SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 123 - Stalker

[sickc0d3r]

Stalker tells the Writer and the Professor that Stalker's never enter the room but we know that isn't always true because The Teacher A.K.A. Porcupine, went in the room and became wealthy but then hanged himself because his innermost desire was for wealth, not to save his brother who had died in the Zone. We also know that the Professor and the Writer had a conversation that Stalker's daughter was a "victim of the Zone" and had no legs.

I guess we can only draw from this a couple things.

1. Stalker might have gone in the room and his offspring was somehow effected.

2. Some sort of weapon or radiation caused a birth defect in Stalker's daughter.

3. Stalker's daughter has a problem with her legs but it is not related to the room, or radiation, or her father in any way and its just people's imaginations, rumor basically.

#2 and #3 seem unlikely to me because she moves shit with her mind. There is something going on with her more than just rumor and conjecture. So much so that the opening and closing scenes of the film are of moving glasses.

#1 is never revealed. Stalker never admits to going into the room.

This brings up a possibility #4. Stalker and his wife were at "ground zero", whatever that means, not necessarily nuclear, and the "event" caused their offspring to be a mutant. In other words, their house was in the neighborhood of "the room" when the event happened. I don't think we can ever know unless Tarkovsky reveals it in an interview somewhere.

I feel like the implication was the Zone affects all the Stalkers' kids, which would mean the second is closest to the truth. But maybe instead of radiation it's whatever mystical power that it is emanating.

I didn't think of that last option. it brings up the question, what makes a person a stalker? Maybe anyone who lived near the initial event was affected by the fallout and became uniquely qualified with powers of telekinesis and whatnot.

Please tell me you did this on purpose.

Weeeellll, of course I did?!?!

But you know that that's idiot philosophy, right? You're free to do whatever you want whenever you want. That's part of the deal with free will: It's free. You don't have to lose everything to move to a different state/country or to quit your old job and start a new job. It's not conditional will, it's free will.

That's idiot philosophy talk that idiots puke up to delude themselves and anyone stupid enough to listen that they're deep.

You're forcing me to defend Fight Club philosophy? Is that what you're doing, you sadistic SOB? Ok, I'll give it a shot.

Tyler's worldview, and the movie's message, is one of anti-consumerism. When he says "it's only when you give up everything that you can do anything", he's talking about the restrictions we place on ourselves by conforming to a materialistic society. "The things you own end up owning you", is a true statement. If you have no choice but to work your ass off to pay for all the shit you want but don't need, how free are you really?

 

[MusterX]

I guess my problem is that I don't get the sense of progression. Progression presupposes intent and I don't think Tarkovsky had either the patience or the skill to spin the tale you're unraveling for me here. It could've worked this way; what you're unraveling here would've made for a cool narrative. But there are just too many questions for me to buy this. First and foremost, as I keep harping on, Tarkovsky's refusal to explain the origin of the Zone - indeed, to explain anything about anything - precludes such neat interpretations as yours. If Monkey's just a genetically-altered offspring resultant from Stalker being contaminated by nuclear fallout or meltdown or what have you, then religion, faith, miracles, none of that shit has anything to do with anything. If, on the other hand, Monkey is a "normal" child who just happens to have the faith of a child that is powerful enough to move mountains or glasses - the power of which is technically free to all if they'd only believe - then what's the deal with the mysterious Zone/Room? What's up with the voices and the magically ringing phones and the bizarre perceptual/spatial twists? Why go the mystery route at all? And why not build to an intelligible climax/finale?

I don't know buddy. I can't answer your questions or objections from any place of authority. I only know what Tarkovsky presented involved many references to the Bible. I tried to make sense out of what was presented and said. I haven't dedicated my life to the study of film like you have but I can say this concerning literature. Many films are based on some form of literature and literature doesn't always tie up in a nice neat bow. H.P. Lovecraft, for example, would tell the reader that the Cthulhu was ineffable and then he would proceed to try to describe it.

We've seen this problem in the SMC multiple times where things are not easily digestible and could have multiple interpretations. Some examples would be the 1966 film Persona which I felt was superb. Others include, The Lobster (2015), Prisoners (2013) which was very frustrating for me on multiple levels, Valhalla Rising (2009) which I thought was very good but there is no way you can peg down that film as only one interpretation, Pi and Dark City from (1998), Black Swan, although I think Black Swan resolved itself better at the end than something like Stalker, Sound of My Voice (2011) had a crazy twist ending that was actually a bigger shock than Stalker's ending. I mean it throws the entire film into question. Mulholland Drive is IMO Lynch at his finest and that film requires a huge amount of unraveling and you never really know if you have it right. Jacob's Ladder (1990), WTF is happening with that film. Did the entire thing happen on the gurney as he died in Vietnam or did he come home and lead the rest of his life? We have no idea and argued about it quite a lot. Coherence (2013) is difficult to dissect and is caused by a passing comet but is knowing that the comet caused everything any better than Tarkovsky's Stalker where we assume something happened like an asteroid or nuclear bomb, but never know?

