality to everything in life; but he does so only when it is called for by an extreme situation such as this catastrophe...

"It's strange how before we allow ourselves to take care of and love one another, we so typically wait for untold cataclysms to occur first." (-AT)

...and he does it in a strange, dumbfounding and inexplicable way (which, tarkovsky said, is how such actions always appear to others - a thread that is common to all his other movies, with exception of "ivan's childhood")

Yes.

Tarkovsky is one of the most openhearted and uncompromising social and cultural critics among contemporary artist-celebrities in Western society. "I welcome the Western democracy in every way," he says, adding: "But I must tell you that it has also taken the need from people to perceive themselves as spiritual beings. Spirituality is far from mandatory in the existence of a Western intellectual. By spirituality I mean the individual’s interest in the meaning of life. What do we live for? Where are we headed? What is the meaning of our existence on this planet? A person who has not yet contemplated these questions, is a spiritless personality. This means living on a cat's level - animals do not ask themselves such questions."

These refer to the fact that the consumer-oriented society tries to hide its actual face from the individual. It tries to persuade people that they are lacking something – something that can be offered by the manufacturer, always calling for consumption. Freedoms of choice in such a society are mainly illusory, because uniform inner desolation is being offered in the form of seeming diversity. Tarkovsky shows that through different mechanisms the spiritual dimension is lost from the general world view; historical or confessional independence that is being offered has deprived people from believing in their inherent freedom and mightiness. The situation in which we would ask what the meaning of life is and why we were created is therefore avoided as much as possible, and these questions are given the hue of irrelevance or obsoleteness. Society tries to make the most fundamental, ideological choices for people, thus minimizing their ability and need to apply their personal judgment and will.

"A person is born free and fearless," Tarkovsky says, instead. "Our vision, however, lies in the desire to hide and defend ourselves from our nature - this compels us to stick to one another closer and closer. We communicate, not because we like to communicate, nor to get satisfaction, but in order not to feel so terrified. A civilization where human relations are built on this principle is wrong. On principle, the entire so-called "technological progress" creates nothing but prostheses. Indeed, we are moving many times faster than in the previous century. But it hasn’t made us any happier. We are the slaves to the system."

Finally watched Andrei Rublev yesterday. And guess what? It's fucking brilliant. I apparently watched only the three hour cut, so for my next viewing I will search for a more complete version of the film, but I was already immensely satisfied with this one. The film had a much grander scope than I had expected, but that was counterbalanced often enough with more humble scenes depicting the individual's struggle to reconcile oneself with art and religion. Or something like that. AR is now definitely my favourite Tarkovsky, even though Zerkalo, Stalker and Solaris are not that far behind.

Yesterday's double bill came also with a first viewing of Ivan's Childhood. This film seemed to me slightly more indebted to film history as I sensed a lot of realism in this one. Neorealism, poetic realism and oddly enough (as George pointed out) some scenes were very reminiscent of German expressionist imagery. The film in a way also reminded me a lot of Melville's Le Silence de la Mer, but I'm not yet sure how to defend this claim.

So a cinema in the city is now screening all of his films. Already seen "The Steamroller and the Violin", "The Sacrifice" and "Ivan's Childhood", they were all pretty damn great and I will probably have seen the rest of them by mid-August. "Andrei Rublev" is next. So, is "Tempo di viaggio" essential viewing as well or should I stick with the feature films for now?

so you've seen his three most modest films so far...
the remaining five movies are probably the five greatest things committed to celluloid by anyone... (imo, of course)

"tempo di viaggio" isn't a must see at all... it's somewhat of a half-baked documentary made while Tarkovsky was trying to find his bearings in Italy and searching for locations and ideas for his then upcoming movie (which would become "nostalghia")... it's certainly interesting, though, if you already feel that Tarkovsky interests you not just as a filmmaker but as a philosopher as well... but if it'd take up unneccessary time or energy, you don't have to go - we can discuss anything and everything here, and we have enough Tarkovsky admirers here at this point to make that easy, i think... (-:

btw, i'm in russia this summer, and if i have an extra day to spend in moscow, i'll try to make the pilgrimage to his museum.
also, i'm introducing russians to tarkovsky, i.e., everyone who i feel would potentially "get" it... most people our age here haven't even heard of him... : ! :

I tried to introduce Philip Kitcher to Tarkovsky, not sure if it did/will work.

Is this the perfect woman?
http://www.facebook.com/liza.petrosyan.1?sk=info

go for it, your drewness... i can teach you some poetry in armenian to spark ze romance (-:

Yes.

who is that

Definitely looking forward to every single one of them, especially if they're even greater than Offret.

lol I was just gonna say you suck for saying that but then I noticed the colour-coded addition.

<3 george

Andrei Rublev is now in the Top Ten best films I've seen this year.

The remaining five films are the five greatest things committed to celluloid by anyone... other than the films of Yasujiro Ozu.