888 Stalker
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
888 Stalker
Stalker
Andrei Tarkovsky's final Soviet feature is a metaphysical journey through an enigmatic postapocalyptic landscape, and a rarefied cinematic experience like no other. A hired guide—the Stalker—leads a writer and a scientist into the heart of the Zone, the restricted site of a long-ago disaster, where the three men eventually zero in on the Room, a place rumored to fulfill one's most deeply held desires. Adapting a science-fiction novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Tarkovsky created an immersive world with a wealth of material detail and a sense of organic atmosphere. A religious allegory, a reflection of contemporaneous political anxieties, a meditation on film itself—Stalker envelops the viewer by opening up a multitude of possible meanings.
SPECIAL FEATURES
• New 2K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New interview with Geoff Dyer, author of Zona: A Book About a Film About a Journey to a Room
• Interview from 2002 with cinematographer Alexander Knyazhinsky
• Interview from 2002 with set designer Rashit Safiullin
• Interview from 2002 with composer Eduard Artemyev
• New English subtitle translation
• PLUS: An essay by critic Mark Le Fanu
Andrei Tarkovsky's final Soviet feature is a metaphysical journey through an enigmatic postapocalyptic landscape, and a rarefied cinematic experience like no other. A hired guide—the Stalker—leads a writer and a scientist into the heart of the Zone, the restricted site of a long-ago disaster, where the three men eventually zero in on the Room, a place rumored to fulfill one's most deeply held desires. Adapting a science-fiction novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Tarkovsky created an immersive world with a wealth of material detail and a sense of organic atmosphere. A religious allegory, a reflection of contemporaneous political anxieties, a meditation on film itself—Stalker envelops the viewer by opening up a multitude of possible meanings.
SPECIAL FEATURES
• New 2K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New interview with Geoff Dyer, author of Zona: A Book About a Film About a Journey to a Room
• Interview from 2002 with cinematographer Alexander Knyazhinsky
• Interview from 2002 with set designer Rashit Safiullin
• Interview from 2002 with composer Eduard Artemyev
• New English subtitle translation
• PLUS: An essay by critic Mark Le Fanu
- Cold Bishop
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: Stalker (Tarkovsky, 1979)
1. After the first "Stalker" was ruined, the Studio balked at funding another film. One of the ways to get around the bureaucracy of getting funding was making it two films.aox wrote:Stalker
Quickly becoming one of my favorite films of all time. I think it might be top 5. I was hoping to get more opinions on it. The Tarkovsky thread is interesting and I can tell people around here have some revealing thoughts about it, but I love reading any opinion on this film I can even if I don't agree with the interpretations.
I have a few questions for some of the more knowledgeable members here.
1. Why is the film split? It was released in the theaters as a complete motion picture, right? Luckily, it doesn't split right when they reach the Zone which would have been obvious and even more annoying; nonetheless, why the split around 53 minutes in and a reintroduction to the film?
2. Can anyone give more insight into the ruined first cut? Was Tarkovsky able to refilm the movie shot by shot in the same locations? Was he denied certain locations the second time around and compromised? Do people speculate that the first cut (I hate calling it a cut, since he filmed two movies technically) was or would have been better, worse, the same, or just different? I suppose perhaps since it was ruined during processing, there never was a first cut/movie? Surely, there was some magic he wasn't able to capture a second time, right?
For Fun:
3. How do you interpret the ending?
4. What do you think the origin of the Zone is? Does it matter?
5. Do the three men accurately represent each facet of humanity? Is this film an exercise in Solipsism in terms of the three individual's goals and motives?
6. The importance of religion? or is it the importance of spirituality? Is the Zone a religion, or the natural spirituality attributable to all men? Or is it truly secular and dangerous/welcoming?
7. Is the Stalker insane in the sense that he continuously talks about the dangers of the Zone (him throwing the nuts) and we never once see what he is talking about?
8. Thoughts on the dog?
9. Monkey and the closing scene; what is the significance?
10. Unashamed Grovel: For the love of anything, please let Criterion get their hands on this. The Russico print is atrocious. Fix the 5.1 for starters and take the stupid music out of the "entering the Zone" scene.
2. I don't believe he fully finished the first shoot. While I can't answer all the questions, there were definite changes. I know that the entire nature of the Stalker was changed, mainly since the behavior of the actor had also gone a transformation since the first filming. I'm sure others here know more, and some of it may be in this thread.
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Can't speak much to the background of the making of the film, but I can give you my personal interpretation. (Possibly some vague spoilers.)
