An essay on Stalker by Gregory and Maria Pearse

An essay on Stalker by Joseph Mach

An essay on Stalker by Steve Erickson (not the novelist Steve Erickson)

An essay on Stalker by Todd Harbour

ANDREI TARKOVSKY'S

NOSTALGHIA FOR THE LIGHT

"Here we are at the threshold.

This is the most important moment of your lives.

You have to know that here your most cherished wish will come true.

The most sincere one.

The one reached through suffering."

(from STALKER)

In the entire history of cinema there has never been a director, who has made such a dramatic stand for the human spirit as did Andrei Tarkovsky. Today, when cinema seems to have drowned in a sea of glamorized triviality, when human relationships on screen have been reduced to sexual intrigue or sloppy sentimentality, and baseness rules the day - this man appears as a lone warrior standing in the midst of this cinematic catastrophe, holding up the banner for human spirituality. What puts this director in a class all his own and catapults his films onto a height inaccessible to other filmmakers? It is, first and foremost, his uncompromising stance that man is a SPIRITUAL being. This may appear to be self-evident to some, and yet it is just on this very point that 99% of cinema fails. Man's spirituality is quickly and conveniently pushed aside in favor of other more "exciting" topics: man's sexuality, man's psychology, sociology and so on. In today's cinema, if spirituality is dealt with at all, it is never treated as the foundation of our existence, but is there as an appendage, something the characters concern themselves with in their spare time. In other words, while in other films spirituality may be PART of the plot, in Tarkovsky's films it IS the plot; it permeates the very fabric of his films. It can be said that his films vibrate with his own spirituality. As he himself states, in all of his films the main characters undergo a SPIRITUAL crisis. This is particularly evident in his film Stalker, where ALL of the characters are involved in an intense spiritual struggle. And while the nature of this struggle is uniquely personal for each of them, the basic objective is the same: to keep the flame of the human spirit within them alive. The character of the Stalker, in particular, is the most fascinating example of the

1

human being struggling to find the right path by using his intuition (that is, by listening to his "inner voice"). And since most people are used to following only their worldly desires in carving out their path in life (paying little or no attention to this "inner voice"), Stalker's behavior produces a reaction of bewilderment - not only in his companions in the film, but also in the majority of the viewers. Instead of rushing through the "Zone" (representing life), grabbing and tasting and plundering everything in his path, he proceeds with caution, as though listening WITHIN himself, watching for signs to indicate the next move to him, careful not to disturb anything around him. What is it that he is listening to, waiting for, hoping to comprehend? It is the language of the "Zone", which is the language of life itself - the language, in which the Creator speaks to us through life. This is, perhaps, the most unique quality of Tarkovsky's cinema (which also accounts for his unique cinematic style of incredibly long takes and slowly-pulsating rhythm): he is observing the very language of life, as though hoping in this way to "hear" the language of God. And there are other unique qualities, which make Tarkovsky stand out not only as a director, but as a human being: his insistence that conscience is "the most important thing" and his attempt to make other filmmakers aware of "the fact that the most convincing of the arts demands a special responsibilty on the part of those who work in it: the methods by which cinema affects audiences can be used far more easily and rapidly for their moral decomposition, for the destruction of their spiritual defenses, than the means of the old, more traditional art forms." (from "Sculpting in Time".) Unfortunately, his words fell upon deaf ears. But he continued to emphasize the need to take personal responsibility for our destiny and not blame others or society for it. He wrote:

"It is so much easier to slip down than it is to rise one iota above your own narrow, opportunist motives. A true spiritual birth is extraordinarily hard to achieve." ". . . nobody wants, or can bring himself, to look soberly into himself and accept that he is accountable for his own life and his own soul." "The connection between man's behaviour and his destiny has been destroyed; and this tragic breach is the cause of his sense of instability in the modern world. . . . [man] has arrived at the false and deadly assumption that he has no part to play in shaping his own fate." "I am convinced that any attempt to restore harmony in the world can only rest on the renewal of personal responsibility."

There seems to be little reason to attempt an analysis of Tarkovsky's films, since no one can do it better than he himself has already done in his book "Sculpting in Time". And, anyhow, since his films strive to reach out to the spirit within us and convey to us a spiritual experience, each one of us will take away from them something uniquely personal. But in each case, it will be something which will move us on a deep spiritual level - much deeper than emotion! This level of experiencing is akin to a state of NOSTALGHIA. Here the word "nostalghia", which one of Tarkovsky's films bears as its title, is to be understood not in the English sense of "nostalgia", but in the sense it has in the Russian language: a state of unquenchable longing for one's homeland. And since the homeland of the spirit lies far above this earth, "nostalghia" of the spirit for the Light is that inexplicable longing we feel when nothing on earth seems to satisfy us, nothing seems to come up to that ideal of harmony and beauty, which we carry deep inside us as a vague memory from our distant homeland. Far from being an imaginary place dreamt up by poets, it is a place as real as the earth - and it is precisely the reality of that memory, which the poets in all branches of the arts throughout all the ages have tried to convey to us. Tarkovsky himself stated that he was not satisfied with the screenplay for his film Nostalghia until he succeeded in expanding the more narrow concept of Russian "nostalghia" (the longing to return to Russia) into a more profound "global

2

yearning for the wholeness of existence," so that the film "came together at last into a kind of metaphysical whole." A great illustration of this state of nostalghia of the spirit for things not of this earth is the poem by Tarkovsky's father (Arseniy Tarkovsky), which he put into his film Stalker:

Now summer has passed, As if it had never been. It is warm in the sun. But this isn't enough. All that might have been, Like a five-cornered leaf Fell right into my hands, But this isn't enough. Neither evil nor good Had vanished in vain, It all burnt with white light, But this isn't enough. Life took me under its wing, Preserved and protected, Indeed I have been lucky. But this isn't enough. Not a leaf had been scorched, Not a branch broken off. . . The day wiped clean as clear glass, But this isn't enough. (translated by Maria Pearse)

It is a sad and irrefutable fact that the overwhelming majority of the population has decided to bury this precious gift of longing for the Light deep within them. Tarkovsky clearly perceived this - ". . . it's only possible to communicate with the audience if one ignores that eighty percent of people who for some reason have got it into their heads that we are supposed to entertain them" - yet with every film he continued to try to reawaken this sense of longing within his audiences. He felt it was his duty and his calling to give expression to that which is "innermost" in the souls of his viewers, even if they themslves are not aware of it. Those of us, whose spirits have been touched by his films will recall from them our own special moments:

*** it may be the apple cart with the two children in Ivan's Childhood (aka My Name is Ivan), which reawakens within us the longing for the lost purity of childhood;