I would be interested to know how you feel about the films of Werner Herzog.

 

[MusterX]

I didn't think of that last option. it brings up the question, what makes a person a stalker? Maybe anyone who lived near the initial event was affected by the fallout and became uniquely qualified with powers of telekinesis and whatnot.

Think about this. Why was he throwing those nuts? He was testing for traps right because he said the Zone is different every time through and it kills whoever is not worthy. And we also know he didn't just become a Stalker, he had to be taught how by Porcupine. The Zone only seems to let the wretched through to survive the actual room though. Wretched means a person who is very unhappy or in an unfortunate state. So we know that stalkers go through the Zone over and over but they do not go in the room. It almost seems like Charon ferrying you across the river Styx. He goes no further, he simply takes you to your destination.

The Professor and the Writer survived but they didn't go in the room, they chickened out at the last minute. They probably would have died because neither was really wretched. It bugs me, why did Tarkovsky choose the word wretched? Considering the religious theme and the character speaking, it seems like he's talking about Amazing Grace. Look at the opening to the famous song.

Amazing grace
How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost
But now I'm found
Was blind, but now I see

'Twas grace that taught
My heart to fear
And grace my Fears relieved
How precious did
That grace appear
The hour I first believed

The idea that God saves the wretched and downtrodden is a very old one. The song says all it took was to believe. That really gets into the theme of some of Stalker. Hope, faith, believing vs. unbelieving, these ideas came up over and over in the film.

 

[Bullitt68]

You're forcing me to defend Fight Club philosophy? Is that what you're doing, you sadistic SOB?

Tyler's worldview, and the movie's message, is one of anti-consumerism.

Except for all of Fincher's product placement and the movie merchandising.

When he says "it's only when you give up everything that you can do anything", he's talking about the restrictions we place on ourselves by conforming to a materialistic society.

To be precise, he says it's only after we've lost everything, not after we've given up everything. Giving up everything you have to get something else that you don't have is a matter of choice - or of free will, if you will. Losing everything that you have is not. That's the sticking point in that idiot philosophy.

Added to which, if the restrictions are of our own making, then what sense does the concept of loss have here anyway?

"The things you own end up owning you", is a true statement.

In certain cases, perhaps. But it's certainly not axiomatic as some incisive indictment of life under capitalism

If you have no choice but to work your ass off to pay for all the shit you want but don't need, how free are you really?

But to answer your question: Clearly free enough to set fire to everything you own, walk out on your job, and start your own rebel society.

We've seen this problem in the SMC multiple times where things are not easily digestible and could have multiple interpretations.

To be clear, my problem isn't with ambiguity. My problem is with inexplicability/unintelligibility. 2001 and Inception can both be interpreted in myriad ways...but both Kubrick and Nolan had very clear intentions and I think that, while arguments are insightful and productive, there are right and wrong answers to be discovered. I cannot say the same for Stalker and that's a mark against it in my book. Hell, even Solaris, which is anything but explicit, is rather easy to wrap your head around, I dare say even pretty straightforward, certainly as Tarkovsky movies go.

Prisoners (2013) which was very frustrating for me on multiple levels

Heh, I wasn't a fan of that one either. From when I watched it a few years ago:

I wasn't really crazy about the movie itself. Granted, the bar for these types of stories has been raised impossibly high by SVU with their insane episode-after-episode consistency with this type of shit, but even beyond comparisons, I just felt like there were so many avenues they could've gone and they just systematically closed each one down until they found the dullest and lamest way to close the show.

First, the ethical dilemma of torturing that little shit Paul Danto (he's like Michael Pitt to me, the second I see them I want them to die painful deaths) was cool. Then, when the crazy schizo from The Dark Knight showed up, a new avenue opened up where maybe Hugh Jackman would have to consider the possibility of being wrong, which could've made for an interesting complication. But then having it be the stupid old lady sucked. Either they thought keeping all signs under wraps would make for a proper twist, which it didn't, or they just didn't know how to properly build an interesting psychological web around a twisted mother figure kidnapping and traumatizing kids, but whatever happened, they completely fumbled the resolution. Schizo just shoots himself and Danto just stays in the box. WTF? And really Hugh, you just let granny with a fucking six-shooter force your sorry ass into a hole in the ground? Your kid's life is on the line and the cops are coming after you. Grab that frail litttle c*nt by the throat the second she opens the fucking door. Such a little bitch ending for him blowing that fucking whistle like a little kid. Hell, even the little black girl who ran away had more balls. And even the torture was bitchy. Just punching him in the face for five days? At least break something. If that was my daughter, that little fucker would've had at least a dozen broken bones and been missing at least a couple of fingers and maybe a foot. For a rough-and-tough hillbilly who's always ready for the shit to hit the fan, he was a real beta.

