The film is about healing through spiritual crisis, and he wanted to make it seem like it was all done in one seemless take, so that you did not feel like you were watching a film, but observing life without interfering. “To make people believe that cinema as an instrument of art has its own possibilities which are equal to those of prose.”
This is a very complex, dense film. It is purposefully open-ended so that multiple interpretations are possible. I think we need to see the Stalker as a magician/shaman/priest/guide type of character who leads the Professor and Writer into the Zone. When they finally get to their destination, outside the Room – they stop. Each has their reasons why they can’t go into the Room. The Stalker is reminded of the cautionary tale of his friend and fellow stalker, Porcupine who went into the Room and ended up a suicide. The Professor has come with the intention of blowing up the Room, but can’t. The Writer is too afraid and cynical to confront his inner-most self and wishes – which we are told the Room reveals.
As the Stalker tells us, the Room represents hope and the fulfillment of one’s deepest wishes. It can be seen as a symbol of salvation or redemption. It can also be seen as a place of ultimate disillusionment and despair. To enter the Room, one must enter a Faustian bargain with one’s inner self. None of the men, who have journeyed so far and had to face so much in the way of revelation about themselves and their own motives, is willing to face the final test. The Professor realizes that the Room, because it represents Hope, may be man’s last chance of salvation. However, his fear that it could fall into the wrong hands, nearly leads him to destroy it.
You need to look at all of Tarkovky’s major works as dealing with the issue of salvation and redemtion in a world (his own Soviet reality at the time) that has given up any belief in divine justice or a supernatural presence. Tarkovky, regardless of how one see his personal beliefs, tries to show us a world that is magical, supernatural, and ultimately beyond human comprehension. The theme of salvation and redemption in the world is the key to all his films, I believe. He uses a wealth of symbols and allegorical references throughout his films – Stalker is no different. The dog is black and always close to the Stalker. The dog acts as a kind of supernatural guide to the Stalker, who is, of course, a guide himself. The Stalker is a ‘marked man’, as the wife’s monologue reveals. He has ‘special’ talents and abilities, which his daughter has inherited. She also is ‘marked’ by her being crippled, but her own supernatural abilities are demonstrated by her movement of the glasses on the table by her own telekinesis. This is defintely a demonstration of her supernatural abilites, whether you believe in them or not, NOT the jarring movement of the train – which is just a ruse.
The snow comes down in this scene, just like the use of rain throughout all of Tarkovky’s work, to indicate grace – perhaps of a divine nature. Nothing happens by chance in a Tarkovsky film. Everything is related to everything else in a rich, symbolic mosaic. He nevers gives us, like any true cinematic artist, easy answers or solutions. Stalker was Tarkovsky’s most personal film – he threw everything into it. The production was frought with every imaginable delay and problem – including having to be basically re-shot due to the ruining of the intial film-stock. Many of the poems quoted are by Tarkovky’s own father, an amateur poet. It is a very profound and personal work, where Tarkovsky the filmmaker is really Tarkovsky the artist/Stalker. Many of the things in the script referring to the Stalker, refer to him – Tarkovsky.
I am sorry if my own explanation has gone on too long, or is not an appropriate one. Each person can make up their own mind. This is just my take on this important film. I have written about Tarkovky extensively on this forum, and had sworn off saying any more, until this topic came up.
I appreciate your take on it, Bob. Throughout the course of the film the color represents ‘the zone’ and sepia represents the world outside the zone but after they return the color begins to alternate. At first I thought they were going back into the zone but then it appeared they did not. Why do you interpret the color shift at the end?
it’s not the vibrations from the train that make the glass move, as it keeps on moving even when the train has passed by… For his film Tarkovsky has inspired to a 1973 russian novel by Strugatsky brothers: Picnic on the edge of a field (more or less, in English, i’ve read it in italian). The film is something different from the book, Tarkovsky takes the idea of the Zone and turns it into the place of the Supernatural (in the novel the supernatural has not the capital letter but it’ only a mere accident). Tarkovsky’s Zone is man’s need for faith and hope, that is the ultimate meaning of life, the only redemption possible.
it’s not the vibrations from the train that make the glass move, as it keeps on moving even when the train has passed by… For his film Tarkovsky has inspired to a 1973 russian novel by Strugatsky brothers: Picnic on the edge of a field (more or less, in English, i’ve read it in italian). The film is something different from the book, Tarkovsky takes the idea of the Zone and turns it into the place of the Supernatural (in the novel the supernatural has not the capital letter but it’ only a mere accident). Tarkovsky’s Zone is man’s need for faith and hope, that is the ultimate meaning of life, the only redemption possible.
