MUBI

Andrei Tarkovsky, in my opinion, invented a new language for visual composition within filmmaking and is one of my main career influences. Tied with Sergei Eisenstein, he remains one of the greatest Russian filmmakers who had ever lived. He even once said that “Cinema is a mosaic made up of time.” In his own right, next to Ingmar Bergman, Tarkovsky was a cinematic poet, incorporating lyrical words into images. Stalker (1979) really identifys a human’s desire of what he or she wants to fulfill in life. This desire tries to test characters with moral ambiguity and is also matched by a satirical element with the world becoming a dystopian. Of course, many films by Tarkovsky are filled with subjectivity. The original story of Stalker, entitled Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky Brothers, shows how the world as we know in utter ruin, similar to Philip K. Dick’s science fiction novels. It also echoes Ray Bradbury’s literary work, who Tarkovsky deeply admired. But in contrast, it deals with the human subconscious.

Roadside Picnic tells the story of how an extraterrestrial phenomena have left unexplained artifacts in six bullet-hole areas of land, known as “Zones.” A group of thieves, known as “Stalkers” are sought to seek out these precious objects. The word, “Stalker” represents a furtive way of conquering a land through straggly and self-assurance. The story centers around an eight year period with one of the “Stalkers,” Rederick Schuhart, who becomes the subject of guilt, torture, exploration of the human soul, and finding a conclusive meaning within existence. His child even becomes a victim of the Zone. The book itself uses abstract meaning for most of the terminology of the objects. Alien life is best described as anonymous; their purpose is still a total mystery. From the moment that we reach the Zone, it becomes an enigma. The Zone and its artifacts give off a personification; they give off character. Perhaps, the intent of the object from an alien’s perspective is to test, not only human life but also morals. The objects from the Zone can either grant someone’s true desire or bring ruin. It really depends on human emotion and could nearly be an analytical study.

The book does mention, however, that the alien visitors were oblivious to humankind, though it may be a satirical element that puts in context, humans’ ignorance of precaution and forms of intelligence life. In other words, humankind having the answer right in front of them, but not fully realizing the results; humans pushing nature aside from them. The novel puts the everlasting question of life in crucial detail, though not too explicit. From ecology to human philosophy, it was a pretty self-demeaning novel. It is no wonder that Tarkovsky wanted to explore more of the boundaries of a human’s subconscious.

It was in the late 70’s that Stalker was made. The film is a looser adaptation by the Strugatsky Brothers, who even collaborated with Tarkovsky in writing the screenplay. For myself, it remains of the greatest science-fiction films ever made, though it does not rely so much on science. What makes both versions faithful is the fixation of one’s attention on humanity’s struggle with harm and ruin that becomes scrutinizing in thought. It is not a simple film to witness at first, unless the viewers are drawn into the visual motifs and symbolism, including the fact that there are less than one hundred and ten shots. Tarkovsky was one of the masters of utilizing the tracking shot. One of the key reasons for his tendency to use long-takes is for an audience to explore and engage the world he created through the signature themes of nature, philosophy, and metaphysics. His films are stunningly beautiful in texture almost like paintings, reminiscent to the Old Masters; he was deeply inspired by the works of Pieter Bruegel and Russian icon painters from the 15th Century.

Stalker is one of his finest pieces ever to be filmed. Unlike Roadside Picnic, the film chronicles three characters who journey into the Zone, a Stalker, a Writer, and a Professor. The Zone itself becomes another character, it is lush and full of nature and color in contrast to the distasteful post-apocalyptic future world in which humans are struggling to survive. Tarkovsky highlights this cinematographic technique by switching from a high-contrast sepia tone to full color. The Zone, this time, has a mind of its own. Like the novel, it is sent by unknown extraterrestrial life. Many people have tried to find its answer but end up insane, delusional, or even suicidal. The desires (or wishes) are granted in this one room at the heart of the zone.

The structure of the film can be identified as a spiritual odyssey, almost a pilgrimage. The Stalker himself acts as a mythological guide, leading his two companions to a phenomena that cannot be seen but does toy with the human emotion. The Stalker’s methods seem mythical, tossing his bolt-nuts and white bandages in the air to mark a pathway. The Zone becomes an instant metaphor for dealing with the unknown. It can also represent humanity’s last resort of hope for a dying future. What Tarkovsky tries to conceive is finding a man’s true self. The Zone becomes the test for the heart and soul. Stalker is not well-known by many, who are not acquainted with Russian cinema, but it is definitely directed in an auteur manner. Tarkovsky’s genius was purposely finding a true definition of cultural existence retraced through memories and sculpting time.