As for Gyllenhaal, I liked his performance but I think the script would've worked better if it wasn't so split between the cop and the dad. It's sort of a chicken or the egg thing as far as interpretation goes whether the casting was based on the writing or the writing was based on the casting, but I imagine it's harder to favor one character over the other when each one is played by a leading man. The script was a bit too long and stretched out, and in trying to accomodate a split story led by two different characters, each was short-changed a subsantial arc. Ultimately, Jackman got the lion's share of the character development and he got the juicier scenes, and I wish they would've either beefed up Gyllenhaal's character or else minimized his role to the point where it wasn't a second lead and focused it more on Jackman's character (something they probably didn't want to do for fear of recalling Mystic River too vividly).

It just never felt like a proper detective story on Gyllenhaal's end nor did it cut it as a father's emotional journey on Jackman's end while the kidnappers were handled like a necessary evil instead of productive elements to the story. It just felt like a confused script lacking an intelligence capable of rendering a stimulating, psychologically-sophisticated story. Take any 43 minutes of SVU and they've got it beat.

I just watched Prisoners for the first time a couple weeks ago [...] Easily Jackman's best performance for me.

I can agree to that. The scene with him and Gyllenhaal when he has to identify the articles of clothing was the scene for him. I was very impressed with him there.

I felt waaaay more tension from the movie than you give it credit for.

The only tension I ever felt was when TDK schizo was walking around inside their houses. I have no idea why he was doing that, and nothing ever came of it, but they were good cinematic moments while they lasted. I would've felt more suspense if suspense was actually something they sought to cultivate, but it wasn't. Or, if it was, they failed. It felt very humdrum. The emotionality was lacking (as it never is in SVU), the character turns weren't motivated very well (Gyllenhaal starts off being the detective who's solved all of his cases to the moron who only stumbles onto leads and ends up costing a suspect/witness through carelessness with no real arc following any sort of spiral effect), the different suspects felt like mere tools and not legit characters (evidenced by how easily Dano is written out of the film and how utterly inconsequential TDK schizo is in the end), and the reveal was stupid and perfunctory.

Better filmmaking could've made it more suspenseful and engaging, but with what there was, it was by and large a lackluster affair IMO. At random, I could go to the first season SVU episode Nocturne for a better treatment of a traumatized abuse victim trying to come to terms with who they are as they reach adulthood, the fourth season episode Dolls for a better treatment of a parent having to go through the search for a missing child and turning inward to examine their own responsibility, or the seventh season episode 911 for a more intense thriller feel to the search for an abducted little girl. You can pick any fucking episode out of a hat and they do every last thing better, and while there's no shame in paling in comparison to SVU, it is a shame that Prisoners is so far off the mark.

As far as Hugh giving in to ole' Granny, that was one of my favorite parts because echoed the gritty realism that the filmakers were going for.

Gritty realism my ass. He's a fucking wilderness man, a crazy backwoods survivalist. He wants his fucking daughter back but Betty White's going to punk him and totally make him her bitch? No way. The second she opens that door he should be immobilizing her, disarming her, and making her wish he'd treat her as nicely as he treated Dano.

As far as his method of torture goes, he was obviously conflicted.

He didn't seem as conflicted as you're making him sound. As soon as he brought Terence Howard in, he tells him he has a decision to make but that he'd already made his. And he says it more than once IIRC that Dano is doing it to himself by not talking. In his head, he was ready to go. Over time, he started to have greater difficulty, but I would've thought that, after a few hours of punching him in the face, he would've had an easier time at least doing the De Niro Casino hammer thing. That seems like a no-brainer to me. If punching doesn't work, next comes breaking, then comes cutting. Maybe I'm just more sadistic than his character, but based on the way they introduced him and sketched his fanatacism, I would've thought he would've had the stomach for more than a beating.

I really dug Gyllenhaal's performance. We didn't learn too much about him as a character but his mannerisms, the way he interacted with the other principals, everything sort of really sold me on his role.

Agreed. I liked the blinking thing he was doing and I liked him at the start trying to keep all of the moving pieces of the investigation together in his head as everybody from his superiors to the families started to really fuck with his sense of organization.

I would be interested to know how you feel about the films of Werner Herzog.

Haven't watched much from him. No special reason, I've just never been interested. Fitzcarraldo stunk. The making of, "Burden of Dreams," was far more interesting, and I'm no fan of documentaries. And his Nosferatu remake was okay but I prefer Murnau's original and even the fictional "docudrama" Shadow of the Vampire. Other than that, I've never bothered. What films do you have in mind? Stuff like Aguirre, the Wrath of God and The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser?

 

[Coolthulu]

Incredible camerawork — every movement seems meticulously calculated. The sets have this mysterious and strange beauty, and the dual use of color and sepia monochrome is striking. The long takes mostly feel earned because of how beautiful the visuals are, only very rarely feeling too indulgent.

I don't think I can make many comments on the complex themes of this film after only one viewing. I will say that the frequent philosophical conversations between the characters were quite interesting. Clearly the film deals with faith and its place in the world, though I won't claim to fully understand its meaning.