it’s not the vibrations from the train that make the glass move, as it keeps on moving even when the train has passed by… For his film Tarkovsky has inspired to a 1973 russian novel by Strugatsky brothers: Picnic on the edge of a field (more or less, in English, i’ve read it in italian). The film is something different from the book, Tarkovsky takes the idea of the Zone and turns it into the place of the Supernatural (in the novel the supernatural has not the capital letter but it’ only a mere accident). Tarkovsky’s Zone is man’s need for faith and hope, that is the ultimate meaning of life, the only redemption possible.
it’s not the vibrations from the train that make the glass move, as it keeps on moving even when the train has passed by… For his film Tarkovsky has inspired to a 1973 russian novel by Strugatsky brothers: Picnic on the edge of a field (more or less, in English, i’ve read it in italian). The film is something different from the book, Tarkovsky takes the idea of the Zone and turns it into the place of the Supernatural (in the novel the supernatural has not the capital letter but it’ only a mere accident). Tarkovsky’s Zone is man’s need for faith and hope, that is the ultimate meaning of life, the only redemption possible.
Jay – I honestly don’t know what the colour shifts signify. I know I was stunned by this when I first saw it, wondering if it was supposed to be black and white or colour or what. The first print I saw, on a large screen, has sepia throughout, off and on. It went from sepia to colour to sepia, whether they were in the Zone or not. For example, the train ride in, basically was in a washed-out sepia. I didn’t see it as specific to either the Zone or out of the Zone. I think if you read up on this, you might find that a lot of it had to do with the fact that Tarkovsky had to re-shoot much of the film and had to use an inferior film stock. But, like so much else in Tarkovsky, it could have definitely been deliberate. I think the sepia tone adds to the ‘mysterious’ effect in any case. Let me know if you come across anything or get any insight, as this has certainly puzzled me, too.
I can be a bit obsessive about this film, as it is just about my personal favourite. Forgive me for going on. I love to talk and analyze this incredibly dense film. I think the atmosphere he obtained in this film – its use of visuals, sound, landscape, and symbol – were employed to equal effect in Nostalghia and The Sacrifice. Seeing these, and his earlier work in Solaris and Mirror, helps to define his style, symbols, and allegory. I always reflect, for example, on his use of rain – throughout his films. What the rain means, the horses, the dogs, the icons – is certainly open to discussion and interpretation. Any other interpretations or takes would be appreciated.
I’ve been wondering about this ending and queried here in hopes someone would go on about it. On the Kino dvd, it’s sepia until they enter the zone, color throughtout the zone and then sepia again after they return and the three are in the bar. He walks with his wife and child who he had talked about bringing to the zone and it’s color again and then sepia when she’s talking to him as he lies in bed then color again as monkey moves the cups on the table. My first reaction was he was bringing them back into the zone hence the color but it doesn’t appear to be the zone they’re walking into and… I need to watch it again. I think to it’s credit, this film is one that will be enhanced greatly with a second viewing. That’s the great thing about this forum, Bob. I don’t know anyone else who’s really into these kind of movies and sometimes I just really want to talk about them so all the insights are appreciated.
I have this in a Fox-Lorber vhs, so I’ll need to re-watch it to see how the colour/sepia works out in this print. I will look for the contrast between the Zone and out. Thanks for posting this thread, Jay. Eggman has a different one going re the horses in Andrei Rublev. I site a book there I need to read called: The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky that goes into all the uses of imagery. Maybe we can find something about this topic there.
I always thought that the stalker had previously brought monkey to the room before the professor and the writer, and since monkey was still a child and innocent that she was worthy of the gift from the zone. But i agree with what you all have said about there being multiple interpretations. I just think that the change from sepia to color means they arrived in a different world like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz
Sorry for the repetition, there’s been some trouble with my pc… don’t know…
Anyway, about the topic…his daughter Monkey has been conceived AFTER the stalker had visited the zone for the first time, she has been marked by that: the faith in the zone is the faith in the supernatural, and Monkey has got supernatural powers. And what’s the nature of this supernatural? I think the way to the zone is the troublesome path for spirituality. Man needs to believe, but believing is hard: the scientist is rationalist, the writer is cynical, the stalker, in one of the latest scene, desperately cries to his wife " nobody needs to believe… I won’t go there anymore…" Don’t you think the wife has a strenght he doesn’t have? She takes care of him and their daughter, she waits for him, in the ordinary sepia world…She can love, just when the stalker says of himself: “I couldn’t give you anything…” I think it’s another mysterious but worthy aspect of the film. Male vs female; mysticism vs materialism…
This is possibly my favorite Tarkovsky film. They are all exceptionally great films, but for some reason Stalker always stands high and above the competition. It’s just such a rich, meaty film that has so much to take away from it, that it seems that even if you were to watch it 500 times and read all the books in print referring to it; you’d still only know half the story. Everytime I watch this one I see something new, hear something new, dazzled by some delicious camerawork, etc etc.