Tarkovsky explores the deepest recesses of human soul on the waves of Artemiev’s soundtrack. Every step, every breath, every word is full of meaning. The struggle between the most powerful forces inside the coscience won’t give a final simple answer, simply because there isn’t one. The desolation of the world, expecially outside the Zone, is something sublime. This film is one the most complex and ambitious I’ve ever seen.

Pernah nonton Stalker?, film (fiksi sains?) arahan Andrei Tarkovsky yang dirilis tahun 1979. Ceritanya, seorang penulis dan professor berencana menguncungi sebuah area misterius ditengah hutan. area ini mereka sebut dengan “The Zone”. Misterius karena banyak sudah orang yang pergi kesana dan tak kembali. konon, 20 tahun sebelumnya, sebongkah meteorit mendarat disana dan melahirkan berbagai perversi kosmik. Mirip dengan cerita Segitiga Bermuda (minus cerita dajjal tentunya) bagi kita sekarang. Untuk sampai kesana dan kembali dengan selamat, mereka harus didampingi oleh seorang Stalker: orang yang dianugerahi kemampuan lebih, para Stalker tahu apa dan bagaimana seluk-beluk the zone dan bagaimana para “pengunjung” seharusnya bertingkah polah disana.

Belum sampai sejam, saya langsung sadar bahwa Stalker adalah tipikal film Tarkovsky: mise-en-scene dahsyat yang ditimpangkan dengan dialog refleksif plus plot datar. Ada hal yang mencolok mengenai ketiga protagonis: Stalker adalah orang yang terbiasa berpikir mistis dan transenden, sehingga terkadang instruksinya tampak tidak masuk akal dan picik, tapi bila tidak dituruti, maka berjuta resiko bisa saja datang membelenggu setelahnya. Stalker adalah alegori agama dan ideologi yang selalu mencoba dilawan oleh dua protagonis lain yang lebih immanen: Professor dengan pola pikir ilmiah dan sang penulis dengan karakternya yang estetis. Professor selalu taktis, Penulis selalu nekat. Sosok Stalker kemudian selalu ekstrim, tatkala dia bisa dianggap sebagai karakter paling primitif karena masih bertindak berdasarkan takhayul, tetapi harus diakui bahwa berbagai perintah dan sabda sang Stalker selalu terbukti. Stalker jelas tidak Ilmiah, tapi Stalker bisa jadi seorang yang modern.

Disebuah ruangan dalam the Zone, ketiga protagonis ini terus berusaha untuk menyatuhkan karakter mereka. membicarakan kenapa mereka selalu saja betengkar dan bagaimana agar bisa rukun. Seorang pemikir Slovenia terkenal, Slavoj Zizek, menganalisa fenomena ini sebagai sebuah konsesi id dengan memunculkan figur oedipal yang tidak diketahui penonton. Ketiga Protagonis beberapa kali menoleh kesebuah sudut terang yang misterius, mungkin alien?. itulah kenapa saya ragu menyebut Stalker sebagai sebuah film fiksi sains. sudut terang inilah yang kemudian disebut Zizek sebagai unsur yang bisa menekan setiap protagonis agar tidak berbuat ceroboh, persis seperti apa yang dikatakan Freud mengenai sosok Ayah yang menekan anak dan membuatnya sadar tentang ketidak-tercukupan hasratnya terhadap Ibu. Sudut terang membatasi protagonis untuk berbuat semaunya dalam mencapai entitas yang mereka cari (di alegorikan sebagai sosok ibu dalam formasi triangular Freudian). Aih, bingung? tak usah dipikirkan. Saya sendiri juga bingung.

Tarkvosky selalu berusaha membentuk filmnya seperti sebuah buku dimana orang harus bersabar menunggu scene demi scene dimuntahkan. Orang harus berhenti menonton tatkala mengantuk. Film-Film Tarkovsky bukanlah hiburan, seperti halnya karya-karya agung Monet atau Virginia Woolf. karya-karya semacam ini selalu menunggu untuk dibasahi dengan pemahaman yang senantiasa baru dan berbeda.