 

[Yotsuya]

Ok, so I hunted this poem down and it appears to be by Fedor Tyutchev. Tarkovsky appears to have made some minor changes with the poem like in the last line instead of the word passion he uses the word desire, but the poem is almost word for word.
"I Love Your Dear Eyes..."

I love your dear eyes, my friend,
With their play so bright and wondrous,
When you promptly rise them, and,
Like with a lightning in the wildness,
Embrace at once the whole land.

But there's more fabulous attraction:
The eyes directed to the floor
During the crazy osculation,
And through the lashes, set before,
The dusk and gloomy flame of passion.

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/yevgeny/tyutchev/i_love_your_dear_eyes.html

Thanks! It’s not from the same poem as in dream sequence, but it is the same voice.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Did he not intend to depict things naturally or could he just not be bothered to care whether things seemed natural or not?

I mean I do I think it's the former. Based on the style of the film and Tarkovsky's general attitude/outlook. Not to argue from authority, but since you also hold him such high regard I think Bergman puts it well:

When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure - THE SERPENT'S EGG, THE TOUCH, FACE TO FACE and so on.

...

Film as dream, film as music.

Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream.

And also based on what Tark himself has said in diaries, interviews and so on:

I don't believe in the literary-theatrical principle of dramatic construction. In my opinion it has nothing to do with specific features of the art of cinema. In many films nowadays there are too many passages whose only role is to explain circumstances of events. In film there is no need to explain anything but to influence viewers' feelings directly. The emotions thus awakened accelerate the train of thought.

I seek an editing principle which would allow me to explicate not only the logic of the object but the subjective logic as well — thoughts, dreams, recollections. I seek the form arising from a given situation and a psychological state of the character, i.e. from circumstances objectively influencing human behaviour. This is the fundamental condition for rendering psychological truth.

Of course, you don't have to agree that this is a good approach to follow, or even that he was successful in doing it. You may still think it's self-indulgent claptrap (I don't), but he was attempting to depict things in a manner which is not naturalistic.

 

[Yotsuya]

After a nights sleep Stalker grew on me. I remember hearing, that Tarkovsky was kind of an awkward character for his country. He gained lots of prestige outside USSR, but inside USSR his movies were never that popular. They were too hard to pin down for the Soviet conformity. He started to film another movie in Russia after Stalker, but the project got shot down after he deviated too much from the script. He managed to get out of the USSR and made his next movies in Italy and Sweden.

This rings a bell regarding Stalker. We have the Zone, that is impossible to control, but that is being tried to contained by the state. It seems to have something to do with faith and waking up for more transcendent existence. We have Stalker, who guides people to the zone. His customers don't appreciate his efforts risking his life and messing up his personal life for trying to show them the miracle it contains. Sounds a lot like Tarkovsky trying to tackle Soviet censorship risking his career trying to make movies that would inspire his countrymen for higher purpose than communist jargon. Making an ambitious movie like Stalker in USSR must have felt like sneaking into the Zone.

As someone mentioned, Tarkovsky didn't make his movies to be viewed by the average person. He was probably targeting the Russian intelligentsia. In Stalker we have two archetypes, Writer and Professor. One represents culture and the other science. Neither seemed to follow Stalker to experience the wonder of the Zone. Writer didn't want it. As nihilist who didn't believe even in his own work he just came along to moan and brag and to validate his world view, that there's no wonder or deeper meaning in the world. Professor came to destroy the Room on pretense of greater good to stop this fools errand while having his life in some sort of dead-end too. I'm not saying that either's world view is necessarily crap, as I did not listen to their arguments, but just that they were on that journey on false pretenses.

In the end Stalker manages to help no-one. Only people who go deep enough on self-discovery don't like what they find. Is there anything miraculous about the zone at all or is Stalker is just imagining it? I could imagine same self-doubt running on Tarkovsky's mind too. Is he delusional thinking one way while the rest of his nation is deep in conformity that he's dead wrong.

I'm happy he didn't go for the more pessimistic ending someone mentioned as possibility. Thinking back at the ending and reading the final poem again I really started to appreciate Stalker on new level.

I'm mostly writing on gut feeling and possibly based on some discussions I've overheard (and forgotten about) years ago. @Rimbaud82, do you remember anything like this on his diaries?

 

[Rimbaud82]

I'm mostly writing on gut feeling and possibly based on some discussions I've overheard (and forgotten about) years ago. @Rimbaud82, do you remember anything like this on his diaries?

I definitely remember reading his thoughts on the intelligentsia, and the moral/spiritual purpose of his films. There is also a bit I remember where he says he most identified with the characters of Stalker and Writer in the film, something about starting out on such a journey being the most important thing. I can't remember if it was in the book Time Within Time (which is the published diaries), or else in interviews. I will try and dig out the references if I can find them (and am remembering right).

