888 Stalker

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

888 Stalker

#1 Post by aox » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:48 am

Stalker

Image Image

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

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Stalker (Tarkovsky, 1979)

#2 Post by Cold Bishop » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:58 am

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.
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.

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.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

#3 Post by aox » Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:12 am

really? so they brought people to see a 53 minute film, then a 105 minute film? Isn't that a little disproportionate? Didn't it premier and run as one piece?
thanks for the reply; I can't wait to hear what the changes were between the first filmed movie and the second one.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

#4 Post by swo17 » Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:13 am

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.
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.
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...

moviscop
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California

#5 Post by moviscop » Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:55 am

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.

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

#6 Post by Cde. » Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:53 am

Tarkovsky isn't about finding 'meaning' in objects or individual scenes, though.

EDIT: I mean in a fixed, symbollic 'that means this, this means that' sense.
Last edited by Cde. on Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#7 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:32 am

moviscop wrote: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.
So did Samuel Beckett.
So did Luis Buñuel.
So did a lot of other people talking about their own work.

Why is this "troubling"?

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

#8 Post by Cde. » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:33 am

True. I'm reminded of Fellini's comment that he made a point of lying constantly whenever talking about his films.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#9 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:35 am

Cde. wrote:True. I'm reminded of Fellini's comment that he made a point of lying constantly whenever talking about his films.
Or Kieslowski when he said that he deliberately put overt symbols into his films to keep the critics happy, because they like that sort of thing.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

#10 Post by aox » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:18 pm

MichaelB wrote:Why is this "troubling"?
It's troubling because a comment like that came out of Tarkovsky's mouth when it seems there is blatant symbolism in his film. For example, the "crown of thorns" the Writer puts on his head is obvious Christian imagery/symbolism.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#11 Post by HerrSchreck » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:36 pm

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).

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#12 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:58 pm

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!

moviscop
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California

#13 Post by moviscop » Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:13 pm

I'm not losing sleep over the lack or presence of symbolism in his film. It just makes some of the scenes questionable such as the glass on the table.

But I do understand that Tarkovsky might have been completely bulshitting his interviewers.

Greathinker

#14 Post by Greathinker » Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:53 pm

moviscop wrote:But I do understand that Tarkovsky might have been completely bulshitting his interviewers.
Tarkovsky would be the last person to pull you around and play games. He was being honest in interviews; read his brilliant Sculpting in Time.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#15 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:02 pm

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.

User avatar
bunuelian
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
Location: San Diego

#16 Post by bunuelian » Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:56 pm

Greathinker wrote:Tarkovsky would be the last person to pull you around and play games.
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.

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

moviscop
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California

#17 Post by moviscop » Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:24 pm

Tarkovsky is a lot like Lynch in the way they both create films that have no definite structure nor definite theme or meaning. Mirror was a great example of this, it was an incomprehensible film for anyone other than him, to whom it meant something.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#18 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:49 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.

moviscop
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California

#19 Post by moviscop » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:13 pm

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.
I am offended by how you approached this thread. I didn't feel like I was being aggressive toward the film at all.

In the case of Tarkovsky, Mirror was a film that was compared to stream of consciousness literature.

Senses Cinema
Tarkovsky 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.
Tarkovsky on Mirror
"Right. This is not a regular retrospection. There are many such complications there which I don't even completely understand myself."
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.

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.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#20 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:17 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."

moviscop
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California

#21 Post by moviscop » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:19 pm

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 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.

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.

User avatar
Svevan
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#22 Post by Svevan » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:47 pm

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.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#23 Post by MichaelB » Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:53 am

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'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?"

(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.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#24 Post by Cold Bishop » Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:54 am

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.
Please tell me Tarkovsky enjoyed it.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#25 Post by MichaelB » Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:25 am

It's a lovely thought, but I believe he approached it in the spirit of a medieval monk chastising himself - at least, that's what his reported comments during the NFT lecture later that day suggested!

Post Reply