Alguna vez, Andrei Tarkovsky afirmó:
“Al poeta le basta con mostrar un fragmento de un objeto para dar la imagen de un conjunto coherente…un dedo de un pie que sale de un zapato es suficiente para evocar el mundo entero”.

Ante el visiónado de cada uno de los filmes de Tarkovsky resulta imposible no compartir dicho pensamiento. Sin lugar a dudas, Andrei Tarkovsky fue el mas grande cineasta sovietico de la postguerra. Su cine se considera predominantemente poetico, entendiendo la poesía como una visión personal del mundo, universal, capaz de ser evocada en cada uno de los cuadros que componen su (desafortunadamente) corta filmografia. En este sentido, una pelicula como Stalker no es la excepción.

Basandose en la novela “Picnic a un lado del camino” de los hermanos Boris y Arcady Strugatsky, Tarkovsky consigue un deslumbrante filme de (verdadera) ciencia ficción, una inquietante historia de extraterrestres sin extraterrestres, que nos hace testigos de la travesia de tres hombres que, desafiando a la autoridad, sondean un peligroso camino que los conducira a un lugar conocido como “La Zona” del cual, nadie sabe a ciencia cierta su origen (¿una creación alienigena, o un perverso capricho de Dios mismo?) ni su proposito real de estar alli, y del cual, sin embargo, se dice que existe en su interior un cuarto en el cual los visitantes podran hacer realidad sus mas intimos deseos.

La historia se divide en dos partes. La primera (filmada en blanco y negro, ya que para el director, este tipo de fotografia expresa mas realismo) se centra en la planeación del arriesgado viaje y en su ejecución, sin dejar de lado los conflictos personales de cada uno de los personajes. Estos son un guia (el Stalker del titulo) con serios problemas afectivos y quien parece tener una obsesiva necesidad de frecuentar La Zona,un escritor con una desencantada visión del mundo, y un cientifico,silencioso y observador, quien no revela sus intenciones hasta casi el final del film. El ambiente en el que se mueven estos personajes es el propio de un relato Cyberpunk: un mundo ominoso, indeterminado (pero totalmente ruso en su esencia),sucio, con restos de una modernidad que no ha funcionado, (logradisimo el diseño de produccion y el estilo visual del film, que mas tarde seria copiado con menor efectividad por Konstantin Lopushanski) lo que nos habla de la gran capacidad del director para crear entornos visuales fascinantes, a pesar de lo, paradojicamente, depresivos que resultan ser en una primera instancia. No deja de ser interesante encontrar en el subtexto del film, un claro paralelismo que plantea el director con la situación imperante en la Union Sovietica de esos años. Se dibuja a la autoridad de un modo totalitario, dominante, que no permite al individuo cruzar fronteras e ir " mas alla", sin vacilar en hacer uso de la fuerza y las armas de fuego para impedirlo, razón por la cual, quizas, esta, como casi todas las obras del gran cineasta, no gozó de los favores de la critica ni del gobierno de su pais.

La segunda parte del film (rodada en color, ya que este, para Tarkovski, representaba lo exotico, el soñar) se centra en la llegada de los visitantes a La Zona, y este no resulta ser un lugar mas acogedor que su propio entorno.Es un lugar devastado, contaminado, lleno de desechos industriales, silencioso,con pasillos ominosos, pero sobre todo, hostil; es un lugar de dificil acceso que esta protegido por laberintos invisibles, trampas letales y que, al parecer, no carece de vida ni voluntad propia, y es en este sitio donde los personajes terminan revelando sus intenciones; el guia busca recuperar la fe, su esperanza en la sociedad; el escritor, la inspiración necesaria para salir del limbo creativo en el que se encuentra, mientras que el cientifico, sencillamente, desea destruirla con una bomba.