3

*** it may be that sequence in Mirror, when Tarkovsky depicts his parents as a young couple lying on the grass, already anticipating his birth, and the man asks the woman: "Who do you want more: a boy or a girl?" The woman says nothing, but her eyes move around searchingly until she suddenly turns away from the camera as if looking into the mystery of Creation. Tarkovsky then cuts to the trees as the wind rustles through their leaves with the opening strains of J.S. Bach's "St. John's Passion" coming closer and closer towards us until the jubilant outcry of the chorus: "Lord! Lord! Master! Unto Thee be praise and glory evermore!" Where else has the entrance of a human being into this world been depicted wih such awe and such sublime spirituality?! *** or it may be those brief moments of zero gravity in Solaris, when the main character and his beloved levitate (Tarkovsky felt that levitation was the most accurate cinematic depiction of the state of love). *** or, perhaps, it is the moment of Stalker's breakdown on the very threshold of the Room "where all wishes are granted." *** or that moment in Andrei Rublev, when we learn that an impoverished young man who put up a front that he knew a special secret of bellmaking, didn't know anything after all - and yet, through his intuition and a desperate prayer, still made the greatest bell ever. *** or the final sequence of Nostalghia with its three attempts by the main character to carry a lit candle from one side of an old, empty pool to the other in his conviction that he is carrying the flame of the human spirit across. And when he finally makes it to the other side, the opening of Verdi's Requiem comes in. Is it not the requiem for all those masses, who have so cruelly neglected their own spirits that they are now about to fall into the eternal sleep of spiritual death?

All of these sequences are cinematic depictions of a spiritual nostalghia for the Light. It can even be said of Tarkovsky that he lived his whole life in a state of such nostalghia, regardless of whether he was in Russia or abroad. All his life he kept trying to uncover deeper and deeper levels of meaning to our existence. Upon arriving in the West, he took immediate advantage of his new freedom by reading through the voluminous works of Gurdjieff - only to be ultimately disappointed, but the important thing is that he explored every new opportunity. He also took some wrong turns. Reflecting on what he had to go through in his life to bring his films into being, he wrote: "And so it's always the audience who win, who gain something, while the artist loses, and has to pay out." It's become almost a tradition that a great artist should also be a martyr. The martyrdom complex seems to have a strange appeal to many artists and even the best of them, like Tarkovsky, Bresson and Paradjanov, find themselves unable to resist its magnetic pull. In reality, it is just the opposite of what Tarkovsky had stated: it is always the artist, who gains most of all, because it is his spirit that advances through this artistic exertion (when it is applied in an upward direction, of course, like in Tarkovsky's case), while the audience can gain from it only as much as they are capable of recognizing and thus re-experiencing in their own way. But the artist possesses all of that experience; it is totally his own spiritual gain. The Perfect Justice of God does not allow the one, who exerted himself the most (namely, the artist) to "lose and have to pay out," while the ones, who exerted themselves the least (namely, the audience) "to win". The same Justice does not permit the sacrifice of an innocent life of ANY being in exchange for the sins of others. One cannot drive a bargain with God as Alexander attempts to do in The Sacrifice. The demands that are now being made upon humanity by the Light are much more exacting than that. One spastic act will not suffice; a whole NEW and SUSTAINED way of living is

4

required. A complete transformation of man into a totally spiritualized being at last! To make this transformation possible for those, who wish to follow this Call from out of the Light, the New Knowledge is given in the book "In the Light of Truth: the Grail Message" by Abd-ru-shin.

One of the last things Tarkovsky said on his deathbed (as reported by his wife) was: "It is time for a new direction." This is reminiscent of Lev Tolstoy's last words: "To seek, always to seek . . ." With this kind of attitude one advances rapidly both here and in the beyond. What drives the seeking spirit onward in its quest for Truth is an unquenchable longing described so well in the following quote by Pavel Florensky (1882-1943), a Russian philosopher, who died in a Stalinist labor camp:

"I do not know whether there is Truth or not. But I instinctively feel that I cannot be without It. And I know that if It is, then It is everything for me: reason, and good, and strength, and life, and happiness. Perhaps It is not; but I love It - love is more than everything that exists. I already count It as existing, and I love It - though perhaps non-existent - with all my soul and all my thinking and dreaming. I renounce everything for It - even my questions and my doubts."

When all is said and done, we are left with - perhaps, not even an image - but a sound from Stalker of a train whistle far off in the distance, calling us to leave our old, familiar life behind and to seek out a new way to bring the spirit within us to true life.

"MAN is not really meant to live according to the conceptions which have hitherto prevailed, but should be more of an intuitively perceptive human being. In that way he would form an essential connecting-link for the further development of the whole Creation.

Because he unites in himself the ethereal of the beyond and the gross material of this world, it is possible for him to survey both and to experience both simultaneously. In addition he also has at his disposal an instrument that puts him at the head of the entire Gross Material Creation: the intellect. With this instrument he is able to guide, thus to lead.

Intellect is the highest of what is earthly, and is meant to be the steering element through life on earth, whereas the driving power is the intuitive perception, which originates in the Spiritual World. The basis of the intellect therefore is the physical body, but the basis of the intuitive perception is the spirit.

As a product of the brain, which belongs to the gross material body, the intellect, like all that is earthly, is bound to the earthly conception of time and space. The intellect will never be able to work outside time and space, although it is actually more ethereal than the body, but nevertheless still too dense and heavy to rise above earthly conceptions of time and space. Hence it is completely earthbound.

But the intuitive perception (not the feeling) is timeless and spaceless, and therefore comes from the Spiritual.

Thus equipped, man could be closely connected with the finest ethereal, indeed even be in touch with the spiritual itself, and yet live and work in the midst of all that is earthly, gross material. Only man is endowed in this way.

5

He alone, as the only bridge between the Luminous Heights and the gross material earthly, should and could provide the healthy, fresh connection! Only through him in his special nature could the pure Life from the Source of Light pulsate downwards into the deepest gross material, and from there upwards again in the most glorious, harmonious reciprocal action! He stands as a link between the two worlds, so that through him these are welded into one world.

However, he did not fulfil this task. He separated these two worlds instead of keeping them firmly united. And that was the Fall of Man! -

Through the special nature just explained man was really destined to become a kind of lord of the Gross Material World, because the Gross Material World depends on his mediation, inasmuch as, according to his nature, it was forced to suffer with him or could be uplifted through him, depending on whether the currents from the Source of Light and Life could flow in purity through mankind or not.

But man cut off the flow of this alternating current necessary for the Ethereal World and for the Gross Material World. Now just as a good blood circulation keeps the body fresh and healthy, so is it with the alternating current in Creation. Cutting it off must bring confusion and illness, finally ending in catastrophes.

This serious failure on the part of man could come about because he did not use the intellect, which originates only in gross matter, solely as an instrument, but completely subjected himself to it, making it ruler over all. He thus made himself the slave of his instrument and became merely intellectual man, who is in the habit of proudly calling himself a materialist!