 

[Rimbaud82]

Yes, around the time of Rublev he wrote this:

This isn't the moment for complaints and indignation in the corridors. It's too late for that—complaints seem pointless and undignified. We have to think very seriously about how we can carry on living: any rash move could have disastrous consequences. It is not a question of safeguarding particular advantages, what is at stake is the very life of our intelligentsia, our nation, our art. If the decline of art is obvious—which it is—and if art is the soul of the nation, then our nation, our country, is suffering from a grave psychic disease.

Another one from an interview:

Who do you feel sympathy towards?

Mostly towards the protagonist, towards the Stalker. In a certain sense I am convinced that there is something within me that connects me to him. I would like to help him in some way, to defend him. Let's say that for me he is like a brother. A lost brother, perhaps, but a brother nevertheless. In any case, I feel, in a heart-rending manner, his moments of conflict with the world that so easily wounds him. I feel that his psychological make-up, his approach and reaction to reality, are similar to my own. So much so that, despite being an outlaw, he is much more cultured, educated, and intelligent, in the film, than the writer or the scientist, who nevertheless, as characters, express the very idea of intelligence, science, education. From the very beginning I had the urge to make a bookshelf stuffed full of books appear, suddenly, in the film. And it appears in the film's finale, in a scenography that is entirely inappropriate for such an object. I would like to have such a bookshelf in my home. I've never had such a bookshelf. And I would like to have it in the same disorder in which the Stalker keeps his.

And I think this is the quote I was thinking of:

T: You talk about dignity. Obviously dignity is very important, most important. And you talk about the path, the journey. If we are to talk about a journey, also metaphorically, then one has to say that it is in fact unimportant where one arrived, what's important is to embark upon a journey.

In Stalker, for example...

T: Always, under all circumstances. And in Stalker? Perhaps, I don't know. But I wanted to say something else — that what is important is not what one accomplished after all but that one entered the path to accomplish it in the first place. Why doesn't it matter where he arrived? Because the path is infinite. And the journey has no end. Because of that it is of absolutely no consequence whether you are standing near the beginning or near the end already — before you there is a journey that will never end. And if you didn't enter the path — the most important thing is to enter it. Here lies the problem. That's why for me what's important is not so much the path but the moment at which a man enters it, enters any path.

In Stalker, for example, the Stalker himself is perhaps not so important to me, much more important is the Writer who went to the Zone as a cynic, just a pragmatist, and returned as a man who speaks of human dignity, who realised he was not a good man. For the first time he even faces this question, is man good or bad? And if he has already thought of it — he thus enters the path... And when the Stalker says that all his efforts were wasted, that nobody understood anything, that nobody needed him — he is mistaken because the Writer understood everything. And because of that the Stalker himself is not even so important.

Something else is interesting in this context. I wanted to make another film, a sequel to Stalkerin which... — This was possible only in Russia, in the Soviet Union, it's impossible now because the Stalker and his wife would have to be played by the same actors. Something else is important here: that he changes, he doesn't believe anymore that people could go to this happiness, towards the happiness of self-transformation, an inner change. And he begins to change them by force, he begins to force and kidnap them to the Zone by means of some swindles — in order to make their lives better. He turns into a fascist. And here we have how an ideal can — for purely ideological reasons — turn into its negation; when the goal already justifies the means man changes. He leads three men to the Zone by force — this is what I wanted to show in the second film — and he does not shy away even from bloodshed in order to accomplish his goal. This is already the idea of the Grand Inquisitor, those who take on themselves sin in the name of, so to speak...

Here he talks about Stalker as allegory, which he says is bullshit basically lol:

If my intent had been to make a film about life in the Soviet Union, I would have made that kind of film. I'm saying this because many people think that Stalker is a story about life in the USSR. I don't understand how such interpretations arise. In the review I have in front of me they say that the film is about life in a concentration camp. * I don't know where this kind of interpretation comes from. When we were making the film we had a much more important goal in mind. And I won't even mention the fact that nobody would have given me a single kopeck had I attempted to shoot a film on that subject. There are issues some people cannot understand.

I think film can be as refined as any other art form. I have no doubt most of us would agree that Shakespeare was a genius. At the same time there would exist among us a great variety of opinions on the significance of Hamlet. At any rate, actors who performed in that play, directors who staged it, and critics who wrote about it say about this subject many different things. A complete agreement in perception of any work of art would be contradicting the very essence of art.

Stalker as an allegory of police state? Opinions expressed in that article surprised me a lot. I have no idea what they are writing about there. When you see the film you'll understand why police are presented the way they are. The police guard the Zone which our heroes are trying to penetrate illegally. There is nothing in this film beyond what you can see on screen. We had no ideas regarding some hidden meanings. There is nothing symbolic in the scene with the police, there is no allegory there. I am more interested in revealing life itself than in playing games with primitive symbolisms.

