criterionforum.org

Nothing was shown at the intermission. It was designed to be a break for the audience.

I imagine it would be entirely at the discretion of the cinema concerned - I doubt the film print itself contained anything more than one reel ending with 'End of Part 1' and the next reel beginning 'Stalker Part 2'.

When I used to book films for a living, I was sometimes asked if I wanted the intermission-friendly print (if the title was a three-hour-plus opus like JFK or Lawrence of Arabia), but usually the only difference was that one print had bookending titles, and the other one didn't. What we did between parts was entirely up to us - usually we'd just put the lights up, play the soundtrack CD and encourage people to spend money in the foyer.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this in this thread:

Incidentally, it is quite possible (albeit money-consuming) to create a beautiful 1.78:1 (16:9) video transfer for the DVD release of Stalker that will certainly please the owners of widescreen (16:9) displays and televisions, as it would utilize fully the space of widescreen display with no black mattes. It would have surely pleased me as a DVD producer from a technological point of view, if only it hadn't been Andrei's masterpiece; such a transfer from the original negative of Stalker would result in more than originally intended visual information on the sides, and slight bottom cropping—essentially ruining his painstakingly created compositions.

Here at Nostalghia.com, we can't help but think that if, say, Criterion should ever pick up this title, a 1.78:1 version would provide a truly excellent supplement in a multi-disk set, along with the first version of the film that was damaged in the lab. Portions of the first version (if not the whole thing) were apparently saved and are quite watchable—the damage supposedly consists mostly of a strong green tint.

So, a Great release of Stalker would include:

Disc 1: The orginal 1:37:1 version of the film (without the jumping furniture in the indoor scenes, please).
Disc 2: An anamorphic 1.78:1 version of the film - This would be essential.
Disc 3: Portions of the ruined version, as much as possible.

Read the full article at Nostalghia.com http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostal ... sCiCo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

piano player wrote:Disc 2: An anamorphic 1.78:1 version of the film - This would be essential.

(emphasis added)

That scritching sound-- is that the simultaneous global writing of thousands of suicide notes?

Video games, 16X9 b&w classics, and Competition Reality TV...

It's your fucking world, kids...

Sorry Schreck, but until prices come down enough that the average consumer can afford to own a 1.78:1 TV, a 1.33:1 TV, a 1.37:1 TV, a 1.85:1 TV, a 1.66:1 TV, a 2.0:1 TV, a 2.35:1 TV, and a 1.21:1 TV, I really don't see any other solution.

Now, if only Tarkovsky could have had the foresight to shoot in HD digital...

(emphasis added)

That scritching sound-- is that the simultaneous global writing of thousands of suicide notes?

Video games, 16X9 b&w classics, and Competition Reality TV...

It's your fucking world, kids...

So I take it you would not like a 1:78:1 version of the film as a supplement? And what is 'Competition Reality TV' and how does it relate to the only partially black & white film Stalker?

Anyway, I noticed a few pages earlier that someone wanted the music in the trolley scene gone - that would be a mistake, Tarkovskij and Eduard Artemjev hand picked that piece from a huge selection written by Artemjev. There is however a mistake on the Artficial Eye disc:

In the Artificial Eye release, presumably due to popular demand, Beethoven's 9th is back, with a vengeance: it is mixed in obnoxiously loud. Which is the exact opposite of what Tarkovsky had intended. Just for the record.

wait, I thought Tarkovsky wanted no music for that scene; only the clink-clank of the wheels?

wait, I thought Tarkovsky wanted no music for that scene; only the clink-clank of the wheels?

I could be entering thin ice here. But I remember Eduard talking about the music selection on the artificial eye supplement disc, saying how Tarkovskij was unhappy with almost every piece of music he had recorded, removing many small pieces one after an other in post-production, only keeping the bits he really liked (Trolley scene, recuring theme, etc). But then again, it could very well be a mistake on my behalf.

The music is the synthesizer score that gradually creeps into the soundtrack. The terrible Ruscico abortion of a soundtrack adds the symphony to keep things interesting. ADD is not unique to the West, apparently.

Well, exactly. The 'Tarkovsky approved' music I'm refering to is the 'synth noise'/electronic drums that mirrors the sound of the trolley, but then there is also some kind of musical piece on top that seems to be there to add "suspense" to the scene.

Also, according to Artificial Eye the problems with the first shot (the bed) after the credits is intentional.

piano player wrote:Well, exactly. The 'Tarkovsky approved' music I'm refering to is the 'synth noise'/electronic drums that mirrors the sound of the trolley, but then there is also some kind of musical piece on top that seems to be there to add "suspense" to the scene.

That was categorically not in the British theatrical version, which I saw when Tarkovsky was still alive. I remember it vividly, because I was mesmerised by the way Tarkovsky managed to make a three-minute scene so gripping with the most minimal means - very much including a lack of music (or "music" in the conventionally accepted sense: the electronic processing of the trolley sound does qualify up to a point).

I also remember getting my hands on Eduard Artemyev's CD of Tarkovsky-related music in the late 80s/early 90s and listening to the trolley scene, and my immediate reaction on hearing the synth additions was "that's completely wrong - that's not what's on the film soundtrack at all". And I double-checked against my off-air recording of the film (broadcast on Channel 4 in early 1989) and confirmed that this was indeed the case: there was no music in that version either.

Personally, I much prefer it without the synth-and-drums additions, and I don't think this is just because the trolley-sound-only the version I've been familiar with for years. The additional music is a needless distraction from a scene that's perfectly composed and scored as it is.

the swedish film institute showed this film about two years ago at the SFI theater in Stockholm. I remember clearly that the audio was different throughout the entire film, one could actually hear the sounds of nature in a whole different way compared to (my) DVD. I also remember that the trolley scene did not use the "suspense music" (can't think of a better word), but it did however include the synth noise/soft distorted drums. I wouldn't exactly call it music in the traditional sense, but there was a digital sound going "Tsst-Tsst" to the rythm of the rail. Then again, there are probably many prints and "versions" in existence, and considering you saw the film back in the day - and also on british TV - means those versions could be truer to Tarkovsky's intention than the print I saw.

piano player wrote:I also remember that the trolley scene did not use the "suspense music" (can't think of a better word), but it did however include the synth noise/soft distorted drums. I wouldn't exactly call it music in the traditional sense, but there was a digital sound going "Tsst-Tsst" to the rythm of the rail.

Yes, that's what I meant when I referred to electronic post-processing (though I doubt it was digital, given the year of production!).

That sounds exactly like the UK theatrical version.

Geoff Dyer's ruminations.

Having relocated to an abandoned hydroelectric power station in Estonia, Tarkovsky was dissatisfied with the cinematography and decided to shoot a pared-down version of the script all over again - in the same place. The price paid for this pursuit of an ideal is incalculable. Sound recordist Vladimir Sharun believes the deaths from cancer of Tarkovsky (in 1986), his wife Larissa and Anatoly Solonitsyn (who plays the Writer) were all due to contamination from a chemical plant upstream from the set.

It may not just have been those three. One of the most startling things I realised about Stalker a few years back is that despite it only being made in the late 1970s, hardly any of its principal creators are still alive. All three lead actors are now dead (Alissa Friendlikh is still alive, but she presumably didn't shoot in that location), as is the cinematographer. At least one of those deaths was also from cancer.

Speculation about radiation is all I got from that article, too.

i was under the impression long before that article that pretty much all of the principle people that made Stalker happen were dead within 10-15 years because of it; including Tarkovsky. Not only did they film on location at that site once, but twice since the filmstock from the first time the movie was filmed was ruined during processing.

retask wrote:Can someone tell me why criterion hasn't released Stalker on DVD yet? Will they ever do it?

No. Because they don't have the rights. Kino does.

Welcome to the forum. Take a look around.

One of my first interactions with Criterion, long before I found this forum, was to send them an email about the likelihood of Stalker making it into the collection. They don't have the rights, and apparently it's not likely to happen, unfortunately.

bunuelian wrote:One of my first interactions with Criterion, long before I found this forum, was to send them an email about the likelihood of Stalker making it into the collection. They don't have the rights, and apparently it's not likely to happen, unfortunately.

Same for me as well. I still have the disappointing email.

Sorry to get off topic, but what about Nostalgia?

Artificial Eye have released all Tarkovsky films in the UK. This may have been mentioned in the thread already.

Sorry for not specifying, but I was focusing on the fact that Nostalgia has no current release for Region 1...

They've said several times that they don't hold the rights. That situation might have changed, but I doubt it.