888 Stalker

[solaris72]

New translation of Roadside Picnic coming May 1.

[tavernier]

J Hoberman reviews Zona, a new book on Stalker

[MichaelB]

I discussed Zona here a few weeks ago, though admittedly in considerably less detail.

[aox]

That review neither compels me to read or skip that book. And this is a Top 5 all-time film for me.

[Mathew2468]

Anybody read Roadside Picnic?

[warren oates]

Anybody read Roadside Picnic?

Haven't read the new translation, which I hear is better, but a copy of the older UK import from Gollancz was like a revelation after seeing the film a number of times and loving it. Tarkovsky's adaptation is so loose that, if you've seen the film first, the novel, which is really more like a novella, reads more like a sidequel than the source text. It's really just the idea of the Zone and maybe one full chapter about the stalkers. The rest might inform the film, but doesn't really underlie the story.

On many days Stalker is my favorite film period. If it's even close to being that for you too, then Roadside Picnic is well worth the read and should confirm Tarkovsky's status not just as one of the greatest of all directors but also as among the very best and most interesting adapters of literature -- alongside Bresson, Kubrick and Sokurov.

[RobertB]

Tarkovsky had the Strugatsky brothers make an even shorter version of Roadside first. Which is really what he adopted. It's not a script, but a more mystic version of the book if I remember correctly. It's probaly 20 years since i read it. I read a Swedish translation. I don't know if that later version has been translated to english.

[Paul Moran]

Anybody read Roadside Picnic?

Yes - in 1979!
I still have the paperback (Penguin, 1979) in my SF collection. Says it was translated from the Russian by Antonina W. Bouis. 150 pages of fairly small print.

[Mathew2468]

I'm interested in it more as a creative plot premise (very interested!) than whatever it is that interests me in Tarkovsky's film which I haven't seen. I'm guessin' the film ain't heavy on external action. Is the novel?

[warren oates]

I'm interested in it more as a creative plot premise (very interested!) than whatever it is that interests me in Tarkovsky's film which I haven't seen. I'm guessin' the film ain't heavy on external action. Is the novel?

So your image is from Bresson's The Devil, Probably and you just joined up to ask about the plot of Stalker which you haven't seen (and maybe can't be bothered to)? The film is about

Spoiler

three guys taking a walk across an empty field to an empty room.

You can't get more minimal than that. Part of the genius of Tarkovsky's direction is that he tells this simple tale in a visual medium and imbues every moment and every inch of space with intense mystery and palpable dread.

Do you seek out Bresson's films only for the plot/premise too? Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. Just curious about why you wouldn't simply find a copy of Stalker or Roadside Picnic for yourself, rather than trying to suss out what it's about second hand.

[Mathew2468]

I mean that Roadside Picnic interests me because of it's plot, whereas Stalker interests me because I like Tarkovsky and what interests him. I couldn't say what it is exactly about this film in particular. All that I've heard.

It's near the top of my to-see list, but I've been waiting for a new DVD. Probably blind buy the new Artificial Eye this year. I was only curious about how actiony Roadside Picnic is, and I can't just pick up a copy yet. Wait for the new translation. I remember the old one was over $200 on Amazon.ca.

I didn't join up just for this question, it was just the first thing that caught my eye after joining.

Please don't kill me. Just wonderin' off the cuff if the novel is very actiony. I don't doubt the film is very Tarkovskian. No need to spoil. I'm not asking everything.

And everything about Bresson interests me. Of course!

[warren oates]

Well, when you put it that way, you're all right. No, the book is not actiony at all. It feels like there's less action in Roadside Picnic than in Stalker in part because of the way it's written, like a bunch of scientific reports and first-hand accounts of events very peripheral to the creation and study of the Zone. Almost like a whole book made up out of just the parts of Solaris that deal with Solaristics.

And, hey, no hard feelings. I just joined up too after years of lurking. And on days when Stalker isn't my favorite film it's A Man Escaped.

[yipyop]

I'm not sure if this item is appropriate for the Stalker thread, The Wizard of Oz, or something else...

Vicki Bennett produces humorous musical audio collage and mash-up films under the moniker People Like Us. Her latest project marries Stalker and The Wizard of Oz as a split-screen experience titled The Zone. As one who enjoys the serendipity of seemingly random contextual surprises such as watching Oz synced to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, I'm quite looking forward to an opportunity to catch this.

More info and a trailer on Bennett's site.

