Stalker

[Pussy Galore]

I know it's a really beloved film on this forum so I was curious to hear your take on the film.

I've just seen it and I have mixed feelings.

This is what I thought I understand from the movie. (As you can see I'm not sure of the accuracy of my understanding)(There might me spoilers)

There is a place called the zone and in the zone there is a place that can grant you a wish. There's a guy which is called stalker that gets paid to bring other people to this place. He brings with him a writer and a teacher. Along the way we learn that the zone is a dangerous place and that to actually be able to go to that place where you can have a wish you need to be unhappy and to be in search of some kind of truth about humanity. The writer went there to find inspiration, but along the way he is saying that if you know the truth and don't have any doubt you will not write, because every writer does it to prove something to others, but also to themselves. The teacher lied the whole way and went their to made it explode because he thinks that it can't help anyone and that is someone with some bad intentions goes there he could made evil. The stalker is not happy because he's saying that he is worthless and that the only thing that makes him useful in this world is to bring unhappy people there so that they can seek answers. As for the glass that moves by itself at the end I don't have a clue what it is. Actually I didn't get the ending at all.

As for the look of the film. When they're out of the zone the color is in a kind of topia, I wouldn't know how to name it differently and when they're in the zone it's in color. As for the signification of that I don't know, maybe it represents the stalker's reality. He feels useful and happy in the zone and he doesn't feel good outside of it. Honestly, I don't really like the look of the film it's very cold and depressing. It's beautifully shot and I don't have the pretention to criticize Tarkovsky style, but it feels really pessimistic

[Daniel M]

In terms of plot you seem to have got the film fine. I see it like The Wizard of Oz, you have a party of people all wishing to get to the destination for their own purposes, and then the Stalker is like the Wizard, in that he is in control of the people and his power lies not really in himself but what he has at his control. Throughout the movie you doubt how real the dangers are the zone are, and whether this man is lying or not, I see it as about faith/belief.

As for the final scene, I thought it was beautiful and very optimistic. The film is quite pessimistic and you doubt whether there is actually any magic or power to be found in the zone, but the final scene makes clear that there is something very special that can be found if people really believe, that this man is special, but the great shame is no one realises such (yet).

[Daniel M]

In terms of plot you seem to have got the film fine. I see it like The Wizard of Oz, you have a party of people all wishing to get to the destination for their own purposes, and then the Stalker is like the Wizard, in that he is in control of the people and his power lies not really in himself but what he has at his control. Throughout the movie you doubt how real the dangers are the zone are, and whether this man is lying or not, I see it as about faith/belief.

As for the final scene, I thought it was beautiful and very optimistic. The film is quite pessimistic and you doubt whether there is actually any magic or power to be found in the zone, but the final scene makes clear that there is something very special that can be found if people really believe, that this man is special, but the great shame is no one realises such (yet).

[kkl10]

It's not easy to digest this movie if you haven't seen other Tarkovsky works prior to Stalker. It's possibly his most personal movie. You got most of the plot right, but you shouldn't take a necessarilly literal interpretation of it. It's an allegory, symbolic.

Here's an excerpt of my review where I express my, also uncertain, reading of the movie:

"Not easy to fully dissect what a first view unravels but I'll say it seemed to me an essay/allegory about faith, about the eternal search for the Truth and about the way how different thought paradigms deal with the task. I liked the way how this last point was worked out. 3 characters: "Stalker", the one who guides the other 2 through "The Zone" seems to represent the religious or moral paradigm, the "Writer", the Art paradigm and the "Professor" represents Science. Each character, ie, each paradigm has it's own point of view and it's own reason to search for the Truth, the way how their interaction was developed seemed well judged and congruent to me. At the edge of the room where the Truth is to be finaly consumated, the 3 paradigms start fighting between each other and with their own reasons, naturally no one goes into the room because the Truth can only be aimed at from a distance, we still cannot touch it."

I must say this movie is highly fascinating to me, but I understand why you find it cold and depressing. Tarkovsky wasn't concerned about making acessible or pleasing movies, he is highly intellectual, that's part of the reason why his Cinema is so singular.

[mark f]

I didn't find it depressing but it sure is cold. I've seen it a few times now and it holds very little meaning for me.

[wintertriangles]

Someone merge these

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=31346&highlight=stalker

[bluedeed]

Stalker felt cold to me in the way that life feels cold to me, I've always read the film (though not exclusively) as a sort of allegory or dissection of religious faith.

By the way, great avatar, Daniel!

[Pussy Galore]

Thanks for your answer! The problem I have with it is not with the content is with the look I think. Most of the shots are really wide so that we see the 3 characters and the landscape. The problem is I don't speak Russian and I didn't necessarily recognized the accents, so I didn't knew who was talking. And the universe is almost post apocalyptic so it's a little depressing even though I agree with you Daniel the message is mostly positive.

And kkl10, it was my first Tarkovsky, so maybe I should of start with an other one. Which one would you recommend?

(and sorry I didn't see there as an other topic)

[Mr Minio]

and that to actually be able to go to that place where you can have a wish you need to be unhappy and to be in search of some kind of truth about humanity
As for the look of the film. When they're out of the zone the color is in a kind of topia, I wouldn't know how to name it differently and when they're in the zone it's in color. As for the signification of that I don't know, maybe it represents the stalker's reality.

The use of colours is quite significant. For Stalker the outside word is bleak and boring, just as brown mud, what is shown through the use of sepia. The Zone is a place closest to Stalker's heart, where he feels at home and therefore every Zone scene is shot in colour. Notice that the dream sequence is also in brown. The final scene, although in the outside world, is also in colour. It shows Stalker's daughter and her unusual ability, a part of Zone's anomaly in the outside world. There's no more strict partition between these two and not only did Stalker trascend these two worlds, but his daughter, in a way, became a part of the Zone, or more like a consequence, a result of her father's love.

The Stalker is a guide, who transfers people between the outside world and the Zone. He leads them to the Room, but soon he realises the true nature of the Room, which makes him think of his journey as of aimless, only bringing bad things. He loves the Zone and would like to stay in there, but when his wife asks if he wants her and his daughter to move there with him, he answers, no, as it could be dangerous for them, which shows, that he still doubts Zone, even though, it's so close to him.

The Chamber/Room is a treacherous place (just like the whole Zone). People go in there and think they know their wish, but it only grants their truest wish, often cruel, sometimes unbearable (hanged man). The Zone is colourful, but often deadly, it's not possible to understand anomalies and occurences that happen in there and that's what makes it perilous. Tarkovsky didn't show what's inside of the Room, maybe because it's different for everybody.

That's a very quick overview, but there's a lot more to it.

BTW, It's really interesting how Tarkovsky draws inspirations from various Bosch paintings.

[Daniel M]

Anyone else find Stalker similar to Ordet in how it deals with faith and believing?

[mark f]

You mean like if you believe that you'll like a movie, you probably will, and if you don't, you probably won't? :)

[bluedeed]

Classic Mark f half-a**ed attempt at being quippy

[mark f]

It's completely-assed and to the point. Ordet makes it clear what it's about and treats it matter of factly. Its power derives from its simplicity. You get to derive what you want from Stalker because it and Tarkovsky don't make it clear what its about. That turns a lot of people on, but not me. The more personal Tarkovsky got (and that increased with each film), the more he lost me. I get to say what I think like everybody else. I just say it a lot less now. :)

[Tyler1]

Didn't read too much into the meaning of Stalker. For me The Zone is just metaphorical ground for the pursuit of intellectual (artistic and scientic) creativity which is out-of-reach to most people. The mysteries of zone represent nothing more than the mysteries of the human mind.

[Mr Minio]

Anyone else find Stalker similar to Ordet in how it deals with faith and believing? Quite a bit, but not too much. In that matter it's Stellet Licht that's clearly inspired by Ordet.

Let me give you some of my ideas:

Johannes - an ostensibly false prophet; just like Jesus Christ he disappears to return and make miracles; people think he's just a harmless mentally ill. He preaches, but only a small group of people (in Ordet: only the girl) believe him. The final scene is the manifestation of God's existence.

Stalker - a false prophet, who eventually starts to doubt his own powers and sense of his journeys. The Writer and Professor do not fully believe him, but still follow him, because it's their only way to seek Truth. Is the ending really as optimistic as some people think it is? Professor and Writer returned unharmed, but didn't learn the Truth. Stalker returned and probably will go to Zone again in the future, but a part of the Zone is now in the outside world - his daughter - who as a mutant will be a social outcast just as her father. Some great power (the Zone) manifests its power, but one does not know if it's God, Satan, or something else.

Both films are religious and masterpieces.

[bluedeed]

Not being a religious person myself, I'm often surprised how many religious and allegorically religious films I really love, Stalker, Ordet, The Green Ray and My Night at Maud's, The Wind Will Carry Us etc.

[Pussy Galore]

bluedeed, how The Wind Will Carry Us is religious? I watched the film a month ago or so, but I don't recall it being religious (I might have missed out something)

[Daniel M]

Quite a bit, but not too much. In that matter it's Stellet Licht that's clearly inspired by Ordet.

Let me give you some of my ideas:

Johannes - an ostensibly false prophet; just like Jesus Christ he disappears to return and make miracles; people think he's just a harmless mentally ill. He preaches, but only a small group of people (in Ordet: only the girl) believe him. The final scene is the manifestation of God's existence.

Stalker - a false prophet, who eventually starts to doubt his own powers and sense of his journeys. The Writer and Professor do not fully believe him, but still follow him, because it's their only way to seek Truth. Is the ending really as optimistic as some people think it is? Professor and Writer returned unharmed, but didn't learn the Truth. Stalker returned and probably will go to Zone again in the future, but a part of the Zone is now in the outside world - his daughter - who as a mutant will be a social outcast just as her father. Some great power (the Zone) manifests its power, but one does not know if it's God, Satan, or something else.

Both films are religious and masterpieces.

Yeh, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I am not sure that the daughter having powers will necessarily turn out to be such a burden, and would like to hope that it would bring some happiness into the Stalker's life somehow, he has proof of the zone's power right there.

In Ordet and Stalker both have characters that claim to believe, and there are many people in real life who will tell you they will believe in something, but when it really comes down to something, deep inside your heart, you won't. They said they knew what they wanted deep down, but where lying and would get what their heart said. In both films it is a little girl that offers a glimmer of hope to both of the true believers.

[Guaporense]

The use of colours is quite significant. For Stalker the outside word is bleak and boring, just as brown mud, what is shown through the use of sepia. The Zone is a place closest to Stalker's heart, where he feels at home and therefore every Zone scene is shot in colour. Notice that the dream sequence is also in brown. The final scene, although in the outside world, is also in colour. It shows Stalker's daughter and her unusual ability, a part of Zone's anomaly in the outside world. There's no more strict partition between these two and not only did Stalker trascend these two worlds, but his daughter, in a way, became a part of the Zone, or more like a consequence, a result of her father's love.

The Stalker is a guide, who transfers people between the outside world and the Zone. He leads them to the Room, but soon he realises the true nature of the Room, which makes him think of his journey as of aimless, only bringing bad things. He loves the Zone and would like to stay in there, but when his wife asks if he wants her and his daughter to move there with him, he answers, no, as it could be dangerous for them, which shows, that he still doubts Zone, even though, it's so close to him.

The Chamber/Room is a treacherous place (just like the whole Zone). People go in there and think they know their wish, but it only grants their truest wish, often cruel, sometimes unbearable (hanged man). The Zone is colourful, but often deadly, it's not possible to understand anomalies and occurences that happen in there and that's what makes it perilous. Tarkovsky didn't show what's inside of the Room, maybe because it's different for everybody.

That's a very quick overview, but there's a lot more to it.

BTW, It's really interesting how Tarkovsky draws inspirations from various Bosch paintings.

Very good points here.

Tarkovsky was very religious and his films burst with religious faith and he said that his films were not exercises of reason instead it was all intuition so that one shouldn't try to think to hard about what he "meant" because what he meant wasn't something that his mind rationally defined as a clear object. It's all about your own impression of it, how it's expression affects you. It's very, very subjective.

Of course, it's a very religious film, as all Tarkovsky's films are. I wouldn't say it's cold though, it's certainly not "melodramatic" (though the characters show their emotions in many ways) but Tarkovsky's films don't feel remotely cold to me, while other films that do (example? Chinatown, Casablanca, Goddard's stuff, Mood for Love). Tarkovsky said that he felt cold from watching American movies, so that's a bit of a taste thing. To me saying that Stalker is cold feels like saying that Blue Is The Warmest Color is a family film.

[Guaporense]

bluedeed, how The Wind Will Carry Us is religious? I watched the film a month ago or so, but I don't recall it being religious (I might have missed out something)

I think that most art in it's purest form feels religious. Music, specially classical music and heavy metal music, feels very religious. The many scenes of the character shaving and hanging around aimlessly mean something to me as if he is lost and trying to find something, which may be interpreted as he is trying to find "god", which actually may mean many things.Though for me Kiarostami films are pretty cold (for others they certainly aren't).

[Guaporense]

It's not easy to digest this movie if you haven't seen other Tarkovsky works prior to Stalker. It's possibly his most personal movie. You got most of the plot right, but you shouldn't take a necessarilly literal interpretation of it. It's an allegory, symbolic.

Here's an excerpt of my review where I express my, also uncertain, reading of the movie:

"Not easy to fully dissect what a first view unravels but I'll say it seemed to me an essay/allegory about faith, about the eternal search for the Truth and about the way how different thought paradigms deal with the task. I liked the way how this last point was worked out. 3 characters: "Stalker", the one who guides the other 2 through "The Zone" seems to represent the religious or moral paradigm, the "Writer", the Art paradigm and the "Professor" represents Science. Each character, ie, each paradigm has it's own point of view and it's own reason to search for the Truth, the way how their interaction was developed seemed well judged and congruent to me. At the edge of the room where the Truth is to be finaly consumated, the 3 paradigms start fighting between each other and with their own reasons, naturally no one goes into the room because the Truth can only be aimed at from a distance, we still cannot touch it."

I must say this movie is highly fascinating to me, but I understand why you find it cold and depressing. Tarkovsky wasn't concerned about making acessible or pleasing movies, he is highly intellectual, that's part of the reason why his Cinema is so singular.

I wouldn't call Tarkovsky's films highly intellectual. It's the exact opposite. It's all about intuition. Tarkovsky said himself that art and science are very separate things (in this movie he makes it explicit by making two characters representing each side) and he considered his work to be purely based on intuition and on feeling.

HIs cinema is so singular in the sense that he is the only (major one at least) art filmmaker that represents classical art applied to cinema. Nothing else in terms of movies feels more like 18th-19th century classical and Romantic music or feels like a Russian novel from the 19th century than Tarkovsky's films.

His films feel inaccessible because they are Russian, very, very, very Russian. It's a very different flavor from the American flavor of most movies that we all watch, but it's not something that is inacessible for the Russian public: in 1979, Stalker sold 4.3 million tickets in the USSR. That's 6 times more than Miyazaki's Castle in the Sky sold in 1986.

[Matteo]

I always found it ironic that one of most artistically personal films came out of one of the most oppressive and expurgated societies.

[Gabrielle947]

I think it's about hope and innocence.Stalker seems to be the most naive and idiotic person in the film yet he seems the happiest because he believes in something,even if it sounds ludicrous.The ability to believe and be naive makes him happier.This is what Writer (art) and Profesor (science) don't have. The film is depressing because hope and believing is not valued in the film.
Anyway,I think this quote sums up the movie perfectly:

Stalker: Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world. And most important, let them believe in themselves. Let them be helpless like children, because weakness is a great thing, and strength is nothing. When a man is just born, he is weak and flexible. When he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing, it's tender and pliant. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of the freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win.

[bluedeed]

I always found it ironic that one of most artistically personal films came out of one of the most oppressive and expurgated societies.

I don't think it's ironic, haven't you read Harry Lime's signature/seen The Third Man?

[Camo]

Been thinking about this alot since i just watched it and i read this whole thread. I think this comment from Mark F has definitely stuck out to me the most since i think i have ideas not mentioned in this thread that may be way off:

You get to derive what you want from Stalker because it and Tarkovsky don't make it clear what its about.

Also this from Guap (particularly the bold part) if Tarkovsky did say it would be very interesting in regards to what i've been thinking about:

Tarkovsky was very religious and his films burst with religious faith and he said that his films were not exercises of reason instead it was all intuition so that one shouldn't try to think to hard about what he "meant" because what he meant wasn't something that his mind rationally defined as a clear object. It's all about your own impression of it, how it's expression affects you. It's very, very subjective.

I watched it on my laptop and as i said i had trouble focusing at times due to being unused to some of the pacing, so i'm going to order it tomorrow and watch it knowing what to expect then make a longer post in this thread about what i've been thinking about and whether i still agree with myself haha.