Ultimo film rodado por Tarkovsky en su pais natal, no dejo, como casi todo su cine, de sufrir la incomprension y el nepotismo de los productores y las autoridades rusas, quienes pareciese que desde un pricipio se fijaron como meta boicotear el film ; le fue asignado a Tarkovsky un presupuesto regular para rodar la pelicula en dos partes (posiblemente la extension original de la pelicula seria la misma que la de Andrei Rublev) tarea a la que el cineasta se avocó con su entusiasmo y profesionalismo caracteristicos, logrando filmar dos terceras partes de una primera versión del film en poco mas de un año con resultados muy satisfactorios…sin embargo, en una muestra de inaudita estupidez, la pelicula Kodak virgen que los estudios le proporcionaron al gran cineasta, se trataba, al parecer, de un tipo de pelicula experimental (!) por lo cual, al no contarse con la tecnologia para poder revelar los negativos, Tarkovsky tuvo que presenciar como un año de trabajo fue a parar, literalmente, al bote de la basura. La innarrable experiencia, aunada al hecho de que el cancer ya comenzaba a causar estragos en la salud del cineasta, hicieron crisis en el animo de este, quien en un principio se nego rotundamente a reiniciar el rodaje del film con solamente el resto del presupuesto asignado al inicio; no obstante, el realizador tuvo que acceder a continuar bajo dichas condiciones presionado por sus problemas economicos y de salud.

Por si todo esto fuera poco, las autoridades gubernamentales rusas se encargaron de mandar a escribir articulos en contra del film dias antes del estreno, y su clasificación como de “tercera clase” con un tiraje de copias en su pais inferior al minimo establecido, hicieron que su exhibición comercial en la URSS fuese muy restringida, a pesar del interes que este nuevo film despertaba en las audiencias rusas. Pese a todo, el film logro traspasar la cortina de hierro y ser apreciado de una manera justa en el extranjero, lo que termino de motivar a Tarkovsky para abandonar su tierra natal y filmar sus dos ultimas cintas en italia y suecia, respectivamente.

Stalker, wich is for me Tarkovsky’s finest work and one of the most challenging and beautiful movie ever created, is practically perfect in every way. Not only the symbolism is as strong as any of his film, but the landscape, the image and the filming is simply mesmerazing.

Like a lot of Tarkovsky’s work, the theme of Salvation is at the center of the movie. The Stalker, wich is a guide for the 2 other guide, will lead them to the room where they can fullfill their strongest wich. We all know the religious theme in Tarkovsky work and it helps a lot understand the movie and making connection within the quest of the three hero, the zone and the communist background at the time.

Since it is a movie with a lot of interpretation possible, none is good. I personally saw it as a duality of man’s incertainty and redemption. I see the Zone as kind of a communist spectrum ; you feel it, you can’t see it, but you’re afraid of it. And most important, it is omnipresent not only as a place, but as a caracter in the movie. With this, the leading caracter have to fight their own fears and uncertainty, before they could be saved and redempt.

The image and cinematography are unqualifiable, one of the most beautiful in history. The switch from Sepia to colour, from the zone to the world, are simply mesmerizing and their haunting you for a long time. As for the performance, very strong and powerfull, altought they weren’t for me the key to appreciate the movie. The way Tarkovsky’s show us the zone is wonderful : we don,t see it but it frightens us ; a spectrum all around.

Stalker is for me Tarkvosky’s best work as well as one of the key movie in the history of cinema.

I would say this picture is one of the most important films on the face of the EARTH! I like the whole stroy line and the way the picture was shot. There are not that many filmmakers that attempt to make such a complex film. Because, frankly I think they would fail or as long as they are some type of genius like Tarkovsky. I think this is truly a sci-fi film, not by the sense of some hollywood production, but by the fact that it needs very little crap to make it a sci-fi. There’s no Alien coming after the characters or the world is going to be destroyed. It’s in it’s complete purity of the story that makes it a sci-fi.

Perfect direction by Tarkovsky with fascinating and beautiful scenery. This is a film about man’s desire or need for peace and understanding, and perhaps, for meaning if it’s a means to that end. By the end of the two and a half hours (don’t worry, it’s brisk), we realize that the answers lie not in money and power or in escape or in religion, but within ourselves. After seeing this film, there’s no question I’m a different cinephile and who knows, maybe a different person.

Perhaps the most gorgeous film of all time. Don’t let the beginning throw you off for what’s to come. We start of in a post-industrial dystopia of sorts, with a strange man leading two other people to a place called the “Zone,” where there is a room that is said to bring your innermost dream come true. What then follows happens to be one of the most humanist stories ever committed to celluloid. Through beautiful long takes and some of the most complex dolly/jib shots Tarkovsky creates one of the most beautiful and fantastical worlds I have ever seen. While the room is said to bring your innermost dream come true, it seems that the Zone makes the people traversing it comfortable enough to question such things, which in turn leads to some fascinating conversations. The majority of the movie is ambiguous, and Tarkovsky does so much by revealing so little, and that’s a hard thing to do as a filmmaker. Stalker is one of the most serene films I have ever seen, it’s utterly fantastical.

I don’t know if I could pick a favorite film, but if I had no choice but to only watch one director’s work, I would choose Tarkovsky. Stalker is nothing less than a miracle. Tarkovsky, after a year of shooting, had to start over, due to the fact that the film he was given to use was defective. An entire year’s worth of work thrown out! Still, he went on, now with a very limited budget, to make this masterpiece. Every time I watch Stalker, i’m taken deeper and deeper into “the zone”. A place where the biggest questions are asked freely. Watching this film is like talking to an old friend at four in the morning, that one person with whom you can talk with about anything and everything. The walls come down.

My impressions on first viewing… Like all of the Tarkovsky’s I’ve seen this a meditation on humankinds existential dilemma. What is the place of the meta-physical in a physical universe?
Tarkovsky uses the device of viewing the question through the eyes of three ‘pilgrims’, a Stalker, a Professor and a Writer.
The Writer despairs of the modern world, a world so dull and uninteresting compared to the middle ages, when spirits and magic dwelt with common people. He wants to go to the mysterious Zone to spark some inspiration, to be able to write something people will still be reading in a hundred years, he wants a kind of immortality.
His guide to the Zone is a Stalker, trained in the mysterious and dangerous arts of navigating safely through the Zone to get to the Room. The Room is the innermost part of the Zone and once there it’s alledged the traveller will recieve what their true heart desires. The third member is a man of science, who seems to want to measure the mysteries of the Zone, as if they could be marked off and quantified.

The look of the film is truly startling, The set design and camerawork make a kind of dreamworld out of the mundane.
The major set was a disused power station and it’s turned into a foreboding and alien terrain, both familiar and unfamiliar.

The structure of the fable can easily be unravelled on one level if we see the Stalker as a priest/spirit guide, leading his devotees through the mystical terrain of the realm of the invisible. The Zone substitutes as religion or spirituality, that esoteric kingdom over which the clerical classes have historically claimed domain. The Stalker has been trained in the Priestly arts by Porcupine, a Stalker who lost his brother to the dangers of the Zone. The Stalkers methods seem magical, hurling his nuts and white bandages to mark the path. The Writer and Professor duly take the leap of faith and follow his marked out path. If the Zone is the spirit realm then the Room is heaven/nirvana, or the ultimate destination for the attainment of paradise.
Once the Room is found, it becomes apparent that both Writer and Professor represent threats to the nostrum Stalker subscribes to. Writer wants immortality, and Stalker is unable to point to an instance where anyone taken to the room has actually been granted happiness, or the ability to live as themselves, to have that freedom. Professor wants nothing less than to blow up the Room with a bomb, reasoning that once everyone knows about it they’ll overrun the Zone and civilisation will be out of control, for him better no possibility of heaven. Stalker argues that they will destroy hope, and that even if the Room is a lie, false hope is better than no hope.

The film supplies some overlay of psychological angst, an air of oppression, by using the Zone as a metaphor for the unknown.
For someone making films in communist Russia the overtones are obvious. Visually Tarkovsky uses ‘magic’ to distract and subvert, as does religion. The sleight of hand is a kind of philosophical red herring. What gives Stalkers strange daughter the power of telekinesis is one such instance, or his wife alluding to the fact Stalker is an alien? I don’t think either matters, or that it’s important as Tarkovsky has built his fable on the big questions of existence and faith, and these confections are just brief and mysterious sideshows.

Tarkovsky has created a mythic Homeric journey of discovery for his pilgrims. What do they find in the Zone? Themselves of course, but Tarkovsky is saying they were always there, only the scenery changes, not the internal dynamic of the heart and soul. Find what it is you value, and hold on to it, in the face of everything else, it may be all you have. There is no map for the terrain of the heart and soul, find your own meaning. No wonder Jean Paul Satre was a fan of Tarkovsky.

I found this the most brilliant and compelling of Tarkovsky’s films.
I had wolfed-down noodles just in time to sprint across London as the National Film Theatre curtains opened, I sat mesmerised by Stalker’s rhythm, textures and the transcendent journey to The Room. The implied sci-fi is so much more evocative than other films – with the inspired use of estrangement techniques in the sound design and the dislocation of time and space providing profound experiential cinema.