[Yakushima]

Just came across this mind-blowing blog post by a DP assistant on "Stalker" with his memoirs of working on the film:

http://immos.livejournal.com/67613.html

It is full of unique behind-the-scene photos, many taken by the author himself, it even has some frames from the abandoned first version of the film. Text is very interesting too, if you can read Russian.



Enjoy!

[aox]

Absolute incredible find! Thank you

[Roger Ryan]

I wonder what that sprinkler gimmick they've got hooked up to Solonitsyn is all about? Was he supposed to start sweating profusely in the first version of the film?!

[Yakushima]

Roger Ryan: Here is a passage from the memoir explaining the sprinkler gimmick (forgive my clumsy translation:)

"Early in the filming the script still contained a fair number of Science Fictional elements demonstrating strangeness of the Zone most of which have been foregone by Tarkovsky in the end.
He kept only the scene of throwing of nuts with bandages attached to them, but without explaining the meaning of this act. One of those nuts has been hanging on my room's wall for many years. <...> In the other episode the Writer found himself in a place where he suddenly became soaking wet, dripping with moisture. Then almost instantly the moisture evaporated. In order to create this effect Solonitsin had to wear specially made branched system of rubber tubes under his coat, and at the right moment water was pumped through them. Rapidly melting wet trail on the iron sheet was filmed with use of the acetone and a blowtorch."

[Roger Ryan]

Thanks for the translation - I guess I wasn't too far off with my guess!

[nolanoe]

I had no idea there was a first version, really!
Oh, how much I want a Blu-Ray with outtakes for this one!

[fuzzymctiger]

Stalker is such an interesting film. No matter how long and sometime tedious the shots got, it was just so interesting and gripping and well made. The colour swap was very interesting, and I hope this gets a blu ray at some point so it can get a wealth of features.

As for the questions in the OP, I personally the Stalker's worry about traps and things, is almost him justifying his job. Sure people need him to get to the entrance of the zone, but once they're there, it wouldn't be worth it for him or others to leave there. So he helps guide them to the end, also with the guise of keeping them safe.

As for the origin of the Zone, I like to think that maybe, as the last remaining area of greeness in an industrial wasteland, that over time the wilderness has been considered dangerous. But those are just my opinions.

[firstlast]

I had no idea there was a first version, really!
Oh, how much I want a Blu-Ray with outtakes for this one!

On the IMDB board, someone casually mentions the first version is available on a German DVD. This can't possibly be true? I imagine it would be worldwide news within the film community if even a single scene from the first version were viewable.

Meanwhile, I guess we can make do with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwkIaJX3hmg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MichaelB]

On the IMDB board, someone casually mentions the first version is available on a German DVD. This can't possibly be true? I imagine it would be worldwide news within the film community if even a single scene from the first version were viewable.

It must be a misapprehension or a mistranslation. The first version never even got to the editing stage - the footage was deemed unusable and the project temporarily abandoned.

[Trees]

On the IMDB board, someone casually mentions the first version is available on a German DVD. This can't possibly be true? I imagine it would be worldwide news within the film community if even a single scene from the first version were viewable.

It must be a misapprehension or a mistranslation. The first version never even got to the editing stage - the footage was deemed unusable and the project temporarily abandoned.

MichaelB, do you know anything about the nature of the technical problem that caused Stalker to need to reshoot?

[MichaelB]

MichaelB, do you know anything about the nature of the technical problem that caused Stalker to need to reshoot?

Depending on who you believe, either original cinematographer Georgy Rerberg was shooting unconventionally to get around the well-documented problems with Soviet colour stock and forgot to issue the appropriate instructions to the lab, or the lab ignored the instructions, processed the footage normally and irretrievably fucked it up. And because the film had been shot on location hundreds of miles away from any lab facilities, this was all done in one go - on a more conventional shoot, they'd have found out the problem on the first day of rushes and compensated accordingly.

[Trees]

MichaelB, do you know anything about the nature of the technical problem that caused Stalker to need to reshoot?

Depending on who you believe, either original cinematographer Georgy Rerberg was shooting unconventionally to get around the well-documented problems with Soviet colour stock and forgot to issue the appropriate instructions to the lab, or the lab ignored the instructions, processed the footage normally and irretrievably fucked it up. And because the film had been shot on location hundreds of miles away from any lab facilities, this was all done in one go - on a more conventional shoot, they'd have found out the problem on the first day of rushes and compensated accordingly.

Good grief. One of those colossal failures that sometimes slip through the cracks, it sounds like.