Few more interesting bits:

Writer and Professor, two intellectuals, are simply people who are so sure of their reasons, so much convinced of their fairness that they are able to convince Stalker in the end. They both represent this positive realistic principle which is so manifest in contemporary life. This principle will impel Stalker to re-examine his attitude toward life. It's a story of a crisis, of the fall of an idealist. Stalker is the last of the Mohicans, a relic of a passing age, an idealist. What is taking place is a loss of faith. Pragmatism wins or to be more precise: materialism wins as I believe pragmatism is too gloomy. I find no particular faults with Stalker's two companions. Writer and Professor are a couple of normal people, a creation of the times we live in. Why are they both intellectuals? That's simple, I know intellectual circles a little bit better.

The Zone is in some sense a result of Stalker's imagination. Our line of reasoning was as follows: it is he who invented that place to bring people there and convince them about the truth of his creation [...] I completely agree with the suggestion that it was Stalker who had created the Zone's world in order to invent some sort of faith, a faith in that world's existence. It was a working hypothesis which we tried to preserve during creation of that world. We even planned an ending variant in which the viewer would find out Stalker had invented it all and now he is heartbroken because people do not believe him.

Stalker is not a desperate film. I don't think a work of art can be inspired by this sort of feeling. Its meaning must be spiritual, positive, it should bring hope and belief. I don't think my film lacks hope. If this is true — it is not a work of art. Even if Stalker has moments of despair, he masters them. It is a kind of catharsis. It's a tragedy but tragedy is not hopeless. This history of destruction still gives the viewer a glimmer of hope. It has to do with the feeling of catharsis. Tragedy cleanses man.

 

[moreorless87]

I definitely remember reading his thoughts on the intelligentsia, and the moral/spiritual purpose of his films. There is also a bit I remember where he says he most identified with the characters of Stalker and Writer in the film, something about starting out on such a journey being the most important thing. I can't remember if it was in the book Time Within Time (which is the published diaries), or else in interviews. I will try and dig out the references if I can find them (and am remembering right).

The film definitely seems more focused on Writer than it does Scientist, the discussions are framed much more via the formers viewpoint than the latters. It makes sense I spose as Writer is obviously much closer to Tarkovsky himself in background and indeed is played by Solonitsyn who he's previously cast as the lead in Andrei Rublev pushing the redemptive power of art. This time though its arguably looking at the potential pitfalls in terms of self obsession or the artist feeling the need to conform to his audience rather than challenge them. Still though as the man says I don't think its intended to be a negative takedown of the character, your still sposed to care about him and ultimately he does bring clear wisdom.

Honestly having watched The Sacrifice recently what does stand out for me is that it was rather lacking in character relative to his earlier work with his Russian cast. I think its easy to overlook performances in a film that's so visually focused but for me all three of the leads here are excellent, often heavily focused on the physical and more subtle performances.

Overlaping with that Persona thread I dredged up I do actually think we've seen an increase in the influence of such cinema in recent years, I mean just looking in my Avi I think shows you a film with a clear debt to Tarkovsky and similar film makers, indeed I think the ironic thing is that Johansson dispite being a big Hollywood star is actually far better at that kind of performance, Lost in Translation and Girl with the Pearl Earring that broke her though are both very much in that direction.

 

[Yotsuya]

Great quotes, Rimbaud82! Really interesting stuff all the way. One thing I need to comment:

Here he talks about Stalker as allegory, which he says is bullshit basically lol:

In my write-up I had enough sense not claim, that Stalker would be an allegory even though I was naturally thinking, that it could be. I just wrote about how the theme of conformism/nihilism/pragmatism vs. idealism could be relatable for Tarkovsky. It’s not just about Soviet Union, but a universal theme and that’s why I find the movie relatable too.

 

[Bullitt68]

I do I think it's the former [...] based on what Tark himself has said in diaries, interviews and so on:

I don't believe in the literary-theatrical principle of dramatic construction. In my opinion it has nothing to do with specific features of the art of cinema. In many films nowadays there are too many passages whose only role is to explain circumstances of events. In film there is no need to explain anything but to influence viewers' feelings directly. The emotions thus awakened accelerate the train of thought.

Clearly, it was the former. That was the perfect quote to answer my question. It's also the perfect quote for Tarkovsky to hang himself with, as stating bluntly that he didn't believe in dramatic construction makes it much easier to understand why the drama in his films is so poorly constructed

On this point, I actually rewatched Ivan's Childhood last night. @moreorless87 has talked about how that's his most "accessible" film, and it is, but even when you watch that film having in mind his (at best) neglect of or (at worst) contempt for dramatic construction you realize why even that film, which is BY FAR his most "classical" narrative film, is so poorly constructed (the second act, where Kholin's part is beefed up, Masha is introduced, and Ivan vanishes as if Tarkovsky forgot he ever existed, is fucking terrible despite the beautiful forest cinematography).

However, I mentioned in my first post in this thread that I thought that Stalker is "probably Tarkovsky's best single character, even better than Ivan (at least from memory; we'll see what the weekend brings)." Well, he's not. Ivan is Tarkovsky's best character. Off the top of my head, I think that Ivan would make a top five list of mine of the GOAT war movie characters. That character is so fascinating and Nikolay Burlyaev at only 16 years old turned in a masterful performance. Best character and best performance in a Tarkovsky film hands down.