By subjecting himself entirely to the intellect, man chained himself to all that is gross material. Just as the intellect cannot grasp anything beyond the earthly conception of time and space, obviously the man who has completely subjected himself to it cannot do so either. His horizon, that is his ability to comprehend, became narrow together with the limited ability of the intellect.

The connection with the Ethereal was thus severed, a wall was erected which became dense and ever denser. Since the Source of Life, the Primordial Light, God, is far above time and space and still stands far above the Ethereal, naturally every contact must be cut off through the binding of the intellect. For this reason it is quite impossible for the materialist to recognise God.

The eating from the tree of knowledge was nothing more than the cultivation of the intellect. The resulting separation from the Ethereal was also the closing of Paradise as a natural consequence. Mankind locked themselves out by inclining wholly towards the gross material through the intellect, thus degrading themselves, and voluntarily or of their own choice placing themselves in bondage.

But where did this lead? The purely materialistic, thus earthbound and inferior thoughts of the intellect, with all their accompanying manifestations of acquisitiveness, greed, falsehood, robbery, oppression, sensuality and so on, were bound to bring about the inexorable reciprocal action of what is homogeneous, which formed everything accordingly, drove men onwards, and will finally burst over everything with ... annihilation!

6

A World judgment, which in accordance with the existing Laws of Creation cannot be avoided. As with a gathering thunderstorm, which must finally burst and bring destruction. But at the same time also purification!...

But then men will fulfil that which they should fulfil in Creation. They will be the connecting-link, will through their quality draw from the Spiritual, that is, will let themselves be guided by the purified intuitive perception, and translate this into the Gross Material, thus into the earthly, to this end using their intellect and accumulated experiences only as an instrument, in order to carry through these pure intuitive perceptions in gross material life, taking into account everything earthly, whereby the entire Gross Material Creation will be continually furthered, purified and uplifted." (Abd-ru-shin, "IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH: THE GRAIL MESSAGE", chapter "Man in Creation")

all artwork by Maria Pearseexcept Java by Gregory Pearse

STALKER: a synopsis and analysis[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Andrei Tarkovsky Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Joseph Vincent Mach on December 07, 1998 at 05:38:42:

An old Chinese curse states “May you live in interesting times.” It is a curse because the times that are interesting one’s life are the times of danger and suffering. Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1979 film titled Stalker is almost a perfect illustration of people inflicted with this curse. The people in the film leave the safety of their world to enter “The Zone”; a dangerous region surrounded by barbed wire fences and armed guards. In “The Zone” is a “Room” said to grant one’s wishes. Tarkovsky stated in 1982 “We’ve reached a time when we must declare open warfare on mediocrity, greyness and lack of expressiveness, and make creative inquiry a rule of cinema.”(Petrie, p190) Tarkovsky’s film is not easily classified as Drama, Action, or Science Fiction. It contains elements of all three but seems to remain distinctly different from each one. In this three-hour film, he keeps the viewer waiting at the edge of their seat, interested in the film and waiting for the climax, but without the predictability of a Science Fiction, Action or Drama film.

Stalker is based on a science fiction novel called Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. However, the film takes many liberties and is a giant leap away from the text. In the book, the reason for entering “The Zone” is for scientific analysis, but the film shifts the motive to the quest for “The Room” and the spiritual inner journey to discover the secret desire that “The Room” will grant. Tarkovsky states “The Zone is not a territory, but on the contrary, a trial, which one either passes or fails. Everything depends on self-dignity, on how far one is able to distinguish between the important and the transitory.”(Petrie, pp. 195-6) Also, Tarkovsky uses colour to distinguish between the drab world and the interesting “Zone”. In the dull outer world, Tarkovsky films in black and white, but tints the picture with sepia to separate similar tone greys into different browns. This allows a complete view of the area in the film frame without the distractions of vivid colour or the confusion of black and white.

In the movie, Three people enter “The Zone”: Writer, a well known but burned out has been who is searching for inspiration. Professor, a physicist who is hoping to gain fame and riches by discovering the mysteries of “The Zone”. And Stalker, one of a few stalkers or guides who

7

bring selected people into “The Zone”. There is great mystery and fear surrounding “The Zone”. Rumours restated in the film are that a meteorite fell on the area, a small town that contained a laboratory or military station called Bunker Number Four, also known as “The Room”. “The Zone” is often compared to the Bermuda Triangle as a mysterious spot where people enter and disappear. “The Zone” is fenced off with barbed wire and armed solders. It is unclear if this is to prevent people from entering “The Zone” and why they would want to prevent it, or if it is to prevent something, an alien being or alien ideas, from entering the civilized world.

Tarkovsky pins scientific observation against superstitious belief so that depending on the frame of mind of the viewer, one could view two different stories in the same film. One could view the film rationally, explaining away “The Zone” as a nuclear accident like Chernobyl, not a large explosion that destroys the landscape, but a leak that wipes out almost every animal and leaves the vegetation to grow over the man made objects and dwellings. This could explain the death and disappearances of people, as well as the birth defects found in the children of stalker’s and why the Stalker tires easily and needs to frequently rest on the journey to “The Room”.

One could also view the film as a pseudo-religious quest. One could state that the reason Stalker can enter and exit “The Zone” is because he is pure, has good intentions, or is free from sin. One must be both cautious and righteous to pass through and have the wish, the innermost desire granted. Where a rational mind would see the Stalker as an Indiana Jones type person looking for adventure, the Romantic would view him as the Biblical Persebal questing for a holy relic like the Grail. The Stalker poetry and stories are like the Oracle of the ancient Greeks. The viewer needs to interpret the Stalkers words, as the priests needed to decipher the Oracles predictions. And his frequent rests are to be in touch with the Earth, because as a guide he must be one with the land.

One can easily classify the three characters within this framework. The Stalker is a true believer in the powers of “The Zone”. He is almost militant that his chosen followers are, and remain pure. He takes away the writer’s alcohol and pours it out when they are standing in the field and removes his gun and pushes it into the water, a symbol of baptismal cleansing, when they are approaching “The Room”. The Professor is a man of science and is therefore a pragmatic disbeliever. He brings a bag with his lunch along the journey where Stalker seems to be religiously fasting. And the Writer is an ambiguous agnostic. He claims that Stalker’s superstitions are a hoax, but is afraid to disobey Stalker’s orders. He is too afraid to go the strait path to “The Room” and ends up turning back and following Stalker.