I take a pretty literal meaning to the character's names (well, other than Stalker himself). I think of the Stalker as someone with great belief of a spiritual (not necessarily religious) or artistic nature. His beliefs are not easily explained (or are, in fact, often contradicted) by scientific, logical, or deductive reasoning, represented by the Scientist and the Writer, both of whom have the ear of a rather large audience. The Stalker is convinced that if he could just bring the others to the room, they would have a moment of enlightenment and see things from his point of view. But of course, things are much more complicated than this. In a simplistic sense, this could be seen as just the old science vs. religion debate, and in lesser hands the film could have become tired and didactic. But I don't think the film has to even be about spirituality to work. It can simply relate to the human desire to share something that you love deeply, something that you consider to be an integral part of who you are, with others, putting yourself and your beliefs on the line and leaving yourself vulnerable to be seriously wounded. Because of course, if the Stalker succeeds in leading the others to the room, and it doesn't work like he promised, he has little left to argue his point.
You could even relate this to the experience of viewing the film itself (or films of this nature). I personally love this film, even (at the risk of sounding pretentious) for some reasons I don't fully understand. Yet I have a hard time recommending it to some people I know given its deliberate pace and experimental nature. Getting someone to watch the film is a bit like taking them to the room, and after they have seen it, it is difficult to argue what it is or isn't (in particular, if they aren't interested in hearing it) though their perception of it will depend a lot on where they happen to be (spiritually, if you will) at the time they experience it. Of course, the film (or the room) doesn't change, but the individual can change with time and become more in tune with what is happening in the "room" and then finally see what Stalker was after the whole time.
Which brings us to the end.
Anyway, that is just one of many interpretations (hopefully not too simplistic) that I think can be reasonably supported. I might pull out something totally different if I sat down and tried writing out my thoughts on the film again. (Just like the film might have been totally different if the first print hadn't been ruined!) But I've already said enough for now...
I take a pretty literal meaning to the character's names (well, other than Stalker himself). I think of the Stalker as someone with great belief of a spiritual (not necessarily religious) or artistic nature. His beliefs are not easily explained (or are, in fact, often contradicted) by scientific, logical, or deductive reasoning, represented by the Scientist and the Writer, both of whom have the ear of a rather large audience. The Stalker is convinced that if he could just bring the others to the room, they would have a moment of enlightenment and see things from his point of view. But of course, things are much more complicated than this. In a simplistic sense, this could be seen as just the old science vs. religion debate, and in lesser hands the film could have become tired and didactic. But I don't think the film has to even be about spirituality to work. It can simply relate to the human desire to share something that you love deeply, something that you consider to be an integral part of who you are, with others, putting yourself and your beliefs on the line and leaving yourself vulnerable to be seriously wounded. Because of course, if the Stalker succeeds in leading the others to the room, and it doesn't work like he promised, he has little left to argue his point.
You could even relate this to the experience of viewing the film itself (or films of this nature). I personally love this film, even (at the risk of sounding pretentious) for some reasons I don't fully understand. Yet I have a hard time recommending it to some people I know given its deliberate pace and experimental nature. Getting someone to watch the film is a bit like taking them to the room, and after they have seen it, it is difficult to argue what it is or isn't (in particular, if they aren't interested in hearing it) though their perception of it will depend a lot on where they happen to be (spiritually, if you will) at the time they experience it. Of course, the film (or the room) doesn't change, but the individual can change with time and become more in tune with what is happening in the "room" and then finally see what Stalker was after the whole time.
Which brings us to the end.
SpoilerShow
Stalker's efforts may seem to have failed at face value, but I think the end scene with Monkey shows the real power of the Zone, and the fact that there is still hope for the others to come around to it. Again, in lesser hands, this could have been a simple case of Stalker not being able to convince the Scientist and the Writer, but oh, look what Monkey can do--I guess Stalker was right all along. And maybe there is still some element of this in the film (if not that Stalker was "right all along" then at least that there is something going on that no one can completely explain with just their backgrounds as Scientists, Writers, or, um, Stalkers). But for me, even if this last image is meant to convey this sentiment (a la the "...but it did happen" at the end of PTA's Magnolia), I'm willing to forgive it just for how, for lack of a better word, "cool" it looks.
-
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
- Location: California
I find the most troubling thing about Tarkovsky's filmmaking is the fact that he claimed time after time that there was no symbolism in any of his films. This makes it quite difficult to find literal meaning behind scenes such as the glasses and table and the dead bodies in the hallway of the room.
One thing is for sure. Using Plato's theory of forms, Tarkovsky is probably the closest director to achieving the true form of the art of cinema in my opinion. His films are just gorgeous in every way.