I have tried and tried and tried to love Andrei Rublev. It’s just not going to make it to my top 3 Tarkovsky films. I know it’s awesome, but maybe I’m missing something. Lord knows I gave it several attempts, and no one is saying I won’t watch it again another 50 times (I like repeated viewings…a LOT), but for now it just doesn’t place very high on my list. I’d probably have to say:
1. Stalker
2. Ivan’s Childhood
3. The Mirror
Solaris is also fantastic, and then there’s Nostalghia…oh and the Steamroller & the Violin….you know, nevermind. They’re all fantastic. It breaks my heart that he died so young and only gave the world such a small amount of films. I wonder what he would be doing in today’s cinematic world had he lived…sigh
I’ve just viewed it for the first time a couple of days ago… I see it that Stalker is the Priest figure, guiding his flock through the realm of the invisible, the dominion over which the clerical class claim, in this case the Zone. The Room is the peak attainment within that realm, or heaven/nirvana and people employ him to be their guide to heaven. In the face of an attack from science (The Professor) on the Room via a bomb, or denouncing from a godless media (The Writer) Stalker decries their attempting to destroy hope. He say that even though he knows no-one who has actually achieved happiness after being in the room, to take it away would remove hope, and in typical Priestly fashion false hope to him is better than no hope.
it’s a memorable film and the use of colour and filters and sound I’d think would all be deliberate as Tarkovsky had a reputation for not settling for less than what he wanted.
Very helpful posts above thanks. Stalker’s telekinesis ending i think fits in very well with the beginning of Mirror, well so much in Tarkovsky really- how (often childlike) faith can achieve something almost miraculous, though i’m not quite sure what else has caused the girl’s special powers, or what we’re to make of her being disabled; Giusi’s explanation linked to the strange effects of the zone is fine by me. Apparently the location for the film was a possible cause of Tarkovsky’s terminal cancer. There may be more disconcerting explanations linked with nuclear fall-out
Superb thoughts Bob Stutsman and everybody else, I always found it tough to interpret his movies, may be because single viewings were just not enough or may be my thoughts were too ambiguous, but most of your inputs now make things more clear to me.
I have to watch Mirror tonight (its waiting in the mailbox) and Stalker another time, then later I will come back with my comments.
Not to mention the filming of “Stalker” is probably what ultimately killed Tarkovsky. Sure it’s really only incidental, but it’s an awfully powerful thing to consider afterward, anyway.
But yeah, good comments guys. “Stalker” is definitely one of my favorite films.
Jordan H, I would have thought it was the cigarettes…. :)
Monkey is the embodiment of the power of the spirit over the material, or the crass. As in most Tarkovsky films, faith (not necessarily in Christianity, but simply faith) can surpass and overcome any obstacle, even those that would kill. If anything, the central players in his films have the incredible strength of their beliefs to achieve miracles.
I have just recently seen this for the first time so I might be way off, but my explanation of the color shift is the following. When he is in The Zone there is color, but otherwise it is black and white. This is through his eyes because The Zone is where he feels at home and the outside world feels boring. The color shift in the end shows that he is coming to terms with life without The Zone. Sure he tells his wife that no one understands and he doesn’t know who he can take back there but I feel internally he is battling with himself over his feelings towards The Zone. Maybe he will begin to have a normal life outside The Zone but still be happy. That is just how I interpreted it.
I am just reading now an excellent book on Tarkovsky called: The Films of Tarkovsky – A Visual Fugue by Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie. A good discussion of The Stalker here and Tarkovsky’s imagery in general. If you can get your hands on it, a good read. However, I believe Tarkovsky himself would have wanted this film to be open-ended and subject to more than one interpretation – so continue for your OWN answers to these questions – as I have. I really don’t think there is a definitive answer, for instance, to the colour question, although the book does address the problems Tarkovsky had with the film material itself. Much of the original film had to be re-shot because of problems in the film’s development. So, some of the explanation could be technical rather than purely intentional.
I also think, upon reading the chapter on Stalker in the book, that you are definitely supposed to see Monkey’s actions as proof of her super-natural abilities – passed on to her by her father, the Stalker. Tarkovsky identified himself very much more with the Stalker than the Writer or Professor, and it is appropriate to see the Stalker as a holy fool and the redemptive character of the three. It is also argued by the authors that all three are subject to a transformation when they enter the vicinity of the Room – even though this is not made explicitly clear. The fact that they are all in the bar at the end, and each has found an undisclosed answer to a question inside them, is made clear, according to the authors, in their conversation and demeanor. The dog should also be seen, in their analysis, as a loyal companion to the Stalker. The authors note that a similar type of dog appears in Nostalghia and that Tarkovsky himself had this type of dog. Just more critical grist for the mill!
Well, Bob i haven’t read that book but i’m comfortable with everything you and its authors are saying.
I just saw the stalker. I am confused, excited, delighted, amazed and incredibly happy that I saw this. Confused, because there is so much I don’t understand. I want to buy the aforementioned book, but can’t afford it. The imagery is just so wonderful! But what does the washed over debris in the Zone signify? It had an automatic rifle, if I saw it right. Does it mean men (or Stalkers themselves, probably) had come before to this place with the intention of damaging this place, much like the Professor?
Also, the meat mincer. What does it represent? Relieving oneself of carnal pleasures in the hope of finding the supernatural in the Zone, and hence the name Meat Mincer?
The density and intensity of this movie is going to stay with me for a really long time.
P.S.: I could be way off in my opinions, so forgive the post if it sounded like bosh. But clear it up for me please.
just watched this last night for the first time. i found it to be very sad. and i had i kept waking up in fear after i went to sleep directly after.
>> I just think that the change from sepia to color means they arrived in a different world like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz<<
And the three are accompanied on their journey into the unknown territory by a small dog …
Hmn …
There’s four in Wizard, but interesting nonetheless.
Dorothy stayed home this time …
I remember the first time I saw this film.
I had absolutely no idea what I was in for. In all respects, one of the most sublime viewing experiences of my life… and I didn’t even see it in a theater.
I saw the ending like this:
The Stalker has been exposed to the Zone more than most people, therefore possibly being exposed to alien radiation, if indeed aliens landed there. This new gene could have been transmitted to his daughter, therefore making her a new evolution of man with telekinetic abilities.
But, of course the most puzzling thing about the film is not the ending but rather the Zone itself.
Truly astounding film, and my interpretation may not be yours but that’s the beauty.
I thought that the color sections outside the Zone represent the way Monkey sees the world, given the fact that she’s a “child of the Zone.” Especially given that, as far as I can remember, it’s only color outside the Zone when Monkey’s in the scene…
I’ve just seen the film a few days ago (it’s my third Tarkovsky film), and it’s already one of my all time favorites. So deep and rich.
I love the fact that this film is open to multiple interpretations (thanks Bob Stutsman) because that really puts my mind at ease knowing that I don’t have to nail down any definitive meaning to everything that is going on. I, too, watched this for the first time a couple of weeks ago and I can imagine taking something entirely different away from the film each and every time I watch it depending on my mood, the weather, alone or with friends (if I had any), night, day, winter, spring, hungry or tired etc. etc. It is now one of my favorite films.
@Harry, The Wizard of Oz, eh? Well there is a supernatural Monkey in this as well. I wonder if she can fly.
Jay Leighty
I finally watched this tonight after reading about it repeatedly on this forum. My initial reaction is to wonder if ‘the zone’ is really miraculous after all. Monkey’s apparent telekinesis could be explained away by the vibrations from the train, The Stalker could have led the Writer back to the Professor (when he appeared lost) mistakenly or deviously and nothing else that I can recall is undeniably miraculous. The stories about the zone’s powers are all secondhand and something like radiation could have killed people off which would circumvent all supernatural aspects. I assume Tarkovsky is making a larger point about faith with the ambiguity. I could be wrong. Perhaps a second viewing will clear up some questions and details I missed. I am still curious about the shifts between color and sepia after the travelers return from the zone. I’d be interested to hear some other interpretations of the ending. I started to post this in another thread already created about the movie but for the sake of those who haven’t watched it, I thought discussion of the ending should be in a seperate thread.