To explain any of these concepts further one would need a synopsis of Stalker. I will try to explain it through direct scientific observation, but I will also include the spiritual and mystic connotations of the film. The film starts with electronic music. The title and credits appear over sepia tinted black and white footage of a dingy bar. The title itself is striking. “Stalker” is not a Russian word. It produces feelings of alienation in the viewer. Its definition in English is brings the sense of one who moves silently, with stealth and speed. After the title and credits a quotation from Professor Wallace about the appearance of “The Zone”. While the statement is scrolling, a bartender enters, serves a patron, and exits.

The next shot has the camera silently creeps through an open doorway onto a brass bed. A trinity of figures, a man, woman, and child are sleeping. A train passes causing a glass of water to move across a table containing a box of pills. The appearance of the room seems to be one of poverty and misery. The man slithers out of bed, dresses, and quietly leaves the bedroom almost closing the door on his way out. As he leaves the woman sits up in the bed.

8

He washes himself with primitive haste in a kitchen with wooden floors. A light turns on, but burns out breaking the bulb. The wife pleads that he stop and reminds that he could end up in jail for ten years. He pushes past her and leaves as she states that he is the reason that they have “Such a child”. His client soon identifies the man as Stalker as they meet in a dockyard. The client is an arrogant intellectual in the company of an elegantly dressed woman and is telling her how dull contemporary life is without suffering. When asked if the woman can come along on the journey, Stalker, who did not expect her, orders her to leave and becomes disgusted that the client has been drinking.

Stalker and the man enter the bar from the title sequence and meet the customer. As they follow in a conversation, the Stalker again forbids the first man, Writer, to drink and addresses the second man as Professor. The Writer presents himself as cynical in his own ability to continue writing. The Professor states that his motive is scientific curiosity. The Writer replies with the motive of inspiration. A train whistle is audible and Stalker states that it is time for them to go.

They get into a topless jeep and drive through trash filled streets and run-down buildings avoiding an armed policeman by stopping and ducking when he rides by. The follow the train as it passes through a gate into an inner and more heavily guarded barrier. They hide again to avoid detection. When Stalker pauses to plan the next move, Writer voices displeasure with the trek so far, but Professor remains quiet. They get into the jeep and follow behind another train to gain entrance past a large barbed wire gate. As they pass they come under fire from many armed troops. They soon find a railway flatcar and again come under fire as they trail off down the track. The troops do not follow them into “The Zone”.

As they enter “The Zone” the film changes from sepia tones to rich colour. A body of water and vivid green vegetation are visible, but there are still remains of dilapidated buildings and industrial waste. In “The Zone”, Stalker tells a story about Porcupine. Porcupine was his teacher who also brought people into “The Zone” until something went wrong and he was “punished”. Stalker then asks Professor to tie some bandages around a few metal nuts and goes to take a walk. While Stalker is away, Professor tells Writer about their guide. He states that Stalker was imprisoned and has a mutated daughter with no legs. He tells about Porcupine and how after he became wealthy, he hung himself. The Professor also elaborates on the history of “The Zone” and how a meteorite could have fallen on the area twenty years ago and after it happened, strange things started to occur. Soon rumours began to spread of a room within “The Zone” that could grant one’s wishes, and a military blockade formed to prevent wicked people with hostile desires from wishing. The Writer then asks what could it be if not a meteorite. The Professor suggests a supernatural event when he replies that it could have been a gift or message to mankind.

Stalker is briefly seen lying down with his face in the long grass. He gets up and returns to the expedition with the Professor going first and Stalker following throwing some of the bandaged nuts to leave a trail indicating the way that they came. Overgrown military vehicles litter the landscape and Stalker comments that a military expedition came here when he was a child. There is a clearly visible building that seems to be their destination across a short field. Writer disbelieves Stalkers warning that they cannot go directly to the building and they begin to argue. Stalker warns that “The Zone” is alive and demands respect. Failure to respect “The Zone” will result in punishment. Stalker takes Writer’s flask of alcohol and empties it onto the ground. Writer begins to directly cross the field to the building. Weird sounds start to be herd and a voice says “Stop, don’t move!” when Writer is about half way. Writer turns and heads

9

back to the group. When he asks who said that, both Stalker and Professor claim it was not they.

They begin to argue and Professor suggests that Writer became frightened and told himself to turn back. Stalker yells a warning that “The Zone” is a complex maze of fatal traps. It is the people and not “The Zone” that set the traps. People have had to turn back at various points along the way and people have died on “The Room’s” threshold. Writer asks if “The Zone” lets the good pass and the evil die, again suggesting a religious judgement. Stalker replies that he thinks it is the hopeless wretches that are allowed to pass, but even they die if they do not behave properly here. Stalker suggests that Writer is lucky to have received a warning from “The Zone”. Professor asks to wait behind while the others continue, but Stalker replies that the request is impossible because they will not return the same way they left and offers to abandon the mission and refund portions of the money. Professor reluctantly rejoins the party.

The next scene begins with Stalker’s calling for the other two. Writer and Professor are seen standing in front of a doorway with dilapidated tiles on the walls. A metal nut on a bandage is seen hanging behind them and Professor’s bag is on the ground. Writer states that he thinks they are in for another lecture from Stalker. Stalker moves across a ledge while his thoughts can be heard in a voice over. He joins the two as they exit a large drainpipe. The voice asks that the other two believe, and that they become helpless children because weakness is great and strength is worthless. Weakness expresses freshness of existence and tenderness. Strength, he states, are like hardness and dryness. Strength is a companion of death and what becomes hard will not triumph. This statement recalls the biblical passage “the meek will inherit the Earth.”

Professor asks to return to fetch his lunch bag. Stalker refuses to let him go as he sends Writer ahead down a latter. Writer and Stalker pass the tiled wall and through a few archways reaching a waterfall. They begin to wade in the water when Writer notices that Professor is missing, but Stalker says that they can not turn back and pushes ahead. The camera suddenly focuses on hot coals in a campfire. The camera pans across a tiled floor with a few inches of water on it. Under the water is medical waste and rusty metal trash along with a book, possibly a Bible. Writer exits the archway already seen twice only to be standing next to Professor calmly sitting and drinking from his thermos. The lunch bag is on the ground next to a fire and a bandaged nut is hanging behind them. Seeing the nut Stalker claims that they have fallen into a trap. Writer and Professor begin to insult each other. (It is this point in the film where I as the viewer lost faith in Stalker as a prophet, but not in “The Zone’s” power, mystery, and danger. Stalker is clearly going in circles, but he seems correct to be cautious of “The Zone” because of the strange music and unexplained sounds it still seems like a supernatural place. I think this is allegorical to the Russian Leo Tolstoy’s leaving the Orthodox Church to rediscover Christianity. I abandon the leader, but not the cause.) The conversation continues between Writer and Professor. The camera again examines some objects under the water. Biblical readings can be heard in voice over by Stalker and a woman, possibly Stalker’s wife. Electronic music amplifies the strangeness of the scene. There is now dialog between Writer and Stalker about art and redemption.

