Tarkovsky and secular censorship

I love Tarkovsky, every film of his that I’ve seen was a masterpiece, but what I’m about to say may be blasphemous to cinephiles and/or Christians. Perfect for Christmas Day!

Did Tarkovsky’s films benefit from the secular censorship of the Soviet Union?

This question started when I had heard somewhere that Solaris originally had many more Christians references, but where removed. At first, this seems like a good choice, but then again I’m not an artistic genius like Tarkovsky.

I’m torn by this question. On the one hand the overt Christian themes in Andrei Rublev don’t bother me at all, on the other hand Sacrifice, made in exile, is slightly strained by it’s mysticism. Perhaps its because the events are strange when set in modern times, while in Rublev’s time it seems perfectly natural.

The romantic in me wants to defend Tarkovsky and pronounce death to censorship!
So, please, anyone with more knowledge on Tarkovsky put some light on the matter.

At least he never gave sermons

Solaris had overt references to God toned down by the Soviet authorities. I think the film gains from the lack of explicit reference to any kind of omnipotent being other than the planet itself.

I agree, also considering that Lem’s deal is the numinous, which can in some way be considered a “God” entity but is equally as much an “alien” entity.

—PolarisDiB

I like the multiplex of spiritual ideas and the ambiguous/mystic rather than organized religiousness in Tarkovsky’s films so if that is due to soviet censorship of an overt christianity, fine for me.

I’m really not convinced it is. Nostalghia even goes into a two cathedrals and still seems to be operating outside of overt Christian theologism, and The Sacrifice’s detachment even from the world places it in a more existential, No Exit sort of internalized drama.

—PolarisDiB

Solaris = Tarkovsky’s ego

Art = artist’s ego.

—DiB

God = Solaris = Tarkovsky’s ego

ipso facto:
Tarkovsky = God

^ Fucking classicist :)

Polaris: Yea, and there was a witch in Sacrifice as well.

Having read the novel, though, I will say that it would have been interesting if Tarkovsky had included a conversation where either Kris or Snaut wonder if Solaris is an infant god. However, if Solaris is an infant god, it has more in common with Lovecraft’s cosmic monsters than Jesus.

Michael, you may be interested in an earlier discussion thread here.

Personally i find Solaris a little ponderous at times and i’m dubious whether additional religious content would have improved that.

Thanks Kenji, read some of that thread. Now, I don’t want to stir old dust…
but just one more thing

If it wasn’t censorship that made Tarkovksy cut the discussion about whether Solaris is an infant god, maybe he did it because he wanted to stray away from 2001.

Lem’s Solaris and 2001’s Star Child are very similar.

The film-makers were very different, Tarkovsky’s attachment to home comes through strongly, and i think he certainly didn’t want a companion piece to 2001 (too often it’s categorised as a shadow of the more famous film, or a “Soviet response” as if everything has to be fitted into cold war mentality), instead to promote his own vision.

Exactly, perfect reason to stay away from Lem’s meditations on the ocean

What is an infant god

RE: Infant Gods.

Also this.