Who’s annoyed by Tarkovsky? They shouldn’t be here if they are.
Some people are. Their loss.
Great to hear! I’m glad you finally got through it. I can’t wait to see it!
You know, I have never seen one single Tarkovsky film on sale in the biggest dvd store in my area…I live in Ireland and the amount of serious cinema on offer ‘round these parts is pitiful. I don’t get anything online. I did get to see Andrei Rublev some years ago though, and thought it was superb. Solaris pops up on tv the odd time, so I must keep an eye out for that too. I don’t want to make a big thing out of this, but this site has meant a lot to me since I signed up: I’m buying dvds by the barrowload, watching maybe three a day (I’m unemployed at the moment, after recently returning to a life of academia for a year); my renewed interest is down to the contributors on this site – particularly Justin V., Drew & Fredo – and everybody else really (except for the you-know-whos). Thanks. Now, time to crank up my brand new copy of Rio Bravo…
Neil – Don’t listen to Drew, he likes everything! Including Revolutionary Road!
hahahah – just kidding Drew! :)
Am I the only one who mistakenly calls “Revolutionary Road” “Reservation Road”? it’s so annoying but I’m always doing that.
Everyone on here seems to be in love with Tarkovsky. I’ve never seen any of his films, but Stalker is coming up on my Netflix queue. Frankly it sounds very intimidating, but I hope I enjoy it.
Way to go, Rumple. I was introduced to Tarkovsky this year and found Stalker to be a revelation, too. I was telling Drew earlier that I didn’t find The Sacrifice as immediately accessible, that I’ll need some more time with it, but it does have some amazing shots as well.
Next up is the original Solaris.
Fredo, I mistakenly have called Revolutionary Road, Revolutionary War. And then I pause for a second, picture Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio fighting in white powdered wigs with muskets, and realize I misspoke.
I consider it a blessing I’m not too picky. Aren’t I lucky so many films bring me enjoyment?
Thanks, NMCB!
“And then I pause for a second, picture Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio fighting in white powdered wigs with muskets, and realize I misspoke.”
ahhahahahahahahahha
“I consider it a blessing I’m not too picky. Aren’t I lucky so many films bring me enjoyment?”
Hear hear.
As for Stalker, I loved it from frame one, but it took several viewings before I really liked the ending. I used to think that the ending subverted everything that he built up, but now it fits better than that.
—PolarisDiB
Actually, talking about the ending – is there a suggestion of some sort of time travel at the end?
I don’t think so. I think the idea is that the Zone is in the child… however the issue that the movie contends with is whether the Zone was a creation of the Stalker to give himself purpose in life (faithfully, it’s worth mentioning), or if it’s magical realist existence is, in fact, science fiction made reality. At first I thought that the ending showed that Tarkovsky was revealing that the Zone was “real”, which disappointed me since he built up so much ambiguity throughout the movie, ambiguity that was supposed to, in my opinion, never be fulfilled for the audience because the audience has to engage in the same dialog of faith and hope that the characters do. Then I realized that there’s the sound of the train at the end. That re-instates the ambiguity, because it’s matched by the train at the beginning. So the question is: are the cups moving because she’s moving them with her eyes, or is she following their movement that precludes the train approaching? Meanwhile, the use of color shows that she holds the key towards continuing the faith/hope dialog in the future of the world, because she can see in color. That’s my interpretation after three viewings of the film, at least…. I’d like a few more (interpretations and viewings), indeed.
—PolarisDiB
POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!
There were two reasons I thought there might be some suggestion of time travel. The first was when the professor throws the bits of the bomb into the water. I remembered further back in the film that the camera lingered on some metal objects a couple of times under the water. That coupled with the scene where they lose the professor who as it turns out went back for his knapsack and ended up re-uniting with the other two who had (they thought) been moving forward toward the room. Also the scene at the end where the stalker is bone-weary and his wife puts him to bed, and he takes his trousers off strongly reminded me of the opening scene where he puts his trousers on (of course this could just be his normal routine). And as you point out, the fact there is a train sound at the beginning and the end.
I was pondering whether the stalker was just trying to scratch a living by creating a scam – the zone – but that didn’t really seem to jibe with the fact that there were a lot of heavily armed police guarding the perimeter. So I came to the conclusion that the zone was real (exactly what it was or how it came to be is another matter) and that stalkers did frequent it as guides for people. Of course the stalkers could have certainly taken advantage of people’s ignorance about what the zones purpose or function really was in order to line their own pockets.
A second viewing certainly wouldn’t hurt.
“I must say the third attempt was something of an epiphany for me.”