There is a quick cut to a dark tunnel called the “Meat Grinder”. There are holes in the top that let light cast down onto murky water covering the bottom of the tunnel. Stalker has a drawing of matches to see if Writer or Professor goes first, but the matches are the same lengths and Writer is tricked into leading the party. Sounds of water dripping and echoing footsteps create suspense and tension in the already uneasy atmosphere of the small dark tunnel. Before Writer goes through he has Stalker toss a metal nut into the tunnel to make sure it is safe. Stalker follows behind Professor through the “Meat Grinder”. They reach a door at the end of the

10

tunnel. The small room beyond is seriously flooded. Writer pulls out a gun, but Stalker takes it away asking Writer who or what he thinks he is going to shoot. Writer proceeds through the flooded room. There is a close up of Stalker’s hand slowly pushing the gun into the water with the tips of his fingers, as if not to get any of the gun’s bad karma on himself and thus causing “The Zone” to punish him. Professor and Stalker follow and Stalker calls Writer to wait.

Writer is seen in a large room with what look like large sand dunes. Stalker throws another nut into the room and both he and Professor quickly lie down for cover. The nut seems to bounce off a dune where logic makes the viewer think that its weight should have made it stay where it landed. A bird flies through the room but disappears halfway. Another bird flies through the room but safely reaches the other side. Writer is now seen in the dunes standing next to what looks like a well. Writer drops a large rock into the well and starts a monologue about how meaningless and superfluous his life and work are. He speaks with both self-loathing and bitter honesty. He sees himself as a writer who hates to write and finds the work to be like torture. He states how he used to think that he wrote helpful books for people, but nobody bought them. Stalker comforts him by telling him that if “The Meat Grinder”, the harshest trap in “The Zone”, allowed him to pass then he must be a fine person. Stalker tells the story about how Porcupine sent his brother, a good and gifted individual, into the “Meat Grinder” to die. Stalker then begins to recite poetry about how nature’s beauty and living life to the fullest can not compensate for escaping one’s fate. (This sequence gives the viewer the feeling of solitary soul-searching that prophets like Buddha and Moses did when they wandered in the desert for a number of days and nights.)

The men enter a room with trash and a thin layer of water on the floor. There is a window in a wall of the room and a doorway opposite the window. This room has a telephone on the floor. The men get into a serious discussion about their motives for going on this trek. The telephone suddenly rings. Writer answers it, stating that the caller has not reached the clinic and that the caller dialed the wrong number. Professor then uses the phone to call his lab. Professor gloats to his boss that the destination has been reached and the boss has been out smarted. Professor remarks to the group that people will misuse “The Room”. Stalker claims that he does not bring those kind of people into “The Zone”, but Professor replies that he is not the only stalker out there. Stalker points out the doorway and states that they have reached the most important decision in their lives. He urges them to rethink their pasts and believe in “The Room”. He asks who wants to go first?

Writer refuses to go saying that sniveling and praying are humiliating. Professor announces that he intends to destroy the room with a bomb that he has brought with him. He explains that his boss at the lab hid the bomb because the room meant hope and did not want it to be destroyed by Professor. Professor states that “The Room” does not provide happiness and will only be used for evil intentions. Stalker leaps onto Professor for possession of the bomb. Writer pulls Stalker off of Professor. Stalker asks Writer what he is doing and why does he want Professor to destroy their hope. Writer calls Stalker a hypocrite who is only interested in money and power. He claims Stalker uses people’s hopelessness to feel like a god or a tsar here. Stalker beaks down into tears saying stalkers are not allowed to enter “The Room” or be selfish. He sobs that “The Zone” is all he has left because everything on the other side of the barbed wire was taken from him.

Writer calls Stalker a “Holy Fool”, a blind believer. Then Writer offers his analyses for Porcupine’s suicide. Writer claims that “The Room” grants not a rational wish where the consequences can be planned out, controlled, and minimized, but that is searches the soul of the person, granting the innermost desire based on the nature of the person. Porcupine might

11

have that he wanted to save his brother, but deep down he really wanted wealth. After Porcupine realized that his wish was not granted, he hung himself. (There is a Bible passage that fits this point perfectly. “What shall it benefit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul” (Mark, 8:36)) Writer refuses to enter “The Room” and pollute his soul or poison anyone else with his selfishness. The telephone rings again, but is ignored. Writer loses his balance and almost falls into “The Room”, but is pulled back by Stalker. Professor disassembles the bomb and throws the parts into the water. Writer holds on to Stalker as Professor squats next to them. Stalker wonders aloud if he should live here with his wife and child where no one will hurt them. Off screen there is the sound of a train.

There is a cut back to the sepia tinted black and white footage of the outer world. The footage is a shot of Stalker’s wife and child in the bar. The three men are at the table they started out from. The wife leads Stalker out of the bar with the child. The next shot is a colour shot of what looks like the child walking along a riverbank, but as the camera lowers the viewer realises that Stalker has her on his shoulders. The river is littered an industrial building produces smoke lies behind it. The viewer returns to Stalker’s house in sepia. Stalker is saying that no one has faith anymore, and he and “The Room” are no longer needed. The wife tries to comfort Stalker. The wife then addresses the viewer stating that people used to laugh at Stalker. Her mother refused to let them marry because stalkers end up in jail. But she states that Stalker made her happy and one cannot have happiness without sorrow. She says “I would rather live in bitter happiness than a dull grey life.”

The final shot is in colour and is of the child sitting and reading by a table. Poetry is audible in voice over in what should be the child’s voice if she could speak. She stares at two glasses on the table. Slowly the glasses move across the table and break on the floor. Then a train is heard again. (This again pins a supernatural explanation in the form of telekinesis suggested by the voice over of the mute child against the scientific explanation of the train causing the table to shake the glasses off.)

If the viewer looks at the film from a totally rational and scientific view, this film will seem boring. There was no visual danger in “The Zone” apart from the suspense brought about by dripping water, crunching glass, and electronic music. While on the other hand, “The Room” was almost proven to be a superstitious fallacy, and a supernatural believer would be disappointed in the way that the journey was ended. The film seems to place the viewer in the interesting dream world of “The Zone” though the use of lush colour there. But at periods removes the viewer from the film into real life by the sudden return to sepia or a loud disrupting noise like the train, or the foghorns from the docks by the bar, or the telephone. Where the film is suppose to climax at the entrance of “The Room”, the ringing awakes the viewer from the film’s trance. This is also true of the questionable shot of the child’s telekinesis abilities and the train.

I believe that Tarkovsky was trying to point out that while faiths may be wrong or useless, they make life more interesting to live. They provide hope and miracles for wretches who have nothing left in life. Tarkovsky states that his theme in Stalker “is the theme of human dignity; of what that dignity is; and how a man suffers if he has no self respect.” (Tarkovsky, p.198) He also states that the reason Writer and Professor failed is because “they lack[ed] The spiritual courage to believe in themselves.” (Tarkovsky, p.198) And it was Stalker who had the “Supreme value by which… man lives and his soul does not want.” (Tarkovsky, p.198) Life needs to be scientific and spiritual, happy and filled with sorrow. It is Stalker’s wife who realises this. I think her statement “I would rather live a bitter happiness that a dull grey life” is the most important quote from the film, and probably the best summary. The film forces the

12

viewer to realise that science makes life possible to live, but it is faith that makes life worth living.

The idea of classifying this film into a popular category, like Science Fiction, proves to be hard. Although based on a Science Fiction story, the film seems to be more Spiritual that Science. Although there is a lot of suspense, Action is not an accurate classification because nothing really disastrous or eventful happens to the group. Drama does not fit the description perfectly. The definition of Drama is broad. The dictionary states that it is a composition that tells a story of human conflict by means of dialog and action preformed by actors. There are two parts of the definition that do not fit the film’s description. The conflict is mostly monologue and dialogue, not action as stated above. Also, the acting is not “dramatic”. The viewer has a difficult time seeing that the people are acting. Like Stanislavsky’s “Method Acting”, the actors seem to really be their characters and not playing a roll of a character foreign to them. The Realism of the film also contradicts the Science Fiction category. The film seems real to the viewer and has allegories to reality.

One comparison that should not be overlooked, is the condition of the outer world to the state of the Soviet Union, which was still in existence in Tarkovsky’s time. Although the official setting in the novel was Canada, Tarkovsky never named the location of his film. However, certain details in this ambiguous setting could lead one to believe he was talking about the state of the Soviet Union at the time. The factories, pollution, and power plants that litter the horizon are obviously related to the Communist system based on an industrial ideology. Many Soviet posters were proud to “Give to heavy industry.” Historical disasters like Chernobyl were the results, and are reflected in the film by the pollution and debris. Also the armed guards and barbed wire keeping the people out of the supernatural and spiritual “Zone” represent the militarism of the Soviet Union in conjunction with the atheist stance of the ideology.

One could look deeper into the film’s allegorical meaning. The outer world was always shown in a dull brown grey sepia. The viewer gets the impression that he or she has looked at too many red banners and propaganda posters for too long. The colour detecting cones in the viewer’s eyes seemed to have burned out. Now imagine looking at an Orthodox Church ceiling. To eyes that have been desencitised to the colour red, the gold and lush mosaics seem so beautiful and vivid, like the lush overgrown green vegetation in “The Zone”. It is more than just a coincidence that green is directly opposite red on the colour scale.

Any viewer of Tarkovsky’s film Stalker would never be able to define its category. Is it Socialist Realism, the reality of socialism and its effects on the people and the land or Science Fiction? Can people in a truly believable situation be dramatic actors? One thing that is true of the film is that it causes the viewer to think. It causes the viewer to hope they are never in this situation. But the world is a struggle between rationalism and intuition, spirituality and science, and in a way we are all in this situation. People would rather live in “Interesting Times”, a “Bitter Happiness” and not “A Dull Grey Life.”

Bibliography:

Johnson, Vita T. and Petrie, Graham. The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue. 1994. Indiana University Press. Indianapolis

Petrie, Graham and Dwyer, Ruth. Before the Wall Came Down: Soviet and East European Filmmakers in the West. 1990. University Press of America. Lanham

13

Tarkovsky, Andrey. Sculpting in Time: The Great Russian Filmmaker Discusses His Art. 1986. University of Texas Press. Austin

Re: STALKER: a synopsis and analysis[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Andrei Tarkovsky Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ivan Grozny on December 12, 1998 at 18:53:24:In Reply to: STALKER: a synopsis and analysis posted by Joseph Vincent Mach on December 07, 1998 at 05:38:42:

I would have to agree with the analysis:

I enjoyed Stalker more for its content than its form. The camera work of the film consisted of scenes of long duration. In the editing process Tarkovsky tinted the black and white with sepia. Both of which are neither original nor done so far above average that they require special merit. Tarkovsky did however, display a world of scientific pragmatism against a world of spiritual superstition. Any one piece of film footage coming from the projector could be interpreted in two ways. Anything ambiguous had two possible answers, a spiritual one and a scientific one. Although Tarkovsky is very spiritual in his writings, films, and thoughts and I am very rational and scientific, the film caused me to rethink and fine tune my personal ideology.

Tarkovsky shows that everything has an equal and opposite counter in the world. The outer world was shown in sepia black and white and was a hopeless and dangerous place polluted with industry. “The Zone” was shown in lush colour and overgrown with natural vegetation, but was also very dangerous. The Stalker and the Professor were direct opposites. Stalker was a mystic prophet and guide who brought people into the “Zone” and led them to “The Room” but never used it for him. Professor, a man of science, wanted to go to the room not to study it, but to destroy it so that its power, or potential power through the beliefs of others could not be used maliciously. Both characters think of themselves as correct in their intentions, but at the end of the film each character’s actions do not follow. The Stalker retires and never goes back into “The Zone” and the Professor does not destroy the hope that is “The Room”.

Tarkovsky states that it is “better to live a bitter happiness than a dull grey life.” And that a life without unexplained answers to ambiguous questions, a life without irrational optimism in hopeless situations is not really a life, but a hollow pointless existence. Although I am still struggling with his presented concept of spirituality as entertainment. I understand that the medieval peasant was too involved with the pragmatism of living day to day to worry about entertainment. And that if he could grow enough food for his family he was happy. Now science brings most of the human population food with little effort, but life is extremely boring. Tarkovsky suggests that there is a higher synthesis of science and spirituality, but he does not clearly define what that synthesis is. I suppose Stalker is his way of proposing the question hoping the viewer can find the answer.

I would like to hear more of how his films are aligorical to life? I am still not intirely clear.

STALKER

Always remember that in "metaphysical," even in Russian, you have "physical."

14

STALKER is a Soviet film (it is Tarkovsky's sixth and, in my opinion, his best) but "to stalk" is an English verb (and a regular one at that). To be precise, to stalk is to "pursue at close range," a way of closing in, a walk, almost a dance. In "stalking" the part of the body which is afraid lags behind and the part which is not afraid is compelled to move forward. With its pauses and its terrors, the stalk is the walk of those who make their way through unknown territory. In STALKER danger is everywhere, but it has no face. The landscape too is without end, without horizon, without North. There are plenty of tanks, factories, giant pipes, a railroad, a corpse, a dog, a telephone which still works, but the whole thing is being overrun by nature. This fossilized industrial landscape, this corner of the twentieth century which has become a strata (Tarkovsky was a geologist in Siberia from 1954 to 1956, and it is still a part of him), this is the Zone. One does not go into the Zone, one has to creep in because it is guarded by soldiers. One does not walk there, one "stalks."