Not to argue from authority, but since you also hold him such high regard I think Bergman puts it well

As I joked with moreorless in the Persona thread, Bergman was a better artist than he was a critic

He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow?

I don't like this because it seems to be serving as an ontology of film. But films aren't dreams and not all films are/should be dreamlike. Ivan's Childhood is very dreamlike and, dramatically-speaking, kind of rooted in dreams. Yet, he explains what Ivan's dreams are about, where they're coming from. "What should [filmmakers] explain?" How about what you bothered to make this movie for and why I shouldn't regret having bothered to watch it?

All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure - THE SERPENT'S EGG, THE TOUCH, FACE TO FACE and so on.

Unfortunately, those three films that Bergman lists are three of the films of his that have eluded me to this point, so I can't comment on those particular examples. But Wild Strawberries crushes Ivan's Childhood, Solaris, and Stalker combined in this domain of weaving waking and dreaming life together on the dramatic and thematic levels.

I wanted to say something else — that what is important is not what one accomplished after all but that one entered the path to accomplish it in the first place. Why doesn't it matter where he arrived? Because the path is infinite. And the journey has no end. Because of that it is of absolutely no consequence whether you are standing near the beginning or near the end already — before you there is a journey that will never end. And if you didn't enter the path — the most important thing is to enter it. Here lies the problem. That's why for me what's important is not so much the path but the moment at which a man enters it, enters any path.

This seems to enhance @MusterX's take on the Zone as a metaphor about life.

In Stalker, for example, the Stalker himself is perhaps not so important to me, much more important is the Writer who went to the Zone as a cynic, just a pragmatist, and returned as a man who speaks of human dignity, who realised he was not a good man. For the first time he even faces this question, is man good or bad? And if he has already thought of it — he thus enters the path... And when the Stalker says that all his efforts were wasted, that nobody understood anything, that nobody needed him — he is mistaken because the Writer understood everything. And because of that the Stalker himself is not even so important.

It's too bad he didn't believe in dramatic construction. If he did, he might've been able to construct his film better so that this would've actually manifested. As it stands, this is simply an intention that was never realized in the film itself.

Stalker is not a desperate film. I don't think a work of art can be inspired by this sort of feeling. Its meaning must be spiritual, positive, it should bring hope and belief. I don't think my film lacks hope. If this is true — it is not a work of art. Even if Stalker has moments of despair, he masters them. It is a kind of catharsis. It's a tragedy but tragedy is not hopeless. This history of destruction still gives the viewer a glimmer of hope. It has to do with the feeling of catharsis. Tragedy cleanses man.

Now this is nothing more than an artistic failing on Tarkovsky's part. Stalker is one of the most desperate films that I've ever seen. I didn't use the word "despair" by accident. Did Stalker "bring hope and belief" to anyone? Does anyone buy that Stalker "masters" his "moments of despair"?

 

[MusterX]

This seems to enhance @MusterX's take on the Zone as a metaphor about life.

It does seem to be that at least on some level but the more I think about it the more questions arise. For example, why is the government so fearful of the Zone? They are willing to murder anyone that tries to enter. If it were just a radiated area that they were trying to keep people out of for health reasons then they wouldn't be using tanks and machine guns to kill you for entering. That kinda defeats the purpose of trying to protect the health of the general public. I guess I can't put it past government to do that but its dumb. There is something there that they fear and are willing to use resources blocking it off and guarding it 24 hours a day. That seems like a lot of trouble to go through just for a radiation area. Tarkovsky never tells us though what it is other than the descriptions the Stalker gives us.

I really wish the Professor or someone would have entered the room at the end. It could have changed the complexity of the entire film rather than opting to make the daughter some sort of telekinetic.

 

[Bullitt68]

It does seem to be that at least on some level but the more I think about it the more questions arise.

Come on, bro. Dramatic construction is lame. And what should he explain anyhow?

/sarcasm.

 

[MusterX]

Come on, bro. Dramatic construction is lame. And what should he explain anyhow?

/sarcasm.

Well on the one hand I respect the film, even like it, but on the other hand the mystery and unanswered questions concerning the creation of the Zone, the power or lack of power of "the room", and the daughters powers make it frustrating. I guess I could pick up a copy of Roadside Picnic and see how that compares to the film.

Wiki says that Tarkovsky's Stalker is only loosely based on the novel. It may be his fuck up instead of sticking with the source material closer. For example check out this plot synopsis on the source material.

The novel is set in a post-visitation world where there are now six Zones known on Earth (each zone is approximately five square miles/kilometers in size) that are full of unexplained phenomena and where strange happenings have briefly occurred, assumed to have been visitations by aliens. World governments and the UN try to keep tight control over them to prevent leakage of artifacts from the Zones, fearful of unforeseen consequences. A subculture of stalkers – scavengers who go into the Zones to steal the artifacts for profit – evolves around the Zones.