One thing is for sure. Using Plato's theory of forms, Tarkovsky is probably the closest director to achieving the true form of the art of cinema in my opinion. His films are just gorgeous in every way.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
It doesn't matter anyway-- let the fucking thing mean to you what it means to you. Although it's wonderful to be intrigued by ambiguity, ambiguity without a personal response is like coming in to a movie halfway and never seeing the first half and never knowing what was what and why and where or when.
Tarkovsky was already unwilling to articulate directly his feelings on most matters of an emotional nature (though he'd be glad to talk philosophy and the technique of cinema), and utilzed roundabout means to express them. Interviews would be no different... why give away the house when you've taken all that time and energy to construct in such a wonderfully ambiguous fashion. It's like going up to a guy who creates crossword puzzles for a living-- "what's the solution to your latest greatest puzzle?"
If you think the father planting a dead tree with the hopes of it blooming doesn't symbolize his agonizing circumstance with his son when he made Sacrifice whil dying of cancer, you're crazy. Film directors could be completely full of shit, too, you know.
But the beauty of these films are their operation as poetry-- let it mean to you what it means to you. If it speaks nothing to you, and you can't sift anything from it without asking, it's probably not your type of material (not that I think that's the OP's response to Stalker).
Tarkovsky was already unwilling to articulate directly his feelings on most matters of an emotional nature (though he'd be glad to talk philosophy and the technique of cinema), and utilzed roundabout means to express them. Interviews would be no different... why give away the house when you've taken all that time and energy to construct in such a wonderfully ambiguous fashion. It's like going up to a guy who creates crossword puzzles for a living-- "what's the solution to your latest greatest puzzle?"
If you think the father planting a dead tree with the hopes of it blooming doesn't symbolize his agonizing circumstance with his son when he made Sacrifice whil dying of cancer, you're crazy. Film directors could be completely full of shit, too, you know.
But the beauty of these films are their operation as poetry-- let it mean to you what it means to you. If it speaks nothing to you, and you can't sift anything from it without asking, it's probably not your type of material (not that I think that's the OP's response to Stalker).
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
It's also worth noting that many artists hate answering questions about their own work and will come up with any old crap if it keeps their interrogators (and producers) happy. Even people who start off enthusiastic generally change their minds after doing a long promotional tour and dealing with literally hundreds of interviews.
And one of the downsides of this is that it means that statements that might well have been made in less than propitious circumstances - the filmmaker might be bored, annoyed, or even drunk (ever tried interviewing Aki Kaurismäki towards the end of the day?) - end up getting endlessly quoted and recycled and generally treated as though they were holy writ.
Fellini had the right idea by admitting upfront that most of what he said in interviews was bullshit, and Orson Welles came up with a variation on that by saying that many of the myths about his work came about because he insisted on giving some of his European interviews in French, Spanish or Italian, as a courtesy to the journalist, and therefore may not have fully understood either the question or his own answer!
In fact, I still have - and treasure - a Minidisc recording of a certain Canadian filmmaker with a penchant for resurrecting late 1920s/early 1930s film forms openly encouraging me to make stuff up if I felt the interview needed a bit more pizzazz!
And one of the downsides of this is that it means that statements that might well have been made in less than propitious circumstances - the filmmaker might be bored, annoyed, or even drunk (ever tried interviewing Aki Kaurismäki towards the end of the day?) - end up getting endlessly quoted and recycled and generally treated as though they were holy writ.
Fellini had the right idea by admitting upfront that most of what he said in interviews was bullshit, and Orson Welles came up with a variation on that by saying that many of the myths about his work came about because he insisted on giving some of his European interviews in French, Spanish or Italian, as a courtesy to the journalist, and therefore may not have fully understood either the question or his own answer!
In fact, I still have - and treasure - a Minidisc recording of a certain Canadian filmmaker with a penchant for resurrecting late 1920s/early 1930s film forms openly encouraging me to make stuff up if I felt the interview needed a bit more pizzazz!
-
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
- Location: California
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Trivia question: which film did Tarkovsky go out of his way to see during his first visit to London in 1981?
Clues: a then-current release, two words in the title (one an article), and the director's surname begins with G. And to say it inhabits a different cinematic universe from Tarkovsky's is a bit of an understatement.
Clues: a then-current release, two words in the title (one an article), and the director's surname begins with G. And to say it inhabits a different cinematic universe from Tarkovsky's is a bit of an understatement.
- bunuelian
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
- Location: San Diego
Have to agree. He took everything far too seriously. But I don't think this means we shouldn't question whether he was speaking from his perspective at the time he made the film, versus his perspective at the time he was talking. I also can't help but feel that a lot is lost in translation, both cultural and linguistic, when we read Tarkovsky's comments in American English.Greathinker wrote:Tarkovsky would be the last person to pull you around and play games.