In the cinema we have seen cowboys who move towards each other with coquettish steps before they shoot, the stagnation of crowds, couples dancing and urban motion; we have never seen the stalk. Tarkovsky's film is first and foremost a documentary about a certain way of walking, not necessarily the best (especially in the USSR) but the only one left when all reference points have vanished and nothing is certain any more. As such, it is the first of its kind: a camera follows three men who have just entered the Zone. Where have they learned this crookedwalk? Where are they from? And how did they become so familiar with this no man's land? Is their familiarity the false familiarity of the tourist who doesn't know where to go, what to look at or what to be afraid of? One of them has come with only a bottle of vodka in a plastic bag: he's just come off a drinking binge among high society. Meanwhile, the second one has something secret in a small traveling bag. The third one, who has nothing but his furtive glances and his quickly extinguished bursts of enthusiasm--this is the Stalker. And before pouncing on the countless interpretations which this kaleidoscope of a film leaves open, one should watch closely as these three excellent Russian actors (Alexander Kaidanovsky, Anatoli Solonitsin and Nikolai Grimko) "stalk" in the Zone.

The film doesn't begin so abruptly. It is a bit more orderly, but not much. Tarkovsky, in a liberal adaptation of a science fiction novel by the brothers Strougavski, imagines a world in which a mysterious accident has left part of the planet alien, dangerous and closed off from access. The Zone is that forbidden corner, returned to its primitive state. It's a last reserve of fantasy and a territory of macabre beauty. Shadowy characters, for a little money, give "tours" of it. These are the Stalkers. These transitory people live a miserable existence between two worlds. This time, the Stalker (part sage, part tour guide, very much hoodlum) has brought with him a Writer and a Professor. The Writer (with his plastic bag) speaks little, but has an idea in mind. For there is a goal to this trip a trois: In the middle of the Zone there is a "room" which, they say, fulfills the wishes of those who enter it. So they say.

At the entrance to the room, the Stalker and his two clients back down: no one will step inside. First of all out of fear, then out of wisdom. Out of fear because if the room is a hoax, it would be humiliating to let on that one had believed in it; and if it really does fulfill all wishes, nothing will be left to wish for; and if it answers unconscious desires, one doesn't know what to expect. Out of wisdom because no life is livable without the absolute, of course, but the absolute is not a place, it is a movement away: a mouvement which diverts one, which deports one (in every sense of the word), which makes one "stalk". It matters little in the end what's put on the plate, or even that one believes: that one believes in believing or in others capacity to believe.What matters is one's movement.

As a spectator, one cannot resist "stalking" in the forest of symbols which the film becomes. Tarkovsky's scenario is such a diabolical machine that it does not exclude any interpretation a

15

priori. In a kaleidoscope, one can see what one wants. Perhaps the Zone is planet Earth, the Soviet continent, our unconscious, or the film itself. The Stalker could easily be a mutant, a dissident, a crazed psychoanalyst, a preacher looking for a cult or a spectator. You can "play symbols" with the film, but it's a game you shouldn't overdo either (no more with Tarkovsky than with Fellini or Buñuel, other great humorists of interpretation.) Besides, the freshness and the beauty of STALKER lie elsewhere.

When the film is over, when we are a little tired of interpreting, once we've eaten everything on the plate, what is left? Exactly the same film. The same compelling images. The same Zone with the presence of water, with its teasing lapping, piles of rusted metal, nature at its most voracious, and inescapable humidity. As with all films that trigger a rush of interpretation in the viewer, STALKER is a film which is striking for the physical presence of its elements, their stubborn existence and way of being there, even if there was no one to see them, to get close to them or to film them. This is not a new phenomenon: already in ANDREI RUBLEV there was the mud, that primal form. In STALKER the elements have an organic presence: water, dew and puddles dampen the soil and eat away at the ruins.

A film can be interpreted. This one in particular lends itself to it (even if in the end it hides its secrets.) But we are not obliged to interpret it. A film can be watched too. One can watch for the appearance of things which one has never seen before in a film. The watcher-viewer sees things which the interpreter-viewer can no longer make out. The watcher stays at the surface because he doesn't believe in depth. At the beginning of this article, I was wondering where the characters had learned the stalk: that twisted walk of people who are afraid but who have forgotten the source of their fears. And what of these prematurely aged faces, these mini-Zones where grimaces have become wrinkles? And the self-effacing violence of those who wait to receive a beating (or maybe to give a beating if they haven't forgotten how?) And what of the false calm of the dangerous monomaniac and the empty reasonings of a man who is too solitary?

These do not come only from Tarkovsky's imagination. They cannot be invented, they come from elsewhere. But from where? STALKER is a metaphysical fable, a course in courage, a lesson in faith, a reflexion on the end of time, a quest, whatever one wants. STALKER is also the film in which we come across, for the first time, bodies and faces which come from a place we know about only through hear-say. A place whose traces we thought the Soviet cinema had lost completely. This place is the Gulag. The Zone is also an archipelago. STALKER is also a realist film.

Translated by Frank Matcha with Steve Erickson.

Originally published in LIBERATION November 20th, 1981.

Stalker

Director: Andrei TarkovskyStarring: Alexander Kaidanovsky, Anatoly Solonitsin, Nikolai Grinko, Alissa Freindlikh

Related Links

16

StalkerIMDB

Release DatesIMDB

Russian Cinema Council

Reviewer's web site

Merchandise Links

Buy the video (PAL format)

Related Books

For his innovative low-tech science fiction film Stalker (1979), Andrei Tarkovsky uses brilliant cinematic imagination to transform the ghostly-beautiful fields, streams and power plants of Tallinn, Estonia (in the then-Soviet Union) to the organic, industrial science fiction landscape of the Zone - a restricted, hazardous area rumored to contain paranormal power from the crash of a mysterious meteorite. The hard science fiction approach taken in Tarkovsky's epic Solaris (1972) is abandoned for a subtle, unaffected approach where fantastic elements are alluded to but rarely shown (much to the story's benefit) and fused to a narrative framework of "the journey," where protagonists travel to a predetermined destination in search of material or spiritual fulfillment (aka "the road trip"). Only in the hands of a genius like Tarkovsky can the simple narrative structure of three men on a journey be transformed to a complicated moral and spiritual examination of humanity, anchored to references of classical poetry, literature, music and art, filtered through the mesh of a personal life experience in a totalitarian society.

Alexander Kaidanovsky is Stalker, a man charged with guiding two men, Writer (Anatoly Solonitsin) and Professor (Nikolai Grinko), within the heavily-guarded Zone to a Room that holds the power to grant one wish (prayer?) to anyone who enters. Stalker lives in a sparse hovel with his wife (Alissa Freindlikh) and young daughter Monkey, who is unable to walk, perhaps due to a birth defect from her father's regular exposure to the Zone. Stalker's wife is painfully upset and confronts Stalker about his journey as he leaves the family bed to meet Writer and Professor. Unfazed, Stalker departs to rendezvous with the men at a bar. They board a jeep, and after carefully dodging law officers, enter the Zone by following a train through a barbed-wire passageway. Armed guards fire at them. The men escape the guards and locate a small motorized railroad trolley, which they use to travel deep into the Zone until Stalker stops them to continue on foot. The landscape of the Zone is beautiful, with lush, green fields and trees. Amongst the beauty, industrial utility lines and rusted military relics

17

are scattered about. Stalker explains that the Zone is in constant flux and dangerous to navigate, and one can never travel the same path twice. Although the building housing the Room is visible a short distance away, Stalker will not take the direct route; rather, he travels via unexplained, mysterious, and often subterranean routes that he navigates by throwing ahead bolts tied to gauze bandages.

During the journey, Writer is talkative, often questioning society, his writing talent, and self-worth. Professor is more private, and when not arguing with Writer and Stalker, seems more concerned about the knapsack he's carrying. Neither man discloses their motive for visiting the Room. Stalker often communicates with Writer and Professor on a philosophical plane, and frequently refers to Porcupine, a stalker who hanged himself after an experience involving his brother in the Zone. After navigating through several surreal underground rooms, tunnels and caverns, Stalker delivers the men the Room's threshold, where he awaits their decisions about the Room.

Stalker is an accomplished, heady science fiction classic - one of the genre's best - but a very demanding, and sometimes inaccessible, viewing experience. On most days that's a compliment - cinema that continues to challenge the viewer and refuses to wholly disclose its mysteries is indeed a desirable but rare commodity. As populist science fiction veered towards pulp and tech in the late 1970s with films like the Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983) and Alien (1979), Stalker preserved science fiction as art, keeping alive the spirit of films like Chris Marker's La Jetée (1962), and influenced a new generation of filmmakers like Lars von Trier, who would begin his career soon thereafter with the Stalker-influenced The Element of Crime (1984).

On the surface, Stalker recalls W.W. Jacobs's familiar American short story "The Monkey's Paw," where earnest wishes have the potential of catastrophic consequence. But Tarkovsky's approach doesn't concern ironic twists of fate, but rather contemplates wishes as beacons of personal faith - not necessarily spiritual faith, although such an interpretation certainly has merit, but faith in whatever truth stirs within the individual soul. In many ways the Zone is a manifestation of Stalker's faith, a place where logic, science, and even Stalker's own rules - such as his edict that backtracking in the Zone is disastrous - have fleeting hold. The Zone's mysterious nature mirrors faith's elusiveness, and all three men undergo a crisis (test?) of faith in the Zone's landscape. Writer and Professor, figurative men of the arts and institutionalized knowledge, are asked to have dual faith in both Stalker's Zone and in the essence of their souls. Neither man is entirely successful - indeed, what man is when it comes to faith, even in faith in himself? - and ultimately it is Stalker's wife who poignantly shares the most convincing demonstration of faith in a heartfelt monologue at the end of the film.

The Russian Cinema Council (Ruscico) presents Stalker in a two-DVD set with a generous selection of interesting but sometimes brief extras. Disc 1, a single layer disc, presents Part One of the film; 10 behind-the-scenes production photographs, the best being a striking, overhead color photograph of the cast and crew at work when Stalker lays down before his dream; a brief Tarkovsky biography sans filmography, which is included on Disc 2; a 5m 43s short film Memory (although the DVD menu labels it "Tarkovsky's House"), a Stalker-inspired documentary film that combs through the weathered, junk-filled ruins of Tarkovsky's boyhood home, intercut with footage of Stalker's dream sequence, and brief audio samples and music themes from Stalker; and a 4m 53s excerpt of Tarkovsky's The Steamroller and the Violin aka Katok I Skyrpka, a 46-minute short film Tarkovsky filmed in 1960 for his diploma at VGIK, the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography. The Steamroller and the Violin segment is particularly exciting to sample, and we can only hope that the full short film eventually receives the full Ruscico treatment on DVD. Disc 2, a double layer disc, presents

18

Part Two of the film; a 5m 44s interview with cameraman Alexander Knyazhinsky, poignantly titled "Alexander Knyzahinsky's last interview" as a weakened, terminally-ill Knyzahinksy is interviewed in his bathrobe at an assisted care facility; a 14m 21s interview with production designer Rashit Safiullan, who reminisces about Tarkovsky's precise attention to detail, and the devastating loss of the film's negative after it was halfway complete; and biographies/filmographies of 9 cast and crew members. Navigation menus on both discs may be accessed in Russian, English, or French text. Like Ruscico's Solaris DVD, Stalker contains a few substantial extras not advertised on the disc's packaging buried in the bios/filmographies section. In the bio for composer Eduard Artemyev, there is a fascinating 21m 7s interview that touches on a number of subjects, including Tarkovsky's use of composers to sculpt the sound design of films as opposed to strict score composition. Further in Artemyev's filmography, there is a brief teaser for the Solaris DVD, including a full 3m 20s English language trailer for the film. If you navigate to the same spot in the Russian or French menus, the trailer can be played in Russian or French, respectively.

Ruscico's visual presentation of Stalker is striking. Sepia sequences are a rich, deep brown, and quite distinctive from the film's color sequences, which are comprised of pleasant, subdued earth tones that emphasize the Zone's green vegetation. The source material is properly framed in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio and very clean, with no noticeable scratches, slugs, or other physical aberrations. The video compression is strong, with very light artifacting only briefly noted during scenes containing intense smoke or fog, such as the scene in the Zone where Stalker dispatches the trolley into thick fog. One audio choice is available for the film - a Russian language Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which may be translated to 13 languages via subtitles (note that the subs can't be changed or turned off while on the fly). It's a solid, pleasing sound mix that features a very distinct separated right/left sound stage, but unfortunately it's been altered with additional (and sometimes removed) music and sound not present in Stalker's original mono mix. Most noticeable is the absence of the Beethoven's Ninth Symphony cue that ends the film (although the other classical music cue, Ravel's Bolero, is still present), and the addition of ambient music to supplement the previously solo rhythmic clanking of the railroad tracks during the trolley ride sequence into the Zone, but be aware that there are other instances of tinkering. After contacting Ruscico regarding the altered soundtrack, the company revealed that it "will produce the original version of Stalker in February/March" and that "it will be possible to change one version for another in a store where the first version were purchased."

Reviewed by Todd Harbour

19