Ukrainian Evangelical Theological Seminary, Kiev 04075, Kvitka Tsisyk 57, Ukraine; Tel.: ; Fax:

Transcription

1 religions Article Sensg Longg for God Andrey Zvyagtsev s The Return Denys Kondyuk Ukraian Evangelical Theological Semary, Kiev 04075, Kvitka Tsyk 57, Ukrae; dean@uets.net; Tel.: ; Fax: Academic Edir: Joseph Kickasola Received: 22 March 2016; Accepted: 16 June 2016; Publhed: 25 June 2016 Abstract: Th article explores apophatic ways presentg God ( Or) two films Andrey Zvyagtsev. The lens for th analys phenomenological ology John Panteleimon Manoussak, usg followg concepts: (1) God as personal Or; (2) relational nature God s self-dclosure prosopon; (3) God as revealed space/sight; (4) God as revealed hearg/time; (5) God as revealed uch/self-understg. Th analys, pursued close examation Zvyagtsev s The Return (2003) (2014), demonstrates relevance Manoussak s ology study religion film, particularly its sensual experiential mes emphases. Keywords: ; relationships; absence; ological aestics; terpersonal relations; ophany 1. Introduction The Russian direcr Andrey Zvyagtsev sts as one most proment contemporary film artts addressg role transcendent everyday. H films tell sries daily life common people do not, generally, refer directly God or ology. For th reason, re a broad range terpretations h films, some do not see m religious terms. However, Zvyagtsev clearly defes himself as a Chrtian out declarg h denomational identity ([1], pp ), he constently addresses transcendental questions subtle means, directly referrg Chrtian tradition each h feature films. Thus, we might see him stg apophatic tradition ology religious art makg: expressg God truths about Him matic styltic patterns negation rar than concrete assertions or representations. These patterns represent Dive human relationship promptg desire for such relationship. The relationship felt be essential, so it sts as a type experiential ology. Such patterns negation run all h films, but y are most clearly seen, heard, felt, h breakout film The Return (2003) [2] h more recent (2014) [3], which we shall analyze. First, however, se patterns which are both matic narrative experiential for viewer are best undersod a ology relation. The Orthodox ologian John Panteleimon Manoussak s phenomenology prosopic relations foundationalizes paradoxical Presence--Absence lies at heart Zvyagtsev s apophatic cema. 2. Manoussak Manoussak suggests a way describg God could be applied film analys, builds on phenomenological tradition Edmund Husserl, Mart Heidegger Jean-Luc Marion. In addition transcendent, onlogical doxological reductions se thkers have proposed (regardg thgs mselves, beg, givenness, respectively ([4], p. 26)), Manoussak proposes a fourth phenomenological focus upon prosopic relations. That, phenomenology should be seen as Religions 2016, 7, 82; doi: /rel

2 Religions 2016, 7, relational, no priority r over d, or vice versa;, relationships are primary constitute ir extence as relational fity ([5], pp. 1 2; [4], p. 24). Likewe, he suggests we should see God such personal, relational categories. Indeed, th context, God Or source all relatedness ([4], p. 27) Relational Theology The moment one perceives oneself relationship, defed by it, termed exaiphnes ([4], pp ). Manoussak also defes person as prosopon, unitg th defition event God s carnation. Thus, he states: When we strive redefe person phenomenologically as prosopon, namely, as th cocidence phenomenon (essence) phenomenality (extence),, a hypostasized ek-stence, we have md nothg else but event Incarnation. Pace Heidegger St. Thomas, we do not thk God s self-hypostasizg H extence should be mutually exclusive man s potential transcendg h nature by choosg be ( become) who he. If man can ext as a person (which what Heidegger claims concerng Dase), because God ( person par excellence) became man ([4], p. 31). Th prosopic redefition personality constently illustrated Zvyagtsev s films: h characters are challenged be hypostasized by ir encounter God as ultimate person (prosopon). However, re much more be said, as artworks, such as films, do more than illustrate. Indeed, h book, God after Metaphysics, Manoussak refers different patgs forms art asst h ological/phenomenological approach, uses senses sight, hearg uch articulate h understg knowledge God. These senses serve establh some important categories relation Dive spatiality, time self-awareness terpersonal perspective we will use se three ma categories our film analys ([5], p. 4). These categories, accessed sight, hearg uch, respectively, are possible because y are seen context terrelatedness are only ways for a human beg transcendental Or. In or words, Manoussak relates sight, hearg uch our terpersonality space, time, two-way tentionality self-awareness (because beg-seen-by--or/or) ([5], p. 24). The work Zvyagtsev can be pritably seen Manoussak s lens terpersonal relations, as it reveals tentional, relational dynamic at heart h aestics, highlights h mes struggle for self-identity meetg or/or (beg met by or/or). In order view Zvyagtsev s art from th perspective, we will evaluate h films focus upon transcendental encounter ( ordary life). Zvyagtsev articulates directly he admires paradox reality;, unexpressed complexity overlap time, events, experiential, terpersonal nature ultimate reality itself ([1], p. 149). Thus, he strives express enigma our events our beg amid our deeply rooted terpersonal relations our longg for or. As mentioned, th attitude has strong correlations apophatic ological tradition, long admired Orthodoxy most brightly articulated works Dionysius Areopagite, which emphasize expressiveness God, yet express a constant yearng for Him [6]. Yearng for Or mysterious presence fity creation important both apophatic tradition Zvyagtsev s art Manoussak s Methodology Context Contemporary Phenomenological Film Studies Manoussak s phenomenologically-driven ology may be pritably aligned some contemporary studies phenomenology film religion, as a means broadeng perspectives on film religion. For stance, her presentation phenomenology film analys, Vivian Sobchack pots out we transcendental (which, for her, an direct

3 Religions 2016, 7, vible) immanent ( vible we directly) ([7], p. 295), y are correlated closely our bodily life [8]. It precely film form permits audience terpersonal phenomena subjectively exteriorize its own subjectivity ([7], pp. 11, ). Though Sobchack concentrates on relation between film its viewer, she pots out film watchg could be d as beg--front--anor our subjectivity could yield tersubjective film. Manoussak s s helps ologically locate th beg--front--anor moment a film body. Joseph G. Kickasola argues transcendence films may be fered as vitation somethg beyond presented ( vitation could be rejected, which also presumes terpersonal volvement) ([9], pp ). We can phenomenologically analyze films partly a spiritually suggestive polysemy, where films broaden ir meangs or present multiple meangs (it almost as if a spiritually-driven film context can make ordary objects transform somethg or) ([9], p. 72). He also mentions Mart Buber s terpersonal emphas phenomenology Transcendent, which appears -between I Thou, correlatg it major pots Manoussak proposal ([9], pp ). Thus, Kickasola also supports possibility film as transcendent, based on focused styltic/aestic strategies sry cues, vites viewer transcendental (as or/or). The importance empathy phenomenological film analys recognized by many authors, ten correlated haptic knowledge. For stance, art hrian David Morgan emphasizes importance empathy correlation between seeg uchg religious art religious [10]. Anor aspect Manoussak ses could be seen a parallel between h idea self-knowledge co-sufferg/empathy Jennifer M. Barker s approach film analys. She states film always a co-extence dtance proximity, viewer volved teractively film ones empathy ([11], pp , 73, 75). She also thks meang film evolves a bodily encounter a viewer a film body, so Manoussak emphas on embodied or/or ourselves could be correlated film watchg ([11], pp. 15, 19). Barker also notices terpersonal nature haptic film :...[T]ouch not about ownership or complete knowledge or, but truly tersubjective. Just as, exchange glances an or, we can see ourselves seeg, contact our sk anor s, we can feel ourselves feelg. We feel ourselves as if for first time moment, as if from an external pot uch ([11], p. 35). Th correlates directly terpersonal methodology Manoussak h idea haptic self-perception. H films are occasions for participation: h film characters film viewers can aggression or lovg care create possibility co-sufferg. Or perhaps we will doubt rebellion, trace all power struggles violence [3], for example, as quest for self-identity. In film, Mayor filled doubts about himself God s view him it actually pushes him more radical violence, audience may see a negative kship here its own failure empathize. On or h, successful lovg uch gives character film viewer possibility love shared ( share leads healg or pleasant personal encounter, so film body embraced). The meetg a viewer does not happen aumatically, but requires personal volvement willgness connect ([11], pp , 160). Th correlates Manoussak idea kairos exaiphnes as terpersonal time, which requires one response dcovered by it. These parallels show an affity between Manoussak s thoughts on phenomenology relation contemporary film analys, allow us troduce h phenomenological approach film studies (especially context transcendental religious ). As mentioned, patterns negation, as Zvyagtsev expresses m cematically, paradoxically engender Dive-Human relationship promptg desire for such relationship. Zygvanitsev s cematic style, n, may be pritably analyzed Manoussak categories space, time, self-perception, as y extend from perceptual terms sight, hearg,

4 Religions 2016, 7, uch. We will trace se mes out The Return (2003) [2] more recent release (2014) [3]. 3. Seeg Not Seeg: Vuality, Negation, Space One approaches describe God, accordg Manoussak, sight, but how can one see God? For Manoussak, th sight, actually, a spatial God, but a very peculiar one; th seeg not so much an vion, or an analys, but a meetg. Seeg God, for Manoussak, encounterg h piercg gaze suddenly beg found relationship Or ([5], pp ), but th encounter less direct than human relations. Manoussak states we can only God creation, way He presentg Himself not a revelation h essence. It a revelation H personality it represents very fact beg seen beg able see ([12], p. 84). It calls md Jean-Luc Marion s idea excessive phenomena, which can be sensed a personal encounter, but cannot be completely comprehended [13]. Manoussak even states God could actually be seen everywhere daily life, but we need first H unexpected presence grasp it. Only n will we feel beg--front--anor ([5], pp , 34). Th phrase may sound obscure, but it seems he dicatg not a concept or thg, but a personal serves as a channel for God s representation The Return The Return [2] presents sry two brors who unexpectedly fd mselves on a trip ir far, who has suddenly reappeared after years mysterious absence. Durg trip, he appears be hard on m does not care much about ir emotions reactions. Ivan, younger bror, seems confront him all time does not trust him. Andrei, older bror, seems be more open, but easily fluenced by Ivan s attitude. The conflict grows pot when Ivan almost ready commit suicide, but n far dies. He falls from an old watchwer on a desert l. After far s death, attitude boys suddenly changes, y suddenly dcover/realize both h love counter-tuitive logic h previous expectations m. They try save dead body ir far, but boat was carryg it sks before y could remove it, so, ir far gone aga, th time for good. Now he can be present only lessons y learned from trip. Zvyagtsev provides a hermeneutical key biblical arttic references enrich narrative enlarge scope what presented. For stance, it implied, almost from begng, far figure related Chrt ( refore represents God) by direct reference Mantegna s Lamentation over Dead Chrt patg, 1. Indeed, ir first look at far presented as a frame recreatg Mantegna s patg, 2. Through th connection, we know, or at least could expect, somethg transcendental from far character. It also paradoxical boys could not recognize ir far need check h old pho hidden illustrated Bible on page shows sacrifice Isaac (a scene will be literally replayed between Andrei, Far, Ivan at end film 1 ). Though far returns plot, whole movie, actually, boys return ir far, an acceptance far son 1 If Mantegna patg suggests God revealed death (, presumably, resurrection), Bible illustration suggests encounter God can be terrifyg, deliverance may only come unexpectedly. In film s most climactic scene, Andrei screams far wants kill him, provokg far grab an axe, hold it over him, ask if he really thks so. And, yet, matically, it Ivan who danger actually beg sacrificed (ready jump from a watchwer) eventually saved by Far s efforts. Th may remd us Søren Kierkegaard s Fear Tremblg, where he states Abraham first appears as a murderer, not a hero faith, but sry requires a perspective faith be undersod properly. Indeed, whole sry could be seen as a passion event Abraham, brgg even more parallels Chrt th context [14]. The Far, perceived as a monster, truly a hero. Therefore, vual citations death sacrifice religious art suggest we view boys as an God.

5 Religions 2016, 7, relationship. True recognition far as a far figure comes Ivan at moment deadly cident, described above, not when he sees h pho Bible. Religions2016, 7, Religions2016, 7, Andrea Mantegna Mantegna The The Lamentation Lamentation over over Dead Dead Chrt Chrt (ca. (ca. 1480), 1480), Pacoteca Pacoteca de de Brera, Brera, 1. Andrea Andrea Mantegna The Lamentation over Dead Chrt (ca. 1480), Pacoteca de Brera, Milan, Italy (Tempera on canvas, 68 cm 81 cm). Milan, 81 cm). cm). Milan, Italy Italy (Tempera (Tempera on on canvas, canvas, cm cm ˆ The Return (2003) The The Return Return (2003). (2003). It also paradoxical boys could not recognize ir far need check h old pho It also paradoxical boys could not recognize ir far need check h old pho hidden Bible on page shows sacrifice Isaac (a scene willitbe Th illustrated sort negation reveals always-present ophany Zvyagtsev s films. hidden illustrated Bible on page shows sacrifice Isaac 1(a scene will be literally replayed between Andrei, Far, Ivan at end film ). Though far crucial underst, out most film, boys do not ir far as literally replayed between Andrei, Far, Ivan at end film1). Though far returns plot,or/or. whole movie actually, boys return ir far, an acceptance presence Th, presence only dclosed, paradoxically, h death. returns plot, whole movie, actually, boys return ir far, an acceptance be far son relationship. True recognition far a far figure comes Ivan at To more specific, first time boys see ir far he as sleepg, y cannot recognize far son relationship. True recognition far as a far figure comes Ivan at moment deadly described above, not when he sees h pho him, but when he fallscident, h death, y dcover him as ir far. The irony Bible. fact it moment deadly cident, described above, not when he sees h pho Bible. Th sorteyes negation reveals always present ophany Zvyagtsev s It closed far h sleepg body, an obvious reference death,films. later Th sort negation reveals always present ophany Zvyagtsev s films. It crucial underst, out most film, boys do not ir far as h closed dead eyes where boys dcover meetg someone beyond ir crucial underst, out most film, boys do not ir far as presence or/or. Th presence dead only dclosed, h death. be comprehension, Or, 3. Indeed, or sleepgparadoxically, people play an important role To most presence or/or. Th presence only dclosed, paradoxically, h death. To be more specific, sries, first time boys ir as far he literal sleepg, yrelationships, cannot recognize Zvyagtsev s y cansee be seen a quite image lost as him, lost more specific, first time boys see ir far he sleepg, y cannot recognize him, opportunity meet or/or. It seems Zvyagtsev deliberately emphasizes enigma far figure, thus illustratg ability people comprehend God, when an terpersonal 1 If Mantegna patg suggests God revealed death (, presumably, resurrection), Bible 1 Or d, only kd(, terruption we can appreciate, If Mantegna patg suggests itgod revealed adeath presumably, resurrection), Bible illustration suggests encounter God can be terrifyg, deliverance may only come encounter be terrifyg, deliverance only come illustration a sense, suggests dcover it (, th leads us God an can terpersonal time, may be dcussed unexpectedly. In film s most climactic scene, Andrei screams far wants kill him, provokg unexpectedly. In film s most climactic scene, Andrei screams far wants kill him, provokg next section). far grab an axe, hold it over him, ask if he really thks so. And, yet, matically, it Ivan far grab an axe, hold it over him, ask if he really thks so. And, yet, matically, it Ivan who danger actually beg sacrificed (ready jump from a watchwer) eventually saved by who danger actually beg sacrificed (ready jump from a watchwer) eventually saved by Far s efforts. Th may remd us Søren Kierkegaard s Fear Tremblg, where he states Far s efforts. Th may remd us Søren Kierkegaard s Fear Tremblg, where he states Abraham first appears as a murderer, not a hero faith, but sry requires a perspective faith be Abraham first appears as a murderer, not a hero faith, but sry requires a perspective faith be undersod properly. Indeed, whole sry could be seen as a passion event Abraham, brgg even undersod properly. Indeed, whole sry could be seen as a passion event Abraham, brgg even more parallels Chrt th context [14]. The Far, perceived as a monster, truly a hero. Therefore, more parallels Chrt th context [14]. The Far, perceived as a monster, truly a hero. Therefore, vual citations death sacrifice religious art suggest we view boys as an vual citations death sacrifice religious art suggest we view boys as an God.

6 closed eyes far h sleepg body, an obvious reference death, later h be dcussed next section.) closed dead eyes where boys dcover meetg someone beyond ir Zvyagtsev also uses absence eye contact death as a vual means presentg comprehension, Or, 3.Indeed, dead or sleepg people play an important role most transcendental relation, as if illustrate a passage from Manoussak: Could it be, n, I can Zvyagtsev s sries, y can be seen as a quite literal image lost relationships, as lost fally see God even if it eyes shut? Though he speaks our lack eye contact, we can opportunity meet or/or. It seems Zvyagtsev deliberately emphasizes enigma still2016, see paradox meetg beyond physical eye contact ([5], p. 22). Throughout film Religions 7, 82figure, 6 16 far thus illustratg ability people comprehend God, when an we see numerous stances where characters eyes should ordarily meet, but simply do not, terpersonal Or d, it only a kd terruption we 4. can appreciate, a sense, dcover it (, th leads us an terpersonal time, be dcussed next section.) Zvyagtsev also uses absence eye contact death as a vual means presentg transcendental relation, as if illustrate a passage from Manoussak: Could it be, n, I can fally see God even if it eyes shut? Though he speaks our lack eye contact, we can still see paradox meetg beyond physical eye contact ([5], p. 22). Throughout film we see numerous stances where characters eyes should ordarily meet, but simply do not, The Return (2003). 3. The Return (2003). Zvyagtsev also uses absence eye contact death as a vual means presentg transcendental relation, as if illustrate a passage from Manoussak: Could it be, n, I can fally see God even if it eyes shut? Though he speaks our lack eye-contact, we can still see paradox meetg beyond physical eye contact ([5], p. 22). Throughout film we see numerous stances where characters eyes ordarily should 3. The Return (2003). meet, but simply do not, The Return (2003). It also remarkable both far s appearance dappearance waters are out boys control. The openg shots film show an empty, sunken boat; it only later we dcover th boat which far s body sunk, but here re no body be seen begng, 5. Th sort mystery congruity suggests a more ological terpretation far. 4. The Return (2003). 4. The Return (2003). It also remarkable both far s appearance dappearance waters are out It boys alsocontrol. remarkable both far s appearance dappearance waters are outwe The openg shots film show an empty, sunken boat; it only later boys dcover control.th Theopeng show an empty, sunken boat; it wedcover boat shots which film far s body sunk, but here re noonly bodylater be seen 5. Th mystery congruity suggests th begng, boat which sort far s body sunk, but here re noa more body ological be seen terpretation begng, far. Religions2016, 7, 82 mystery congruity suggests a more ological terpretation 7far Th sort 5.5.The The Return Return(2003). (2003). There a similar pattern negation fal slide show Andrei s phos from trip ( can be seen just before fal credits, s 6 7), where re no sgle picture far from trip only a couple from past, similar one y saw Bible. He expressible outside boys personal s memory. It seems re almost no pro far s extence we nearly thk it was all a parable y traveled by

7 Religions 2016, 7, The Return (2003). There a similar pattern negation fal slide show Andrei s phos from trip There a similar pattern negation fal slide show Andrei s phos from trip ( can be seen just before fal credits, s 6 7), where re no sgle picture ( can be seen just before fal credits, s 6 7), where re no sgle picture far from trip only a couple from past, similar one y saw Bible. far from trip only a couple from past, similar one y saw Bible. He He expressible outside boys personal s memory. It seems re expressible outside boys personal s memory. It seems re almost no almost no pro far s extence we nearly thk it was all a parable y pro far s extence we nearly thk it was all a parable y traveled by traveled by mselves whole time, yet it here, for first time, boys know ir far mselves whole time, yet it here, for first time, boys know ir far remember remember him. him. 6. The Return (2003). 7. The Return (2003). As mentioned, pattern pattern sight/non-sight sight/non sight also As mentioned, also correlates correlates Manoussak s Manoussak s conception conception space, but how? In what way does Zvyagtsev present Or spatially? The conflict space, but how? In what way does Zvyagtsev present Or spatially? The conflict resolution relationships are maly presented travel movement. Therefore, physical space depicted film used represent characters physical travel, but also ir personal journeys,, dtance between beg seen by or beg able see or/or return. Travel a figurative movement Ivan Andrei ward ir own identity. It not a cocidence begng film Ivan chasg Andrei, but later we see m change places, as if it were Andrei chasg Ivan, y run ger home dcover ir far ( a scene illustrates whole film). Travel could be an expression fdg Or, but actually it because apparent obstacles failures th journey meetg becomes possible. In th light, water also an important element (or even a character ) film. It image water film begs it water consumes far s body end, 8. It Ivan s fear jumpg water from a divg board, a way, leads tragedy. Water also present brors constant desire go fhg, ra drives away far

8 identity. It not a cocidence begng film Ivan chasg Andrei, but later we see m change places, as if it were Andrei chasg Ivan, y run ger home dcover ir far ( a scene illustrates whole film). Travel could be an expression fdg Or, but actually it because apparent obstacles failures th journey meetg becomes possible. In th Religions 2016, 7, 82 light, water also an important element (or even a character ) film. It 8 16 image water film begs it water consumes far s body end, 8. It Ivan s fear jumpg water from a divg board, a way, leads tragedy. Water also brors constant desire go fhg, ra Ivan drivesaway sons from present watchwer for first time on l. It also rag when left alone when far car sons from watchwer firstfurr, time on when l.y It also rag Ivan fh, stuck, when y tryfor drive travel when l for left alone fh, when car stuck, when y try drive furr, when y travel first time. Ra presented as a challenge, as somethg overcome. Crossg water also relates for first time.attitude Ra ward presented as afar. challenge, as somethg Crossg l change boys ir Water used as anovercome. obstacle for truly meetg water also relates change boys attitude ward ir far. Water used as an obstacle far, yet it also travel back from l gives birth a new kd relationship for truly meetg far, yet it also travel back from l gives birth a new between brors drastically changes ir attitude ward man y both call Daddy kd relationship between brors drastically changes ir attitude ward man y both end.call Thus, waterillustrates purifyg power goes along personal struggles Daddy end. Thus, water illustrates purifyg power goes along dcoveries, it also marks spaces spaces we see obstacles must overcome. We canmust conclude personalbut struggles dcoveries, bubstacles it also marks we see ivercome. obstacles loss contact Or th Or can be fully Wephysical can conclude it physical obstacles loss contact Or threturn Or can recognized The [2].be fully recognized The Return [2] The The Return Return(2003). (2003) [3] similar some Zvyagtsev s mid period films (such as Elena, 2011 [15]), similar look some Zvyagtsev s films (such different as Elena,people [15]),, on [3] surface, it may likejust anor harshmid-period sry conflict between, on surface, it may look just anor harsh sry uses conflict between different Nikolay, a l owner, like local mayor wants h l a court decion take people. it. Nikolay, avites l owner, local mayor wants hdimitriy, l uses However, a court decion take it. Nikolay h friend, a lawyer from Moscow named help. process fightg l,a h wife from commits adultery Dimitriy, Dimitriy, help. laterhowever, Dimitriy escapes after Nikolay vites for h h friend, lawyer Moscow named process beg threatened by mayor, h wife Lilia commits suicide. On p, Nikolay fightg for h l, h wife commits adultery Dimitriy, later Dimitriy escapes after beg accusedby as a murderer Lilia, goes Lilia jailcommits losessuicide. everythg son Nikolay taken by anor as a threatened mayor, h wife On(even p h, accused family). Yet, all Zvyagtsev s films rae questions about nature relationships between murderer Lilia, goes jail loses everythg (even h son taken by anor family). Yet, all people ( God). It would be appropriate see film as solely political commentary, as if Zvyagtsev s films rae questions about nature relationships between people ( God). it were only about Orthodox Church s collusion state authorities, for stance. [3] It would be appropriate see film as solely political commentary, as if it were only about concentrates on social sues, but also underles human ability see or love Orthodox state for stance. concentrates on social or. Church s As all collusion Zvyagtsev s film,authorities, family here troubled. Nikolay[3] thks h ma sues, but also underles human ability see or love or. As all problem danger losg h house, but he mses fact he losg h relationships Zvyagtsev s film, family here troubled. Nikolay thks h ma problem danger losg h house, but he mses fact he losg h relationships h wife, h son h good friend. He does not know how face or, only losg everythg brgs him a step closer reachg th understg. At one pot, it looks as if Nikolay lookg for God, but he settles for vodka. Indeed, alcohol drunkenness play an important part vual presentation characters ability communicate. While drkg supposed help people open up, it ten functions reforce all ir loneless terpersonal problems. Th serves as an illustration an artificial meetg or. Likewe, sexual relationships also serve as a substitute for a real encounter. Both Dimitriy Nikolay are happy have sex Lilia, but neir m wants underst her pa questions. It seems, general, physical s characters film tend be a substitute for personal relationships. Nikolay never tries talk seriously Lilia or Roman, or even Dimitriy. He happy speak about superficial thgs, until h life collapses. It ironic he questions God for h struggles, not seeg h own ability communicate. Thus, we see here, aga, negative

9 At one one pot, pot, it it looks looks as as if if Nikolay Nikolay lookg lookg for for God, God, but but he he settles settles for for vodka. vodka. Indeed, Indeed, alcohol alcohol At drunkenness drunkenness play play an an important important part part vual vual presentation presentation characters characters ability ability communicate. While While drkg drkg supposed supposed help help people people open open up, up, it it ten ten functions functions reforce reforce all all communicate. ir ir loneless loneless terpersonal terpersonal problems. problems. Th Th serves serves as as an an illustration illustration an an artificial artificial meetg meetg or. or. Likewe, Likewe, sexual sexual relationships relationships also also serve serve as as aa substitute substitute for for aa real real encounter. encounter. Both Both Dimitriy Nikolay are are happy happy have have sex sex Lilia, Lilia, but but neir neir m m wants wants underst underst her her9 16 Religions 2016, 7, 82 Nikolay Dimitriy pa questions. questions. It It seems, seems, general, general, physical physical s s characters characters film film pa tend be be aa substitute substitute for for personal personal relationships. relationships. Nikolay Nikolay never never tries tries talk talk seriously seriously Lilia Lilia or or tend matic pattern not seeg numerous vitations vual terpersonal relationship Roman, or even Dimitriy. He happy speak about superficial thgs, until h life collapses. It Roman, or even Dimitriy. He happy speak about superficial thgs, until h life collapses. It ironic he questions God for h struggles, not seeg h own ability communicate. Thus, we or/or. ironic he questions God for h struggles, not seeg h own ability communicate. Thus, we see here, here, aga, negative negative matic pattern not seeg seeg numerous vitations vual see aga, matic pattern not numerous vitations vual Th matic pattern vually d, part, ironic use religious imagery. terpersonal relationship or/or. terpersonal relationship or/or. [3] filled, statues questions vite one encounter God, but people Th matic matic pattern pattern vually vually d, d, part, part, ironic ironic use use religious religious Th are mostly o busy servg mselves livg ir lives as if re no God notice. As we imagery. [3] filled, statues questions vite one encounter God, but imagery. [3] filled, statues questions vite one encounter God, but already noticed, Zvyagtsev clearly fluenced by Orthodox apophatic spiritual tradition, people are are mostly mostly o o busy busy servg servg mselves mselves livg livg ir ir lives lives as as if if re re no no God God notice. notice. people orthodoxy regards as beg not just images but personal vitations for real communication As we already noticed, Zvyagtsev clearly fluenced by Orthodox apophatic spiritual As we already noticed, Zvyagtsev clearly fluenced by Orthodox apophatic spiritual tradition, person depicted [16]. Indeed, it as we see sopersonal many small for out tradition, orthodoxy regards asremarkable beg not not just just images but personal vitations for real orthodoxy regards beg images but vitations real film, addition big The Last Supper icon at patriarch s residence durg mayor s communication person depicted [16]. Indeed, it remarkable we see so many small communication person depicted [16]. Indeed, it remarkable we see so many small first vit, 9, statue crowned Jesus ir second We alsoresidence see an ironic out afilm, film, addition big big Theat Last Supper icon meetg. at patriarch s patriarch s residence out addition The Last Supper icon at durg mayor s first vit, 9, a statue crowned Jesus at ir second meetg. Were juxtaposition little Stepanich s car next crowned nude girls stickers, Fally, durg mayor s first vit, 9, a statue Jesus at ir second 10. meetg. We also see an ironic juxtaposition little Stepanich s car next nude girls stickers, also see an ironic little Stepanich s girls stickers, are many juxtaposition Church at end film watchcar usnext anude penetratg gaze. However, 10. Fally, Fally, re are many many reactg Church Church atth gaze end film film watch us aa penetratg 10. re are end us penetratg it seems not many people are at we see watch occasionally, Stepanich s gaze. However, However, it it seems seems not many many people are are reactg reactg th th gaze gaze we we see see occasionally, occasionally, gaze. car stickers also illustrate not attentionpeople directed not meet God, but everyone s dividual Stepanich s car car stickers stickers also also illustrate illustrate attention attention directed directed not not meet meet God, God, but but everyone s everyone s Stepanich s depersonalized passions. It seems become idols mselves for those who are unable dividual depersonalized depersonalized passions. passions. It It seems seems become become idols idols mselves mselves for for those those who who are are dividual see personal behd m, 11. To recall everythg could could lead us unable vitation see personal personal vitation behd m, 11. Manoussak, To recall recall Manoussak, Manoussak, everythg unable see vitation behd m, 11. To everythg could if taken terpersonally, but, conversely, religious artreligious or acts can become idols lead us usgod God if if taken taken terpersonally, terpersonally, but,even conversely, even religious art or or acts can can lead God but, conversely, even art acts if depersonalized; th light, idolatry a sympm depersonalization. become idols idols if if depersonalized; depersonalized; th th light, light, idolatry idolatry aa sympm sympm depersonalization. depersonalization. become (2014) (2014). (2014). 9. Religions2016, 7, (2014). (2014). 10. (2014) (2014) (2014). As its title suggests, [3] may also be seen lens sry Job (cf. Job 41:1), as was noted by Den Bekkerg [17]. In addition many references th biblical narrative, film also presents God nature depiction whales. They some way correspond biblical, but even ir immensity weak view whole creation time. Thus, we see a whale before dappearance Lilia we see whale s bones when Roman runs away from home, s In th way, whales appear before big losses, y

10 Religions 2016, 7, (2014). 11. (2014). As its also be be seen lenslens Job(cf. As its title titlesuggests, suggests, [3][3]may may also seen sry sry JobJob (cf.41:1), Job As its title suggests, [3] may also be seen lens sry Job (cf. Job as was noted by Den Bekkerg [17]. In addition many references th biblical narrative, film 41:1), as was noted by Den Bekkerg [17]. In addition many references th biblical narrative, 41:1), as was noted by Den Bekkerg [17]. In addition many references th biblical narrative, alsilm presents nature nature depiction whales. They some way also God presents God depiction whales. They correspond some way film also presents God nature depiction whales. They some way biblical, but even ir immensity weak view whole creation time. correspond biblical, but even ir immensity weak view whole creation correspond biblical, but even ir immensity weak view whole creation Thus, we see a whale before dappearance Lilia we see whale s bones when Roman runs time. Thus, we see a whale before dappearance Lilia we see whale s bones when time. Thus, we see a whale before dappearance Lilia we see whale s bones when away from In appear before big before losses,big y illustrate Roman runshome, away s from home, s 12 th way, 13. Inwhales th way, whales appear losses, y Roman runs away from home, s In th way, whales appear before big losses, y power separation. Yet, y are presented as limited passg. Nature serves as a illustrate power separation. Yet, y are presented as limited passg. Nature serves vast as a illustrate power separation. Yet, y are presented as limited passg. Nature serves as a background agast which local srysry seems small, not fully undersod as it as may first vast background agast which local seems small, as not as fully undersod it may vast background agast which local sry seems small, not as fully undersod as it may appear. There a space for for God on on pp what we first appear. There a space God what wesee seedurg durg film, film, begng begng first appear. There a space for God on p what we see durg film, begng endg images [3] seem pot o: eternal sea mountas show endg images [3] seem pot o: eternal sea mountas show endg images [3] seem pot o: eternal sea mountas show how all all us us are are ty light light world s world s hry, hry, how ty characters characters how how hard hard it it judge judge any any local local how all us are ty characters light world s hry, how hard it judge any local situation out considerg broader account. Th returns us biblical sry Job, where situation out considerg broader account. Th returns us biblical sry Job, situation out considerg broader account. Th returns us biblical sry Job, Job s questions regardgregardg human sufferg are answered, by God, description Nature s where Job s questions human sufferg are answered, by God, a a description where Job s questions regardg human sufferg are answered, by God, a description immeasurable complexity enormous scale. Nature s immeasurable complexity enormous scale. Nature s immeasurable complexity enormous scale (2014). (2014). 12. (2014). 13. (2014). (2014) (2014). 4. Hymn : Hearg Time Manoussak mentions when we prae God a hymn we do not just form somebody, but we learn from ourselves, from act worship itself ([5], p. 106). Sound speakg are bound temporality, so we will analyze sound temporality ger, but Manoussak sts we recognize two different temporalities: Language thought are chronic language God, on or h, follows an entirely different temporality, kairos ([5], p. 104). It means our time tends be a lastg contuity, which creates a hry we may describe, but kairos an timeless perspective, a kd enlightenment breaks contuity chromos unites past, present future (somethg also called Euchartic ) ([5], pp ). Aga, th time relates God only if we take th sudden as manifestation terpersonality reversed tentionality time, as Manoussak describes:

11 Religions 2016, 7, When th happens, when my perspective countered, versed, returned me, I am no longer privileged subject establhes constitutes objectivity world ( thghood thgs), but merely a dative; I become th whom world, as world--come, given. For only n can re be a world given, when I make myself available as a receiver, as gifted (l adonné) gift givenness ([5], p. 67). Thus, it not we expect a phenomenon or even or/or, but th or/or challenges us dcover ourselves. Th possible when we communicate God allow a pot time when He may appear, what could be called a hymn. However, a hymn not created by us alone. It somethg we are borrowg, we share ors, makes participation possible. Hymnic language a kd borrowg somebody s God order enact it here now. It participation those who are open or God, where we dcover hymnic (which transcends sgg). Of course re are ways depict God time as contuity (as chronos). Th how hrical movie epics usually depict God movies. Yet, re anor way representg fite time. There could be an sightful moment suddenly troduces God a coherent sry (a moment a sudden call), but th moment could not completely belong flow a sry ( even look as somethg embarrassg a viewer). It both fits, but also doesn t fit sryle depicted (it somethg said or done by characters, but it turns, or turns agast m). An example here sudden return Far The Return [2], h awkward sertion ir daily routes. Accordg Manoussak, ability describe a certa time related nature Euchartic time, which cannot be properly described terms sequential temporality, only be undersod as kairos a vertical break time ([18], p. 79). Also, an unexpected ophany (a sudden revelation or call from God), which cannot be properly described typical categories time, may be expressed term exaiphnes ([5], pp. 64, 69 70). Th what some moments Zvyagtsev s films reveal. In one h terviews, he explas he makes h art idea myth md ([1], pp , ). In h understg, myth portrays time as coextence timeless our usual time actions relationships are presented a piece art. Zvyagtsev s idea myth closely aligned Manoussak idea double time as kairos exaiphnes, so we can pritably analyze h art concepts hymnic language Euchartic time. As vion, apophatic patterns here are abundant: language time exceed our speech temporal, as well as words call are never physically heard, but still resonate The Return Th whole film built around days week, startg from Sunday ( Russian, th same word as used for resurrection) endg on Saturday. Time presented film as makg a full week circle (as if sry really about all time, not just week), so we meet far as a resurrected Chrt on Sunday, n he dies on Friday dappears waters on Saturday (as if consumed by death). It also important Ivan opens h illustrated Bible on pages creation sry o, before fdg a family pho. Time seen film as global, cosmic, creative, combg sries creation, salvation daily life ma characters. Ivan suddenly identifies h far at moment h fall consequent death; th h exaiphnes. Th also a moment changes h attitude wards h far, he starts callg him Daddy. He voices identity himself h far reaction h far s death. The same change could be attributed Andrei (so as it seems be h kairos exaiphnes o), o, as he suddenly transformed a leader; he starts act talk just as h far did when he was still m, so he really arrives at h identity as an older bror th moment, leadg younger Ivan.

12 Religions 2016, 7, The boys started act accordgly only after re-evaluatg ir ir far h act sacrifice (though it looks like an accident). The fall becomes a gap time creates a new perspective on everythg allows for a mythical time ( Zvyagtsev s words), suddenly chromos becomes kairos. Th retrospective time (when all was shown gets completely reversed meang after a certa moment epiphany) important for most Zvyagtsev s films. Likewe, he regularly presents time Euchartic categories Manoussak, where contuity time suddenly terrupted by or ([18], p. 80). Andrei s sudden emulation h far suggests meetg God co-ordate participation h acts. It also by participatg or beg directed or we hymnic language/. Yet, it far s love brgs th about, not by force, but mysteriously boys own choice. Therefore, ir could be categorized as hymnic, though y do not sg or pray, because by receivg words acts or makg m ir own y simultaneously reality far s perspective. They actually meet him by participation openness him. The words acts far become ir hymn. H stence on callg him far out film, despite ir restance, becomes ir own vocabulary end s [3] time portrayed two ways: static time begng end frames a kd circular life ma characters. We could suggest God tervenes th reality silent faces statues marvelous nature, which surrounds drama. Nikolay Lilia expect God tervene somehow, but it looks as if it not gog happen. It seems mayor bhop do not have suffer for ir perverted version Chrtianity (e.g., y take, a corrupted manner, Nikolay s property use it for a Church buildg, destroyg h life family). Life contues as usual. The despairg circularity life emphasized by Lilia s work at a fh facry, where she depressively watches a conveyor work, thkg about her own way life. [3] similar sry book Job, but re no clear resolution film, contrast face face God Job. Neverless, as we could hear from Stepanich, re should be a hrical perspective judge people s lives, so it could be applied sry shown, o. In end, re a deliberate irony d audience s hymnic: word God hypocritical men dubious character. The bhop, spite himself, fers a prophetic word he did not write (anor stance borrowed speech transcends dividual as liturgy), 14. Through it, he brgs forth judgment God not power, but truth, not force, but love, not treachery, but wdom... The corrupt mayor makes religious comments as well: Th Lord he sees everythg. There a deeper irony here, course: almost all words are said by bhop could be reversed be a judgment on those who gar at Church buildg, which has been built on lies death. And yet, faithful can still hear truths transcend human performance. The preachg scene creates possibility a hymnic for those who hear, even if bhop does not hear h own sermon properly himself, for fear judgment. The preachg creates space for real worship, repentance a personal meetg God. It brgs some hope leaves possibility conversion for those who can hear it ( it seems anor religious character, local priest, does see hear preachg properly). Thus, [3] we do not see a clear resolution meetg, but we can see possibilities kairos not from a perspective a certa character, but as viewers can see hear whole sry ( a very similar manner Book Job, where it reader knows what really happeng, but not Job himself).

13 creates possibility a hymnic for those who hear, even if bhop does not hear h own sermon properly himself, for fear judgment. The preachg creates space for real worship, repentance a personal meetg God. It brgs some hope leaves possibility Religions conversion 2016, for 7, 82those who can hear it ( it seems anor religious character, local priest, does see hear preachg properly). 14. (2014). Thus, [3] we do not see a clear resolution meetg, but we can see 5. Touchg Itself : Self-Perception Haptic Knowledge possibilities kairos not from a perspective a certa character, but as viewers can see hear Manoussak whole sry articulates ( a very similar a crucial manner pot concerng Book self-perception Job, where it reader concept knows uch: what really happeng, but not Job himself). When, n, soul compared h, much more said about soul than what, we might, at first glance, thk be case. For uchg thgs it seeks 5. Touchg Itself : Self Perception Haptic Knowledge know, soul-h also uched back by world. As uched, act Manoussak comprehendg, articulates soul becomes a crucial aware pot concerng itself. It becomes self perception aware itself asconcept a soul uch: uches When, n, world. soul Th compared self-awareness achieves h, much impossible for more said about it could be soul said than what, some we sense might, at soul, first aware glance, thk itself as be a soul, case. uchg For itself uchg ([5], p. 127). thgs it seeks He actually know, states soul h knowledge also uched ourselves back starts by our world. relationship As uched, world act ors. That could comprehendg, be applied filmsoul analys becomes on aware level itself. we may It becomes evaluate aware sry itself its as characters a soul as how y uches grow self-awareness world. Th (usg self awareness ir senses). achieves All senses impossible for Manoussak it could evaluates be are seen said context some sense encounterg soul, aware dcoverg itself as a soul, or/or. uchg itself It actually ([5], p. 127). contuation spatial He actually temporary states, knowledge placed ourselves context starts terpersonal our relationship self-awareness. world Basically, ors. it not That so much could about be applied what causes film our analys, on but level context we for it may (refore, evaluate term sry haptic its characters applied a rar as symbolic how y sense). grow Actually, self awareness self-knowledge (usg always ir a bodily senses)., All senses it always Manoussak terpersonal, evaluates basedare onseen our ability context sympathize encounterg (suffer-ger- dcoverg Or) or/or. ([5], pp ). It actually In our filmcontuation analys, th self-perception spatial temporary a byproduct, placed experiencg context or/or, terpersonal self awareness. senses mentioned Basically, before, it but not experiencg so much about or/or what causes our love,, or as love. but Of course, context filmfor does it (refore, not allow us physically term haptic uch anythg, applied buta rar cematic symbolic imagation sense). Actually, fers haptic self knowledge s we always can analyze. a bodily, it always terpersonal, based on our ability sympathize (suffer ger Or) ([5], pp ). In our film analys, th self perception a 5.1. The Return byproduct experiencg or/or, senses mentioned before, but experiencg The self-awareness or/or boys love, or The as Return love. Of [2] course, grows film does not allow us ir physically far, uch but anythg, fully revealed but at h cematic death. Ivan imagation suffers h fers fear haptic heights s from we begng can analyze. film, not only, he fears ir far thks nobody loves him. It h ability love himself h 5.1. aggressive The Return crusade agast h far s will grow durg whole trip, it love revealed h The far s self awareness death, could boys only be The revealed Return by [2] it, grows 15. Therefore, death ir far, far but seen fully as revealed an act love at h death. frees Ivan Ivan suffers from h h self-hatred fear heights from makes Andrei begng perceive himself film, as truly not only older, bror. he fears The ir death far far thks nobody moment loves than him. y It h ability self-awareness, love himself are uched h aggressive by crusade world. agast They dcover h far s love will grow or/or durg whole physical trip, it love h revealed death. Boys h start far s sympathize death, could suffer-ger- only be revealed ir by it, far 15. an act Therefore, savg h death dead body. They far are seen uched as an by act death love frees y Ivan respond from h it self hatred acts care makes responsibility, Andrei perceive so y himself want as suffer truly now older bror. ir far The death contrast far previous reluctance moment than be y far self awareness, obey him. Th sufferg depicted as carryg body, actually carryg or (as a response fars lessons takg care mselves).

14 are uched by world. They dcover love or/or physical h death. Boys start sympathize suffer ger ir far an act savg h dead body. They are uched by death y respond it acts care responsibility, so y want suffer now ir far contrast previous reluctance be far Religions obey 2016, him. 7, 82 Th sufferg depicted as carryg body, actually carryg or (as a response fars lessons takg care mselves). 15. The Return (2003). 15. The Return (2003). When far knocks at door, Ivan says You are nobody. Th corresponds a When religious fight farbetween knocks at a desperate door, Ivan human says beg, Youseeg are nobody. God as a Th harsh corresponds dictar stealg a religious h fight freedom, between a desperate God himself. human At beg, end seeg film, God God as aterrupted harsh dictar by stealg self sufficient h freedom, phrase: I God himself. can do Atit..., until end God s sudden film, God death. In terrupted th kd by, self-sufficient Ivan Andrei phrase: face I mselves can do it..., until God s are sudden transformed. death. It In th ir kd far s, you y Ivan dcover Andrei ir own face identity mselves ( th are orness far even more emphasized by h sudden vit dappearance). The boys transformed. It ir far s you y dcover ir own identity ( th orness are formed by ir far s orness, y could not control him, for even h death, he far even more emphasized by h sudden vit dappearance). The boys are formed by escapes ir power will. Th orness help arttic parallels film structure irleads far s us orness, understg y it could not only not control far him, as for or, even but as h death, Or, o. he escapes The film ir power implies will. it Th God orness who forms our self identity help arttic parallels h revelation as film God structure h sacrifice. leads us understg The film also it implies not only co sufferg far as or, important but as for self perception, Or, o. The film it could implies be an it God who answer forms beg our self-identity uched by or/or. h revelation The possibility as God hco sufferg sacrifice. presumes bodily The, film also which implies we observe co-sufferg The Return important [2] (y for carry self-perception, body). We are it could loved, be by answer beg dcoverg uched th we by are able or/or. comprehend The ourselves possibility love co-sufferg return. presumes bodily, which we observe The Return [2] (y carry body). We are loved, by dcoverg th we are 5.2. able comprehend ourselves love return. The problem [3] Nikolay not lookg for answers; he not lookg for 5.2. reconciliation Lilia or Roman. He ignores obvious problems. Even when Nikolay asks God Why? Lord, for what reason?, he not open priest s words. H questions God are The rherical. problem [3] Nikolay not lookg for answers; he not lookg for reconciliation Lilia searchg Lilia or Roman. for meang He ignores life obvious even problems. for God, Evenbut when she Nikolay cannot fd asksanswers God Why? Lord, anywhere, for what reason?, she consumed he notby open emptess priest s she feels. words. Nikolay, H questions Dimitriy God her friend are rherical. Angela Lilia (havg searchg a friend for meang name rar lifeironic) even all ignore for God, Lilia. but They shedo cannot not want fd answers hear her anywhere, real so she questions consumed fears byor underst emptess her she search feels. for Nikolay, life. When Dimitriy Lilia talks her Dimitriy, friend Angela he shows (havg a friendhe not terested name rar talkg ironic) about God all ignore does Lilia. not They want do lten not want any confessions. hear her real Nikolay questions fears does not or underst even try deal her search h problems. for life. When Vodka Lilia sex talks are blanket Dimitriy, solutions he shows for h problems, he not but y actually prove dehumanizg depersonalizg. [3] presents a quest for terested talkg about God does not want lten any confessions. Nikolay does not identity, even a quest for God. even try deal h problems. Vodka sex are blanket solutions for h problems, but y The death Lilia a uchg for Nikolay, but he not able see beyond h actually own prove struggles dehumanizg expectations. depersonalizg. It Lilia s death where Nikolay [3] presents really understs a quest for identity, he lost even a quesr, for though God. y have become dtant long before. The death or seems very The important deathfor Zvyagtsev, Lilia a uchg contact a dead for Nikolay, body seems but he be, not a strange able way, seea beyond sphere h own struggles expectations. It Lilia s death where Nikolay really understs he lost her, though y have become dtant long before. The death or seems very important for Zvyagtsev, contact a dead body seems be, a strange way, a sphere self-identification, a moment choice formg self-consciousness self-identity. It could be said a death vital for a haptic representation transcendent. Probably most constent h search for God local mayor, but it seems those who guide him do not really help him h search. In end, all characters are lost ir ability connect ors underst mselves. Even those present at fal Church liturgy feel split between faith works bhop mayor spiritual adequacy service itself, s

15 self identification, a moment choice formg self consciousness self identity. It could be said self identification, a death a moment vital choice for a haptic formg representation self consciousness transcendent self identity.. It could be said Probably a death most constent vital for h a haptic search for representation God local mayor, transcendent but it seems. those who Probably guide him do most not really constent help him h search h search. for God In end, local all mayor, characters but it seems are lost those ir ability who guide connect him do not really ors help him underst h search. mselves. In Even end, all those present characters at are fal lost Church ir Religions 2016, 7, liturgy ability feel connect split between ors faith underst works mselves. bhop Even those present mayor at fal spiritual Church adequacy liturgy feel split service between itself, s faith 16 works 17. bhop mayor spiritual adequacy service itself, s (2014) (2014). (2014). 17. (2014). 17. (2014). 17. (2014). [3] raes questions presents problems identity, but it reaches no resolution for characters [3] portrayed. raes questions Characters suffer, presents but problems y do not identity, want sympathize but it reaches no co suffer, resolution y for draw characters [3] mselves raes portrayed. questions from Characters ors, y suffer, presents suffer but problems alone. y do Some not want may identity, seem sympathize but deal it reaches co suffer, problems, no resolution y but for characters y draw actually portrayed. mselves do not want from Characters ors, meet suffer, y real suffer but or/or alone. y do Some notmay get want seem sympathize reality deal people problems, co-suffer, y but are y draw livg y actually mselves. Th do not could from want ors, be combed meet y suffer real a or/or alone. fact Some we may see get a seem lot violence reality deal people problems, film, y which are but y actually illustrates livg do. notalienation want Th could meet be desperation combed real or/or characters a fact ( we get ability see a lot co suffer reality violence leads people film, violence ywhich areas livg emotional illustrates alienation physical ). desperation It presents characters ( quest ability for love co suffer beg leads found violence kd as. Th could be combed a fact we see a lot violence film, which illustrates gesture emotional Or. physical Love ). somethg It presents characters are quest for quest love. It seems beg found Zvyagtsev kd alienation desperation characters ( ability co-suffer leads violence as emotional challengg gesture Or. viewer Love identify somethg characters personal problems are quest. quests It seems depicted Zvyagtsev films, try physical challengg ). defe one s own viewer It presents identity identify real quest life. for He personal love uses double problems beg meang found quests bhop s depicted kd gesture preachg films, (as try Or. he Love says somethg defe some one s characters right own thgs, identity are but amid real quest a life.. wrong He It context uses seems double h meang Zvyagtsev own wicked deeds) bhop s challengg preachg some people s (as viewer he identify reaction says some it right personal as a thgs, challenge problems but for amid us. It a seems wrong quests some context depicted h films h own films, might wicked suggest try deeds) defe Zvyagtsev some one speople s own leaves identity real reaction life. He it uses as a beg double challenge uched meang for us. by It seems or some bhop s unresolved h preachg films attempts might (as suggest heprovoke says some Zvyagtsev self awareness right thgs, leaves but amid a wrong film context viewer beg change h uched own wicked by h or deeds) open ended unresolved approach some attempts people s th reaction more provoke recent it film. self awareness as ahe challenge vites for us. It seems viewer film some viewer co suffer h films change might h characters, suggest h open ended see Zvyagtsev ourselves approach th leaves paful th more traumatic recent film film.. He beg vites uched The viewer uch breaks co suffer h cematic characters, body see challenge ourselves us, th paful it trudes traumatic film real. by or unresolved attempts provoke self-awareness film viewer life bodily change The uch breaks or/or cematic our self perception. body challenge us, it trudes real life bodily h open-ended approach th more recent film. He vites viewer co-suffer h or/or our self perception. characters, see ourselves th paful traumatic film. The uch breaks 6. Conclusions cematic 6. Conclusions body challenge us, it trudes real life bodily or/or our self-perception. Zvyagtsev s films ological mes articulated by John Panteleimon Manoussak strengn Zvyagtsev s each or. films When analyzed ological mes lenses articulated by terpersonal John Panteleimon Manoussak space, time, strengn self awareness, each or. When we analyzed see metaphors sight, lenses hearg terpersonal uch applied as a personal space, 6. Conclusions encounter time, self awareness, or/or. we see The ideas metaphors beg seen sight, hearg gettg uch know applied or as as a a personal person, Zvyagtsev s not encounter as a concept, films prove or/or. central ological The Zvyagtsev s ideas mes beg work, seen articulated as all gettg h byfilms John know rae Panteleimon or question as a Manoussak person, strengn not as each a concept, or. prove When central analyzed Zvyagtsev s work, lenses as all h terpersonal films rae question space, time, self-awareness, we see metaphors sight, hearg uch applied as a personal encounter or/or. The ideas beg seen gettg know or as a person, not as a concept, prove central Zvyagtsev s work, as all h films rae question ability/ability encounter or/or. Zvyagtsev s art also ten filled a very special time ( personal relationships or a lack personal relationships), so concepts kairos exaiphnes may also be noted. Zvyagtsev s mythic time way he depicts h sries also corresponds Euchartic time, God s callg turn one s attention Him. Fally, an outer world as a way dcoverg yourself context God s revelation world may be also traced some scenes Zvyagtsev s films.

16 Religions 2016, 7, We see self-awareness ma characters [3] almost absent, yet he challenges viewer analyze ir problematic s. The Return [2], on or h, portrays a sry an emphas on a turng pot lives ma characters. They seem see hear know one anor God Himself h sudden absence. To dcover God H lack obvious presence a crucial mystery apophatic ology. Zvyagtsev vites us see, hear, feel it. Acknowledgments: I want acknowledge my menr Timothy Noble, who has encouraged supported me my ological film studies. Conflicts Interest: The author declares no conflict terest. References 1. Julija Anocha. Dychanie Kamnja: Mir Fil mov Andreja Zvjagceva: Sbornik Statej i Materialov. Moskva: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, Andrey Zvyagtsev. The Return. Berl: Ko International, Andrey Zvyagtsev.. New York: Sony Pictures Classics, John Panteleimon Manoussak. Toward a Fourth Reduction? In After God: Richard Kearney Religious Turn Contental Philosophy. Edited by John Panteleimon Manoussak. New York: Fordham Press, 2006, pp John Panteleimon Manoussak. God after Metaphysics: A Theological Aestic. Bloomgn: Indiana University Press, Charles M. Stang. Beg Neir Oneself Nor Someone Else: The Apophatic Anthropology Dionysus Areopagite. In Apophatic Bodies: Negative Theology, Incarnation, Relationality. Edited by Boesel Chr Keller Care. New York: Fordham University Press, 2010, pp Vivian C. Sobchack. The Address Eye: A Phenomenology Film Experience. Prcen: Prcen University Press, Vivian C. Sobchack. Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment Movg Image Culture. Berkeley: University California Press, 2004, pp Joseph G. Kickasola. The Films Krzyszt Kieślowski: The Limal Image. New York: Contuum, David Morgan. The Embodied Eye: Religious Vual Culture Social Life Feelg. Berkeley: University California Press, 2012, pp Jennifer M. Barker. The Tactile Eye: Touch Cematic Experience. Berkeley: University California Press, John Panteleimon Manoussak. Theophany Indication: Reconcilg Augustian Palamite Aestics. Modern Theology 26 (2010): [CrossRef] 13. Jean-Luc Marion. In Excess: Studies Saturated Phenomena. Translated by Robyn Horner Vcent Berraud. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002, pp Søren Kierkegaard, Lowrie Walter. Fear Tremblg Sickness un Death. Prcen: Prcen University Press, 2013, p Andrey Zvyagtsev. Elena. Moscow: Non-Sp Productions, Ambrosios Giakal. Images Dive: The Theology Icons at Seventh Ecumenical Council, rev. ed. Leiden Bosn: Brill, 2005, pp Den J. Bekkerg.. Journal Religion & Film, Available onle: unomaha.edu/jrf/vol19/s1/45 (accessed on 25 September 2015). 18. John Panteleimon Manoussak. The Prome New Tyranny Same. In Phenomenology Eschalogy: Not yet Now. Edited by Neal DeRoo John Panteleimon Manoussak. Farnham Burlgn: Ashgate, 2009, pp by author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerl. Th article an open access article dtributed under terms conditions Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (