This paper examines Andrei Tarkovsky's film "The Sacrifice," tracing how the director uses visual symbolism, musical composition, and narrative structure to explore themes of spiritual offering and redemption. Beginning with Leonardo's painting of the Magi and Bach's Matthew's Passion, the essay analyzes how Tarkovsky develops interconnected motifs—the barren tree, the monk's story, the mailman as spiritual emissary—to convey the tension between intellectual abstraction and genuine faith. The paper grapples with the film's enigmatic third act, where the protagonist's sacrifice becomes increasingly difficult to interpret, ultimately suggesting that Tarkovsky invites viewers to embrace mystery and uncertainty as essential to spiritual understanding.
The opening of Andrei Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice immediately captivated me through a meditation on the gift of the Magi to the Infant Jesus in Leonardo's Renaissance painting, coupled with the inspiring oratorio of Bach. This combination suggested something special—something of substance, something deep, something spiritual. The director's choice to begin with a classical piece like Bach's Matthew's Passion was clearly an effort to set the film's tone. The camera pans up the painting to the Tree of Life (a possible foreshadowing of Terrence Malick's spiritual cinema that would follow decades later) and cuts to the scene of the hero planting a barren tree that appears to be a remnant of a bombed-out village.
The landscape is stripped of everything superfluous: only the sea, land, and automobile tracks worn into the road are visible. The image immediately evokes eternity, especially where the land juts into the sea and the bare tree limbs reach desperately outward for life. The clear sky seems to silently observe and approve the hero's efforts to restore a dead tree to life. The significance is apparent: the spiritual Tree of Life is absent, and these characters possess only a barren tree that bears no fruit. Tarkovsky develops multiple themes in this opening—the spiritual theme of offering, the anchoring theme of rebirth and redemption, and the theme of passion alluded to in Bach's Matthew's Passion—linking them together and implying a connection between the human and the divine, between the earthly and the spiritual. This opening scene is simultaneously desolate and full of wonder and haunting beauty.
The haunting beauty permeates the entire film: in the characters introduced, their conversations, the unnamed dread accompanying them, the empty-seeming rooms of the house, the landscape, and the weight of eternity. All of these elements establish a visual and thematic foundation for what follows.
The hero misinterprets the story of the monk who watered a barren tree daily for three years until it was finally covered with blossoms. The hero asserts that there is something to be said for a system, a ritual—that something as simple as flushing a glass of water down the toilet every day for a year could change the world. This is an absurd notion, revealing that he is lost in intellectual, abstract flights of fancy. He sees the beauty of the barren tree, which looks especially Oriental (another reference to the three wise men), but he cannot grasp its spiritual significance; he can only seize upon the significance of habit. He has yet to distinguish between good and bad—watering a tree versus wasting water down a toilet.
This moment is especially poignant because so often in our own spiritual journeys we are attracted by beauty yet fail to truly see the significance of things. We become lost in our own thoughts and abstractions, feeling self-important like the professor who enjoys hearing himself speak. Meanwhile, his son dutifully places rocks around the tree as instructed—obedient and silent, just like the monk's assistant in the story the hero has just told. The son appears to understand more deeply than the father. We are often too impressed with ourselves, which causes us to miss the greater point: we are not the masters of this world, but creatures who must appeal to a Creator and who must offer something to Him, as the Magi showed us at the film's beginning.
The arrival of the mailman further develops the theme of giving. Just as the Magi offer gifts at the birth of the Savior, the mailman comes to wish the hero a happy birthday. The mailman also represents a parallel to Christ: as the Savior sacrifices Himself for humanity, so too will the hero eventually sacrifice himself—his home, his words—for his family and humanity. Additionally, the mailman reveals the hero's critical flaw: he cannot see correctly, having forgotten his glasses. This reinforces the sense that he misses important spiritual truths, such as the one in the monk's story.
The mailman reads the letter he has come to deliver and acts as a spiritual emissary. He quotes the letter: "God grant you health," and then inquires as to the hero's relationship with God. The hero confesses that his relationship with God is non-existent. The mailman cheerfully replies that "it could be worse." This funny exchange supports the sense that this is a comedic, hopeful story—as all stories based on the sacrifice and redemption motif are—despite the underlying gravity of the themes at play.
The shots are long and contemplative, underscoring the mystical nature of the film. It is almost like watching Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, which channels Tarkovsky in its capture of landscape, mood, light, and inner human depths. The interior of the elegantly-styled home and the mysterious air of the mailman add to a great sense of impending climax. The stillness of the shots, or the way the camera glides slowly from room to room as though drifting quietly on the breeze, suggests that a powerful restraining force is at work. This reminds me of the visual style of Terrence Malick in The Thin Red Line, when he slowly steers the camera across wild, grassy hills.
Tarkovsky's decision to allow actors to turn their backs to the camera as they consider the mystery during the mailman's conversation adds to the sense that we are observing these people in a real way, as though we were present yet unobserved. This cinematic choice creates an intimacy that invites contemplation rather than passive viewing.
"War news forces hero to renew faith and make vow to God"
"Dream or reality: Maria the witch and the hero's puzzling sacrifice"
When the hero wakes and finds that the world is still there, he decides he has to make good on his promise. This too is strange. Has the mystical experience been so powerful for him? While I understand the theme of the sacrifice, this seems almost too twisted to really believe—almost maddening. Has the hero lost his mind? Or is this what Tarkovsky thinks makes a compelling sacrifice? I confess I find the third act of the film to be very hard to understand.
Nonetheless, it is a haunting sequence when the hero sets the house ablaze. It feels devastating. The Oriental music the hero plays while he burns the house returns us to the Magi theme, and the burnt offering theme returns us to the religious significance of the holocaust. The hero keeps his vow of silence and is carted off in a white ambulance with a red cross on the side, wearing his Oriental yin-yang robe. Meanwhile, his son waters the barren tree and quotes his father: "In the beginning was the Word," and then asks, "Why's that, Papa?" So the film ends with this puzzling note, as though appreciative of the acts of faith (watering the tree, burning the home, keeping silence) yet still baffled by them.
The end has a hopeful element in the sense that, in answer to the boy's question, Tarkovsky's own dedication appears on screen, compelling the boy, Tarkovsky's own son, and perhaps the questioning audience to go forward with hope and confidence even if we cannot make sense of these mysteries and must wait years for some answer (even for the bloom to return on the barren tree). Perhaps we should accompany the hero to the clinic and sit in silence with him. Perhaps that is what Tarkovsky is suggesting. There is no denying the substantial spiritual theme, but I will admit it was not quite what I was expecting. That may not be a bad thing. Perhaps that is Tarkovsky's way of jarring us out of preconceived notions of sacrifice and offering.
I do appreciate what the mailman says to the hero earlier in the film: that gifts are a sacrifice—implying that a gift given without sacrifice is not really much of a gift. This idea struck me, and when I think about it, it seems true. I have always thought that birthday gifts were trivial—perhaps the reason I felt that way was because I could tell there was not much sacrifice or thought put into them. But every once in a while, when I or someone else would put themselves into a gift, then you felt it. So this is definitely a film that will, I think, stay with me.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.