Ivan, Sartre, and the State’s Claim on Childhood

A book lies open on the table. It is Sartre’s essay on Tarkovsky’s “Ivan’s Childhood”, from a collected volume on Tarkovsky. I must admit, reading such a text carries with it a delicate irony: here I am, a man still awake, breath tinged with alcohol, reading under a desk lamp how a French intellectual interprets the fate of a Soviet child. On the surface it resembles the night life of an intellectual; in truth it is a very concrete solitude. I am not reading in order to learn something from him; I want to see whether he can see what I see.

Sartre is still perceptive. He argues that Tarkovsky is not filming war heroism, but rather the way war tears a child’s future apart inch by inch. He writes that Ivan has no other way to live; he must follow the path of hatred, revenge, resistance, until its end. He also stresses the role reversal: the adult officers pleading for Ivan to return to the rear like a group of helpless fathers, while Ivan insists on heading to the front like a prematurely grown man. This ethical displacement, in Sartre’s view, is the most brutal part of war—children forced into soldiers, soldiers reduced to caretakers.

When I read this, I felt the fatigue in my body sink deeper into my bones. I understood what he meant, and I admit his grasp of the particulars is sharp. Yes, Ivan indeed has no other possibility. His life can no longer unfold like that of an ordinary child. War does not only kill—it extinguishes the very possibility of “what else I might have become”.

But I put the glass down, stared at the table, and found it still too shallow.

I do not believe the core of the tragedy is merely that “a child is deprived of his childhood.” I am not even truly concerned with the idea that “a child becomes a soldier too soon.” That is Sartre sighing in France, tender and faintly sweet; it is not an indictment. It is too gentle—so gentle that it nearly absolves the world.

What I have in mind is colder and more direct: Ivan was not destroyed by “the war”; he was swallowed by the Soviet logic of survival. “Swallowed” is a word I choose with precision. For in Tarkovsky’s film—especially in “Ivan’s Childhood”—what we witness is not a private fate shattered by accident, but an entire system molding a human being according to its requirements. Ivan was not merely “unfortunate enough” to be drawn into the front at a certain moment; he was requisitioned by the statefrom the very beginning. His childhood was never truly recognized as private property by the decision-making tables of the Kremlin.

The Red Army officers in the film treat him with tenderness, guilt, and a desire to persuade him to return to the rear; Sartre reads this as a reversal of the world’s ethical order. Adults apologizing to a child, while the child walks the path of an adult. In Sartre’s words, this is an ethical collapse, a fault of the times. But when I watch this scene, what forms in my mind is not the phrase “reversal of order,” but the completion of a social rite. The officers hovering around Ivan do not look like they are protecting a child; they look as though they are guarding an artifact—an artifact with its epitaph already engraved. They know in their hearts: this child no longer belongs to any private relation, no longer merely to the woman who bore him. He is ready to become a martyr of the motherland.

If we accept this observation, then the so-called “reversal” is not chaos at all, but a predetermined trajectory. One might say that Soviet society had long taken for granted that childhood could be pre-emptively appropriated by the state. You are not allowed to grow up slowly; you are not allowed to remain in a private world for too long. You do not begin as someone with emotions, weakness, hesitation, and then step into the public narrative; it is precisely the opposite—you are placed into the public narrative first, and only later permitted to be romanticized in memory as a “child.”

That is what truly frightens me.

Those dream sequences Tarkovsky filmed—the bright woods, the water, the running, the mother holding him, his smile in the sunlight—are always treated as symbols of “Ivan’s lost innocence,” and Sartre agrees. He says those dreams are not mere flashbacks but the “real reality,” the world this child ought to have had. He treats these images as testimony: this is the life that was taken from him.

I cannot fully agree.

I even suspect that such tenderness was never truly permitted to exist for long. Of course it happened, but it was never allowed to be recognized as a legitimate mode of reality. In a society where sacrifice, collective honor, and historical mission constitute the highest ethics, so-called private childhood, so-called defenselessness in sunlight, is in essence an illicit period of time. It cannot endure, just as the state lends you a brief dream only to reclaim it later with interest. Thus I refuse to treat this film as merely a war film, but I also reject the Western habit of reading it as an “anti-war allegory.” What “Ivan’s Childhood”5 exposes is not the episodic violence of war, but the structural violence inherent in Soviet society: it does not require artillery to annihilate a person’s private time.

Real death occurs when one can no longer exist at one’s own pace.

Read More