Thursday, September 30, 2021

Movies out of sync with songs of the same name

In September, my assignment in the Facebook group Flickchart Friends Favorites Fiesta was Andrei Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice, a typically ponderous slice of his trademark slow cinema. I've told you about this group before, but as a reminder, it pairs you up with another member of the group each month, and you watch that member's highest ranked film on Flickchart that you haven't seen. In September, I'd seen my partner's top 44 films. This was his #45.

I'll include below what I wrote about it when I posted in the group. But for now, I want to talk about the fact that every time I saw it among my rented items on iTunes, or considered that I needed to watch it before the calendar flipped over to October (I got it in just under the wire on Wednesday night), I had the following song going through my head:



It's not a favorite Elton John song of mine or anything, and in fact, I'm willing to bet it had been 20 years since I'd heard it. I rectified that just now while writing this post.

So it's funny to consider how these little bits of cultural ephemera sit in your head and pop up at the strangest of times. "Sacrifice" is not a particularly uncommon word, and in fact, I'm sure I've heard a handful of other songs with the same title. But the one that came up whenever I considered Tarkovsky's film was the one sung by Elton John and released in 1989. (Which, granted, was only three years after Tarkovsky released his film.) I mean, I needn't have though of any song at all when considering the film.

If you've seen The Sacrifice, you know what an odd match it makes with John. And if you haven't seen it, you may wish to avert your eyes -- consider this your SPOILER ALERT.

While John's song is a tender love ballad with the modest ambition of appealing to a very mainstream audience, The Sacrifice is an abstract example of slow cinema that deals with a man who burns down his house as part of a bargain with God to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Mainstream audiences should stay far, far away. (In fact, I could have included a poster that shows this burning house, which doesn't burn until the long-awaited final ten minutes of the movie, which couldn't have arrived sooner for me. But I decided not to spoil the movie for you right up front, despite this other poster's desire to do so.)

I did think it was interesting to note something that this poster reveals, which is that it expects you to have a very difficult time with this film. The poster pleads "Hang on to the very end and you may find yourself moved as you have never been moved before." It's essentially an admission that this is an arduous viewing experience, but has its rewards if you just stick with it. Well, it's debatable. 

If I had the energy I used to have, I'd now give you five other example of movies that are very hilariously different from songs that share their name. Instead, I'll just give you my write-up on The Sacrifice as promised. I've removed the guy's name just because it's irrelevant and I'd like to preserve his privacy. Though he has nothing to be ashamed of in his love for The Sacrifice. The problem clearly lies with me.

Here it is:

Andrei Tarkovsky's films are endurance tests under the best of circumstances. For me, the best of circumstances was Solaris, which was long but incredibly fulfilling, becoming a favorite of mine. But I lost the battle with Stalker, feeling every passing minute of that movie without enough reward to justify the commitment. I do, in that case, recognize a desire to revisit it again one day, knowing there is thematic material that I might appreciate more on a second viewing.
I don't know that I'll ever be going back to xxx's #45, The Sacrifice (1986). This is not to say that I hated it. I got what it was going for, with a little help from Wikipedia along the way. But it's one of those films where as it is progressing, things are happening that you can't really incorporate into your understanding of what the film has set up for you so far. As an example, I very belatedly got that this is a movie about an imminent nuclear holocaust and one man's attempt to bargain with God to prevent it from happening. (That's partially because this stuff doesn't start happening until the 45 minute mark or so.) Once I understood that, though, it confounded me that one of the man's friends urges him to go sleep with his maid, an act of adultery, because she is "the best kind" of witch. Witches now? So I had to go back to Wikipedia again to figure out what I may have missed.
The answer is, I didn't miss anything, but this is Tarkovsky. His films are meant to be appreciated on very abstract levels, or not at all. I'm not going to say The Sacrifice was an instance of "not at all," but it worked significantly less well for me than Stalker and that was already borderline incomprehensible for me. Those that love Tarkovsky worship him, and I know I have the potential given my feelings toward Solaris. So I guess we'll see how I go with my fourth film of his, after another rest of a couple years to regather myself.
I did very much appreciate the apocalyptic tone that hangs over the film. The man has sort of visions to a future post-nuclear landscape covered with snow and ash, as the camera crawls along the detritus on the ground -- a scene that reminded me of similar camera movements along the refuse-strewn ground in Stalker. I was also reminded of Bergman while watching this, and not just because the film was in Swedish, but because of its religious themes as well. It turns out this is no coincidence as Bergman's son worked on the film, as well as Bergman's personal DP, Sven Nykvist, plus I think a couple Bergman collaborators in the cast as well. I love Bergman so this should be a good thing, but the Bergman film it reminds me of most is my least favorite, Cries and Whispers, which also takes place largely inside one palatial house. As it turns out, Nykvist also shot this, though the two films couldn't look more different in terms of their color. While the reds are downright garish in Cries and Whispers, I learned (also from Wikipedia) that Tarkovsky drained at least 60 percent of the color from The Sacrifice in post-production.
Let's see how it enters my chart:
The Sacrifice < The Hate U Give
The Sacrifice > I Shot Andy Warhol
The Sacrifice < Burning Cane
The Sacrifice > Meet the Browns
The Sacrifice < Somewhere
The Sacrifice < Auntie Mame
The Sacrifice > Premonition
The Sacrifice > John Carter
The Sacrifice < Sleepers
The Sacrifice < Chuck Norris vs. Communism
The Sacrifice < The Man from London
The Sacrifice > Finding Dory
3777/5593 (32%)
This session of dueling was particularly interesting, as the movie came up against two other examples of slow cinema that I found really challenging, Sofia Coppola's Somewhere and Bela Tarr's The Man from London. I really had to sit and think about both choices, and the challenger won in both cases, though I'm not sure that's right. If it had beaten Somewhere, The Sacrifice would have landed much higher than 32%, but that's Flickchart for you. However, there's clearly something wrong with my list as I like this film MUCH better than Finding Dory.
Thanks xxxx. Whether he works for me all the time or not, Tarkovsky is a master and this was an important benchmark in working my way through his films.

No comments: