In this project I will analyse, based on a few scenes, how the film The Sacrifice directed by Andrei Tarkovski conveys emotion through cinematographic means.

The whole film can be found on Youtube at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzVkwyJIL88

Key terms, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary:

Frame - one of the single photographs that a film or video is made of

Shot - a scene in a film that is filmed continuously by one camera

Scene - a part of a film in which the action happens in one place or is of one particular type

IMAGE A:

How The Sacrifice conveys emotion through cinematography - image 1 - student project

This frame is from the scene where the maid notices that the glasses suddenly start shaking on the tray as if due to an earthquake. You can watch this scene starting from 45:25

She is somewhere in the kitchen and those shelves and that vase from 1 must be quite close behind the subject, no further than a few meters from her, yet the depth of field is so shallow that we can barely distinguish the features of what we see in 1. If the depth of field is defined as the distance between the closest and furthest object that we can see clearly enough, the depth of field in this frame would be extremely shallow, no deeper than the distance between the glass (perhaps a bit closer to the camera than the subject’s face) and the subject, these are the only easily distinguishable objects here. The depth of field does not reach the shelves given how heavily blurred they are. The same very shallow depth of field is reconfirmed by that object on the wall in 3, it is so blurred you can not tell what it is, perhaps a light switch or a plug. Caught by surprise by this earthquake-like phenomenon (which is later revealed to actually be the rumbling of fighter jets flying right above the house), the subject is in a state of panic and disorientation. Putting ourselves in the maid’s shoes, when the objects around you start shaking and you feel the ground trembling beneath your feet, due to the panic engulfing you from all directions you start to feel disoriented and somewhat shortsighted whereby everything around you gets blurred, even the objects close to you. It is exactly this shortsightedness induced by panic that corresponds to such a shallow depth of field. This interpretation could be confirmed by the naturally far larger depth of field in the tranquil scenes before the quake, the background becomes so featureless only when “the subject’s world” starts trembling. In this shot, all our focus is channeled to these elements - the terrified expression on her face and the crystal clear image of the glass she is holding which visually enhances the clinking sound made by the shaking glasses on the tray.

As far as the lighting is concerned, the key light (the primary source of light) is clearly projected from the left side of the frame judging by the glass’s shadow we see on her cheek in 2, the other shadows we see on her neck and chest most likely come from her hand. There does not seem to be any backlight in the form of a light source, only that barely distinguishable vase from 1 stands out a little bit, its white colour reflects a bit of the key light, but the background remains unclear, “deformed” by that trembling seeming to engulf the subject from everywhere. Given that the shadows on her cheek and neck are so clear, very little to no fill light must have been used to adjust or minimise those shadows, the key light’s intensity and the angle of her face seem to be enough here for us to distinguish the dread on her face. I guess those shadows were left untouched to clearly show the audience that the maid is looking towards the source of light, possibly a window, as we know this happens during the day. After all, it is a normal reflex to turn your gaze outside (through a window or door, for example) when a natural disaster such as an earthquake strikes.

This last point draws my attention to how the rule of thirds applies to this frame. She is slightly placed on the right hand side of the frame and is looking towards the left side, so in this case looking into the so called negative space. In normal circumstances this would create a reassuring feeling, but given the current context in which the whole house starts shaking from every nook and cranny, the danger seems to come from everywhere, so this scene is scary and tense regardless of whether she is long siding (as she actually is in this frame) or short siding (if she were looking to the closest edge of frame).

The camera descends from her face towards the tray as she lays down that glass. The subtly unstable camera movement points most likely to a hand held camera, probably a choice meant to enhance that general feeling of everything trembling around you. It is also interesting how the camera seems to follow that glass, perhaps as some kind of symbol of fragility in the face of the raging war (the quake was caused by fighter jets flying right above the house), especially given that, a few moments later, a jar falls from the shelf and breaks (see 46:05).

The perspective of this shot feels to me subjective, it is as if you share her perspective and feeling of panic and bewilderment.

IMAGE B:

How The Sacrifice conveys emotion through cinematography - image 3 - student project

Cinematography does not convey emotion exclusively through what it shows you, but also through what it does not let you see, but subtly gives you the impression it is there. This scene is a very eloquent example of how this works. Here we see the subjects watching the news of an imminent nuclear war, so we, as audience, naturally have that “come on, turn the camera, let me see that too” urge. We do hear the news, but we want to see the TV’s screen too. The camera withholds us this for about one minute and a half, enough to build a lot of suspense and let us imagine the unnerving images they might see.

Another interesting choice here was to show us the TV’s screen only once Alexander joined them (see from 55:10) and started watching. This gives us the impression of a subjective perspective closely tied to Alexander’s point of view, especially as the camera moves across all those gathered at the table as Alexander slowly passes by them on his way to take his seat. It would have amplified the subjective feeling of this scene if the camera had moved across from Alexander’s height, that would have given us the impression of seeing them directly through Alexander’s eyes. Instead, the camera moves horizontally approximately from chest height.

When it comes to the lighting, as you can see in the previous shot (that of the maid with the glass in image A), the colours felt naturally warm in contrast to this scene where everything is shrouded in a cold dark blueish hue although both the windows from the back and those from the right hand side of the frame are relatively brightly lit which makes us think the sun must still be shining. This shows how lighting in cinematography changes not only in accordance to physics, but also to convey a mood. How would you feel if you heard that the world would be scorched soon in a nuclear war? This scenario takes the saying “to feel blue” to a whole different level. Also worth mentioning how this lighting makes their skin colour look dead – pale, perhaps a hint at the looming nuclear apocalypse. This sense of desolation is conveyed also through that toppled chair in front of them and the desperate expression on their faces.

This scene can be watched starting from 54:00

IMAGE C:

How The Sacrifice conveys emotion through cinematography - image 4 - student project

This frame is from the scene where Alexander prays to God to prevent the nuclear war. You can watch this scene starting from 1:13:05

At the beginning of the film, the same Alexander held a monologue (see from 19:48) which seemed to have foreshadowed this current scene:

“ Man has defended himself, always, against other men, against nature. He has constantly violated nature. The result is a civilisation built on force, power, fear, dependence. ”

The historical context plays an important role in understanding this scene. This film is from 1986 when the threat of a nuclear war capable of obliterating most of mankind was constantly looming, this theme definitely struck a more sensitive chord in the 80’s audience, during the cold war, in comparison to our times. A first thing that draws our attention is that the subject looks directly into the camera. Addressing God while looking us straight in the eye through the camera lens points to us, the audience, being God ourselves in the sense that it is up to us to decide if the world goes on or gets wiped out. The same feeling of addressing the audience as God is reinforced by him looking up at the camera. I suppose this impression would have been even stronger if the camera had slowly and steadily been lifted towards the ceiling once he had finished his monologue, but without shifting the focus away from the subject. Instead, the camera decides to gradually pull us from this God-like point of view and put us “back with our feet on the ground”, at the same level as the disheartened subject, after all, in a nuclear war, mankind is both the destroyer and the destroyed (“there will be no victors and no vanquished” in Alexander’s words).

There seems to be no trace of back light in this shot, the background, which in this case is the floor, is not meant to distract us from Alexander’s expression and monologue at all. Fill light does not seem to be used here either, creating a strong contrast leaving the left half of his face almost completely dark. The right side of his face has an eerie blue – grey hue, similar to the one from the previous frame (image B), creating this feeling that he is half dead. The key light coming from the right hand side is calibrated well enough to highlight his teary, piercing eye as he prays passionately.

IMAGE D:

How The Sacrifice conveys emotion through cinematography - image 5 - student project

Alexander (the one from the previous shot) swore to God he would give up everything dear to him if the nuclear war were averted, that he, in exchange, would give up his family, destroy his home and never speak another word to anyone.

This frame is from the scene where his family and friends discover he set the house ablaze. You can watch this scene starting from 2:19:25

A first thing that catches the eye here is how warm the colours are in comparison to the previous two scenes analysed before (images B and C). The colours have regained their natural warmth that we see in the first shot (see image A). Restoring the film’s vividness it had before the announcement of the imminent nuclear disaster most likely points to the threat of war being over. Remarkable how adjusting the colour conveys not only a mood, but can also give information about the plot itself. Although we no longer “feel blue” due to the impending nuclear apocalypse, this scene feels at least equally heart wrenching.

Let’s put ourselves in Alexander’s shoes for a moment: you set your home on fire and you believe wholeheartedly that you also have a “divine” duty to leave your family and friends behind. You feel the overwhelming urge to beg them for forgiveness and explain to them why you have done that, but your other vow forbids you from ever uttering a word again. All these thoughts rush through your mind while running away from people trying to take you to the hospital. It is impressive to see him so desperately hugging his dear ones, probably for the last time, trying to express all his love through this fleeting gesture. “If only one could stop talking and do something instead” reads a line from a monolgue Alexander holds at the beginning (see from 21:35), it turns out this wish fulfilled in a tragic way for him.

In many other films this kind of climactic scene would very often be accompanied by emotional music as well as by close-ups capturing the subjects’ grief-stricken faces. These two would have worked very well here too to deepen the audience’s emotion, however, this scene is meant to touch the audience by putting us in a purely subjective perspective conveyed in a realistic way. It feels as if we watched this scene through the eyes (the camera) of a passer-by witnessing this incident from aside. The depth of field feels naturally large given that we can easily distinguish from the closest objects all the way to the furthest ones on the horizon line, just as it would be the case in real life. The subtly unstable movements of the camera (see from 2:20:00) point to a hand held approach which enhances the subjective impression of the scene, it feels as if, we, the audience, were slowly pacing around on the uneven muddy ground through a “curious passer-by” (the camera) witnessing the tragedy unfold.

Music or montage instantly switching us from one place to the other would have made this scene’s perspective less realistic.

Apart from analysing what methods are used to build a certain emotion, there is also the mere, ineffable beauty in this film. For example, just look at how that puddle (left hand side of the frame) mirrors the flames, this kind of “fire on water” image is simply enthralling, it speaks to the viewer’s heart in a way that might not be so easily deconstructed trying to figure out what it is exactly that makes it so fascinating.

Bogdan Buturuga

Bogdan Buturuga

--

4