The novel is set in and around a specific Zone in Harmont, a fictitious town in Canada, and follows the main protagonist over an eight-year period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic

See now that is some information. The government is protecting it because its probably alien visitation and the stalkers are stealing artifacts out of the 6 different zones. Does Tarkovsky tell us that? No, hell no he doesn't, we are left guessing which I guess he thought was the better presentation.

 

[Bullitt68]

Well on the one hand I respect the film, even like it, but on the other hand the mystery and unanswered questions concerning the creation of the Zone, the power or lack of power of "the room", and the daughters powers make it frustrating. I guess I could pick up a copy of Roadside Picnic and see how that compares to the film.

Wiki says that Tarkovsky's Stalker is only loosely based on the novel. It may be his fuck up instead of sticking with the source material closer. For example check out this plot synopsis on the source material.

The novel is set in a post-visitation world where there are now six Zones known on Earth (each zone is approximately five square miles/kilometers in size) that are full of unexplained phenomena and where strange happenings have briefly occurred, assumed to have been visitations by aliens. World governments and the UN try to keep tight control over them to prevent leakage of artifacts from the Zones, fearful of unforeseen consequences. A subculture of stalkers – scavengers who go into the Zones to steal the artifacts for profit – evolves around the Zones.

The novel is set in and around a specific Zone in Harmont, a fictitious town in Canada, and follows the main protagonist over an eight-year period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic

See now that is some information. The government is protecting it because its probably alien visitation and the stalkers are stealing artifacts out of the 6 different zones. Does Tarkovsky tell us that? No, hell no he doesn't, we are left guessing which I guess he thought was the better presentation.

I haven't read the source material for either Solaris or Stalker, but I know that Tarkovsky hated actual genre filmmaking and had zero interest in actual sci-fi storytelling in both cases (@Rimbaud82, you got any quotes from Tarkovsky bitching about having to waste time on the sci-fi aspects of Solaris? I'm remembering those lamentations but I don't remember what he actually had to say). So I think that it's safe to assume that it's his fuck up and that Roadside Picnic is a hell of a lot more explicit and coherent on the narrative level.

As I keep saying: Narrative is just a necessary evil for Tarkovsky to play with his cameras and that always shows through in his poor and sloppy narratives.

 

[MusterX]

As I keep saying: Narrative is just a necessary evil for Tarkovsky to play with his cameras and that always shows through in his poor and sloppy narratives.

I can't argue that point. I wanted to argue that point with you but the more I think about it the more I'm convinced you are at least partially or completely correct. I would have been more satisfied with Stalker if he at least just had Stalker do a monologue that it is believed aliens visited and there are 6 Zones in total around the world. I would have probably been happier with the source material idea that Stalkers are like scavengers and they risk the dangers of the Zone to try to find artifacts left behind by the aliens.

What Tarkovsky did was remove the aliens and remove the idea that Stalkers are scavenging artifacts, and he replaced it with "the room." A room we never make it to, a room we never get to see, and we never get an explanation of it other than it grants wishes. In other words, Tarkovsky neutered the source material. Changing source material is a common practice by directors but a replacement story has to be a part of the deal. Tarkovsky's replacement for what he removed, aliens/artifacts, consisted of an idea, the room, that is never fully realized.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

What film are we watching this week I totally forget?

 

[moreorless87]

Now this is nothing more than an artistic failing on Tarkovsky's part. Stalker is one of the most desperate films that I've ever seen. I didn't use the word "despair" by accident. Did Stalker "bring hope and belief" to anyone? Does anyone buy that Stalker "masters" his "moments of despair"?

What I think you see personally is a shift in focus from him away from his desire to bring strangers to the zone, to live their himself instead and potentially to take his family there or just to focus on his family generally. The last scene back at his house I think you need to view not from his perspective but from his wifes perspective so whilst he's going over his negative experiences the focus is really on her, her looking after him and then telling us that she believes in and will stand by him plus of course his daughter showing that actually the "rules" that he feels so constrained by can be broken outside the zone.

As I said in the Bergman thread I think you point about Andrei Rublev being a film without any hope to it seems highly questionable to me. Again I think it highlights Tarkovsky working strongly via tone, the whole bell casting section I think highlights the positive creative experience of the young bell caster dispite all the negatives he's faced that inspires the lead character.

Actually looking back I would say perhaps his most cynical film is actually Ivan's Childhood, its not an uncaring film and the surviving character does seem to show hope for the future but its basically painting that Ivan himself has had the childhood crushed out of him and been turned into someone totally given over to hate, more of a Kubrick style cautionary tale even if its warmer in style.

I mean I can see with Tarkovsky that he would be latched onto by hippyish types who would make claims of him expressing some grand secret message the same way some conspiracy types latch onto Kubrick but I don't think that's really an argument against his films being effective in delivering a much more basic and universal message effectively.