This sentence should be on the box cover of this and many other movies we discuss here. Some of the best things take time. I’ve only watched it once myself so I need to give it a few more watches to fully appreciate it but it’s certainly amazing. The time travel thing is intriguing but it may just be that because the film is certainly about time and some of the imagery is purposely recurring (at least in terms of staging) that it suggests many things without being conclusively about any of them.
Stalker stunned me from the start. It is an amazing piece of cinema. It was my 3rd Tarkovsky, after Solaris and Andrei Rublov, both of which I thought were top shelf. The guy was a genius.
and being a renaissance man I’ll cheer on the Rio Bravo choice too!
I am going to see stalker on sat. Should I see it with my non movie buff friend or alone?
Brian, alone. Your friend might fall asleep.
Definitely alone Ice. I think you’ll make it through (if you stay sober), but I don’t think anybody who doesn’t love film could make it through that film.
Yes, sobriety would be highly recommended.
Here are my initial impressions of the film (check out the great and informative Tarkovsky thread where I posted this initially):
Here there be SPOILERS…
Wow. I just finished Stalker, my introduction to Tarkovsky. I should have seen this film fifteen years ago—i would have loved it then, too.
My first thoughts: A fantastic existential poem. Beautiful. From the opening credits the film is alive with a wonderful texture.
Opening shot: the camera walking towards that slice of desaturated color,
actually bobbing up and down ever so slightly, as if you’re walking into the film.
“While I am digging for the truth so much happens to it.” -The Writer juxtaposing the artist’s quest for truth with the scientist’s futile quest for knowledge.
What is the sense of going to a place where your innermost wishes come true?
The beauty of being a human is the torment, the suffering,
the journey of finding truth is what makes existence worthwhile.
Without torment, that is not possible.
The Writer represents suffering for art/truth/beauty. “A man writes because he’s tormented, because he doubts.”
The Professor represents the futile search for knowledge.
The Stalker represents (crisis of) faith.
“It’s better to have a bitter happiness, than a gray, dull life.” – The Wife
Final shot:
Monkey leaning over the table (like Beethoven composing Ode to Joy—
a work he could never hear). She IS the bitterness that makes life worth
living. She IS the miracle: suffering and joy together.
I will be revisiting this film again, but these are my very stream-of-consciousness thoughts on just having seen it.
Nice thoughts Josh…. I was moved to write mine in the review section, so I won’t re-post here, but I substantially agree with some of your key points. For me the zone was Tarkovsky’s heaven substitute, and the Stalker the priest figure, a very straightforward religious allegory on that level. It’s endlessly inventive and mysterious. Churchill said something along the lines of ‘Russia is a riddle, wrapped inside a puzzle inside an enigma’, he could just as easily have been reviewing Stalker.
Chuchill’s quote is perfect for Stalker; nice observation.
Did you know that the clean-up workers post-Chernobyl referred to the territory as “The Zone”?
That’s brilliant.
Stalker is one of those movies that the more I think about it the more I enjoy it, but each time I go back to see it again I get so sidetracked by some of the endless dialogues or circular scenes that is always a disappointment. On principle, the idea of making a movie about the last idealist on earth (Stalker) whose survival depends on helping people coping on a desolate atheistic world is so incredible moving that I feel a rush to go see it again. But Tarkovsky style is sooooooooo non-economical that I loose concentration and forget that I am seeing a movie about a man whose trying desperately to save ME.
“But Tarkovsky style is sooooooooo non-economical that I loose concentration…”
Glad to hear it.
I fell asleep on 4 separate occassions before making it through in one sitting.
Granted, I always started it too late at night
(excluding one afternoon class when I was projecting a print of it…whoops!!!!)
Rumplesink: I despaired of you when you said on another thread that you had quit this after 30 min. I have a friend (who is still a friend) who walked out of this film because she thought it the most boring film she had ever seen. Who can account for tastes, eh? In any case, good for you for perservering and now realizing why so many of us think so highly of this unique film. In my own tiny world, it ranks beside 2001 as the most memorable and moving experience I have ever had in film. Sort of this pantheon: Stalker, 2001, Fanny & Alexander, Third Man, 8 1/2 for those films that I just went wow after seeing – and taught me what true cinema is about.
McBean
It took me four days and three attempts but I finally watched all of Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker. I must say the third attempt was something of an epiphany for me. This is indeed a great film. I think you just have to get your mind ready, surround yourself with some peace and quiet, sit down and pay attention and you will be rewarded in spades. The images throughout the film are always striking – you could stock an art store full of posters with the images from just about any random grab from this film. For me the compositional arrangements were a revelation – always interesting, consistent and precise without seeming forced – an utter joy to behold. I know some people have expressed some annoyance over Tarkovsky stuff popping up too much on these forums so I’ll just finish by saying if you love film and haven’t yet seen Stalker you could do a lot worse with a few hours.