For a time I had the giant poster in the thread's first post on my wall. A lovely way to decorate, feels like a sunset, and a great conversation piece
-
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
- Location: California
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
An artist is not always conscious of what their art is doing. Allow me to repeat myself from the other thread: This is 101 stuff. Authorial intent is a dead argument incapable of being revived, and using it only makes you look like that kid in Freshman LA courses who thinks he's such a rebel for calling "bullshit" on everything the professor says.
-
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
- Location: California
I am offended by how you approached this thread. I didn't feel like I was being aggressive toward the film at all.domino harvey wrote:An artist is not always conscious of what their art is doing. Allow me to repeat myself from the other thread: This is 101 stuff. Authorial intent is a dead argument incapable of being revived, and using it only makes you look like that kid in Freshman LA courses who thinks he's such a rebel for calling "bullshit" on everything the professor says.
In the case of Tarkovsky, Mirror was a film that was compared to stream of consciousness literature.
Senses Cinema
Tarkovsky on MirrorTarkovsky made Mirror, a non-narrative, stream of consciousness autobiographical film-poem that blends scenes of childhood memory with newsreel footage and contemporary scenes examining the narrator's relationships with his mother, his ex-wife and his son.
We were discussing a very complex film that has a definite meaning to Tarkovsky, as an autobiographical tale in which he deals with his life. It is a diary entry. I don't think it is fair to insult me or whoever you were aiming that remark at in this case. Maybe we didn't go the same 101 class domino."Right. This is not a regular retrospection. There are many such complications there which I don't even completely understand myself."
The only way we can discuss these films is openly and with respect for each others opinions. You can't come in here and disregard our entire arguments with such a quick blow. It isn't fair, and it isn't supportive of intelligent discussion.
Last edited by moviscop on Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
You said the film was "incomprehensible" to anyone but the director-- that's simply not accurate and saying "It means what the artist says it means" places limits on how art can be read. Your reading may match up with what Tarkovsky said his film was about, but that doesn't make other readings counter to your own "wrong."
-
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
- Location: California
I wasn't trying to put the film in a box at all. I was just saying that the film is a personal one that can be interpreted different ways. But at the end of the day, the truth behind the images will not be able to be figured out in their context without knowing the man personally and his life, frame by frame.domino harvey wrote:You said the film was "incomprehensible" to anyone but the director-- that's simply not accurate and saying "It means what Tarkovsky says it means" places limits on how art can be read. Your reading may match up with what Tarkovsky said his film was about, but that doesn't make other readings counter to your own "wrong."
I was simply discounting the notion that a film has to have a definite meaning. This reminds me of Lynch being asked by a school teacher what Mulholland Dr. "meant"
Everyone roared in laughter, including the man himself.
In the case of Lynch, even he often has "no idea" about what the abstractions in his film hold.
- Svevan
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
moviscop, I don't think Domino is intending to attack or insult you. Rather, he's struggling with trying to keep track of your many hard-line pronouncements and off-the-cuff ideas that are all over the place. The level of discourse on this board is remarkably high, and sometimes it's hard to keep up. Perhaps it would be better to read more on this board than to write while those who've already struggled with these issues have a chance to converse.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
I'm sorry, but this is just flat-out wrong. That film generated a greater personal postbag than any of Tarkovsky's other films, all from people who claimed that the film had touched them more deeply than anything else they'd seen - and a frequent meme was "How did you know so much about me?"moviscop wrote:Mirror was a great example of this, it was an incomprehensible film for anyone other than him, to whom it meant something.
(I don't have my copy of Sculpting in Time to hand, otherwise I'd give you a direct quote).
And I'm not surprised that no-one rose to my challenge to name the film that Tarkovsky saw in London in 1981 - but it was James Glickenhaus' The Exterminator, chosen because Tarkovsky specifically wanted to see an example of an indefensibly crass piece of violent exploitation (of a kind that he'd have been unable to see in the USSR), and that particular film was a media cause celèbre at the time.
- Cold Bishop
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Please tell me Tarkovsky enjoyed it.MichaelB wrote:And I'm not surprised that no-one rose to my challenge to name the film that Tarkovsky saw in London in 1981 - but it was James Glickenhaus' The Exterminator, chosen because Tarkovsky specifically wanted to see an example of an indefensibly crass piece of violent exploitation (of a kind that he'd have been unable to see in the USSR), and that particular film was a media cause celèbre at the time.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact: