- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,730
- Reaction score
- 18,627
Getting into this soon, but first, the SMC database has now been fully updated!
Thanks, I'll probably go back a dredge a few up now.
Getting into this soon, but first, the SMC database has now been fully updated!
I think a main underlying theme was faith. The imagery was highly religious. The Zone was guarded by leaning telephone poles that looked like crucifixes. Religious artifacts could be seen in the long, panning shots of water near the building. The Writer at one point donned a crown of thorns. The Writer was a nihilist, and the Stalker was man searching for people of faith, maybe because faith was his only escape from the bleak reality of his life. Considering the astonishing final two minutes of the film, it is certain that he is a true believer in the Zone and the Room.
Tarkovsky 'Time Within Time: The Diaries 1970–1986' p. 111 said:“At the moment, I can see a film version of something by the Strugatsky brothers as being totally harmonious in form: unbroken, detailed action, but balanced by a religious action, entirely on the plane of ideas, almost transcendental, absurd, absolute.”
Stalker Prayer said:"Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy but just the friction between their souls and the outside world. And most important, let them believe in themselves. Let them be helpless like children, because weakness is a great thing, and strength is nothing. When a man is just born he is weak and flexible, when he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing its tender and pliant, but when its dry and hard it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win."
Da De Jing said:A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.
Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.
Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.
The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.
Tarkovsky 'Sculpting in Time' p.37 said:“Through the image is sustained an awareness of the infinite: the eternal with the finite, the spiritual within matter, the limitless given form.”
Tarkovsky said:If the regular length of a shot is increased, one becomes bored, but if you keep on making it longer, it piques your interest, and if you make it even longer, a new quality emerges, a special intensity of attention
Although I do think that the pre-Chernobyl element (or at least some kind of critique of mans impact on the natural world) is probably one element (of course the Zone sections were filmed near an actual toxic power planet which may have led to the premature deaths of Tarkovsky and others who were involved..)
I think this is mostly anterior to the religious/spiritual themes of the film. At its core it is a film about transcendence, or mans longing for it in the face of the finite.
The Stalker himself believes wholeheartedly in the powers of the Zone/Room, he has devoted his entire life to bringing people there to make them happy (in this respect he is like a religious figure, a shaman or a priest, guiding people towards the ineffable/Transcendent).
I think the Stalker was trying to say only truly unhappy, hopeless souls are able to accept what the Room offers. Desire is the root of suffering. If you fear the result of your deepest desire coming true, then you aren't ready. Like Porcupine. The Writer and Professor were far too self centered to "let go" completely like that. Maybe Tyler Durden would have made a better candidate.Which makes no fucking sense. And that this is nonsensical seems to be confirmed by the fact that neither the wretched Writer nor the wretched Professor enter the Room. It's not because they're not wretched that they don't enter the Room; it's because they're wretched. What's more, it's on this trip that they both seem to come to the realization that they're wretched and how wretched they are.
How that squares with the "logic" of the Zone and/or the Room, I have no idea. But that shit from Stalker about the wretched and the weak and all the rest of it has never made sense to me and seems to be flatly contradicted by the film itself.
I wonder if the Stalker ever entered the Room himself and his daughter was the result? Or, would he ever enter the Room to try and save his daughter's legs? Is he afraid his deepest desire would betray her? So many unanswered questions based on that last scene, I can kind of see why it pisses @Bullitt68 off.Yes, I felt it was definitely centered around faith vs. science or religion vs. secularism and the theme played out over and over during the film when I detailed in the post above. As far as the Stalker being a believer in the power of the room, I think that's true and his daughter even moreso. She moves the glasses just as Jesus said if one had enough faith they could move a mountain. She fits the description of a child coming to the Lord, she is weak and pliant as Stalker described in his prayer while on the way to the Zone, her legs are damaged as well. She's the hope and faith the Stalker is looking for, which is why the glass moves when she commands it to.
Been getting absolutely rinsed to celebrate submitting my dissertation recently
and then I have been moving house.
Bullitt's posts have frightened me, not least the utter dismissal of Solaris
Not to be too harsh but am I the only one who kind of thinks...
There is a glass vibrating across a table in the opening and closing scenes. In the opening scene it looks caused by a train passing by. [...] In the final frame we see Stalker's daughter, "Monkey", moving glasses across the table with her mind, same as we saw in the first scene.
Stalker's wife doesn't want him to obsess about The Zone anymore and she says he will either be dead or in prison and she sobs to which Stalker replies, there are prisons for me everywhere and walks out.
Before they start traveling to the Zone the Professor tells the Writer that they live in a boring world so there can be no telepathy, apparitions, or flying saucers. He says the world is ruled by cast-iron laws and its a shame they are never violated because they don't know how to be violated. It seems like this is a clever one sentence way of saying that the world is dystopian and controlled with an iron fist.
Except for a very small group, everyone dies
When we think we know what we want, we find that we don't know what we want.
Stalker continuously tells the Professor that he can't go back the same way. They can't travel back home the same way, the Professor can't return and get his backpack because nobody returns the same way in the Zone. There is this pervasive idea that the Zone changes each time through it and there is no going back the way you came, not even a little bit. It seems like the idea here is a metaphor about life. We go forward but there is no returning to the past. We go through the path of our life and for each person its different but there is no going back.
Everyone is afraid of their innermost feelings and desires. In the end, it all came down to a question of faith vs. science or secularism.
At its core it is a film about transcendence, or mans longing for it in the face of the finite.
The origins of the Zone are essentially irrelevant.
It might sound like 'idiot philosophy dialogue' (as Bullitt says), and sometimes I agree it can broach on becoming ridiculous (in a way the film kind of references this, where the writer wearily says 'judging by his tone he is going to start sermonizing again...'), but generally I think that there is some interesting philosophy dialogue. But I do also agree that Tarkovsky is most effective when communicating through image itself.
The glacially slow takes are then a means of inducing a state of meditation/contemplation.
The cinematography and long takes have the purpose of attempting to induce the ineffable, in the way Paul Schrader describes as Transcendental Style
Despite what Bullitt says I think it is a masterpiece, one of Tarkovsky's many. I am delighted to read he has come round it at least a bit though
Desire is the root of suffering.
If you fear the result of your deepest desire coming true, then you aren't ready.
Maybe Tyler Durden would have made a better candidate.
They did make it through the Zone, though. Which has me questioning again if the traps are influenced mostly by the Stalker's imagination, and it is his own measure of their worthiness that really matters.
I think the revelation of his daughter throws a completely different light on his role throughout the movie.
So many unanswered questions based on that last scene, I can kind of see why it pisses @Bullitt68 off.
I think the Stalker was trying to say only truly unhappy, hopeless souls are able to accept what the Room offers. Desire is the root of suffering. If you fear the result of your deepest desire coming true, then you aren't ready. Like Porcupine. The Writer and Professor were far too self centered to "let go" completely like that. Maybe Tyler Durden would have made a better candidate.
They did make it through the Zone, though. Which has me questioning again if the traps are influenced mostly by the Stalker's imagination, and it is his own measure of their worthiness that really matters. I think the revelation of his daughter throws a completely different light on his role throughout the movie.
Are you going to try to publish it in a journal or something? Do you have an Academia page where you're going to put it? You've got to pimp that shit now
For all I know, I'm going to think that the original is crap and the remake is amazing
And you don't think that this causes both dramatic and thematic problems for Tarkovsky?
To be fair, as well as to be clear, what I mean by "idiot philosophy dialogue" is not simply that the philosophy being put forth in the dialogue is idiotic. I do mean that for the most part, but more importantly, from the dramatic angle, the "idiot" part comes from how inorganic it is. Compared to someone like Bergman, who masterfully weaves heavy ass ruminations on everything from death to God to love to sex and everything else between and beyond into tightly-plotted narratives with rich and fully fleshed-out characters, Tarkovsky is a painfully inept cine-philosopher.
I know that line of Tarkovsky's that you cite about extending shot lengths well and I can't think of a bigger director fail than that. It's not as preposterous as trying to pass off flicker films as legitimate art, but when the shots drive the story rather than the story driving the shots, you've gone off the rails, and no amount of theoretical gloss will cover over the fact that nobody in their right mind wants to stare at the back of dude's heads.
I actually don't think that Schrader would agree. All of the filmmakers about whom Schrader wrote in conceptualizing a style of film to be referred to as transcendental were focused on narrative. Tarkovsky isn't. In his introduction to the new edition of Transcendental Style in Film, Schrader actually writes about Tarkovsky, and he writes: "Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer, Mizoguchi, De Sica, and the rest used film time to create an emotional or intellectual or spiritual effect. Tarkovsky used film techniques to study time. For Tarkovsky time was not a means to a goal. It was the goal."
Furthermore, he writes that "film techniques are about 'getting there' - telling a story, explaining an action, evoking an emotion - whereas [what he called earlier "the Tarkovsky long shot"] is about 'being there.'" And, most tellingly, he invokes the more recent conception of "slow cinema" to indicate Tarkovsky's distance from transcendental style: "Tarkovsky's work segued from delayed cut to dead time, from transcendental style to slow cinema."
In short, Tarkovsky's work has certain continuities with transcendental style, but its style is not actually transcendental. It's something else. And is, for that, IMO, something worse. It's actually a more pleasurable, even more exciting, viewing experience for me to watch something like Umberto D., or even Jeanne Dielman, precisely because they're narrative-focused and character-driven rather than pure abstractions with stories and characters propped up as excuses to jerk off with the camera.
And, despite what I just wrote implying that it's just Tarkovsky jerking off with the camera, I really did come around to it
Maybe. He seemed to change his mind about them as it went along, though. And then they turned out to be dirty non-believers in the end.But then, based on his breakdown at the end, isn't his "measure of their worthiness" that they're unworthy, in which case, shouldn't they have not made it through the Zone?
I'm not a Buddhist or anything, but I don't think the idea of desire and suffering means you have to give up all earthly desires to be happy. It seems like it's more about humbly accepting what life gives you. Or something.Then wouldn't that make the Room the Room of Suffering? Wouldn't that mean that, far from promising salvation/transcendence/what have you, the Room - and, indeed, the Zone itself - can promise nothing but suffering insofar as it's predicated on desire?
See: This is what happens when you make a film rooted in idiot philosophy
So what's worse: Fearing what you desire or desiring at all? And how is any of this to be reconciled by the Room/Zone?
I dunno, I like it because I'm super edgy. Anyway, this guy is in lockstep with the StalkerSpeaking of films rooted in idiot philosophy:
Well said. The Wife's monologue at the end highlights the message of accepting fate, and she is certainly the most qualified of all the characters. She doesn't even get to escape the dreary world to go frolic in Zone-mud from time to time.Really I would say by the end the character who seems wisest to the situation would be the Stalkers wife, at the end she has an air of confidence none of three men do and ultimately I think highlights that at a very basic level she chose the Stalker because for all his faults he's a decent loving person.
What's the "it looks" about there in the first part and what's the "same as we saw in the first scene" about in the second part? Do you think there's a different source of vibration in the opening scene? Do you think Monkey was the one moving everything? Why? And of what significance would it be if she was? What's going on there with her?
Well said. The Wife's monologue at the end highlights the message of accepting fate, and she is certainly the most qualified of all the characters. She doesn't even get to escape the dreary world to go frolic in Zone-mud from time to time.
When Writer and Professor were talking I mostly turned off the subtitles or rewinded a bit, because they were a bit tiresome characters and Soviet movies often have tons of philosophic contend that get in the way of the aestethic experience. I agree that the movie could be a lot shorter.
When Stalker was dreaming while sleeping in the zone someone was reciting a poem in the backround/in his head. Was is Monkey with some telepathic communication? At least she was using her telekinetic powers in the final scene to move the glasses on the table after reading (the same?) poem.Quick question - Was this really a SciFi film? And if so, how? Which is why I was curious and excited, until old boy actually made it out of bed! And then hung out in a bar. And then walked a long time. And then rode a trolley a long time. And then crawled over some sand boobs. And then crawled into caves...etc
To me this was more post-nuclear annihilation ponderous, somewhat elegant, bleak....
There was a bunch of scifi movies made in USSR in 70's and 80's like Humanoid Woman and Teens in the Universe:Part of why I was disappointed is I wanted to see some good old fashioned late 70s Russian SciFi. Whatever that actually may be.
Building your characters as archetypes with 5 minute monologues is not the only way to write a movie. For me the way the intellectual content is presented in Soviet movies is a bit of a turn-off. I’ve watched a lot of them and love them artistically, but there’s always some boring rants scattered here and there and I’ve grown weary of them. Stalker is very unique though and really well thought out movie leaps and bounds above most. All I’m saying is, that I would have liked it even more with a bit more economical script and with more left to ride with the imagery.Yea but without the dialogue the film loses its meaning. Maybe I don't understand what you mean.
When Stalker was dreaming while sleeping in the zone someone was reciting a poem in the backround/in his head. Was is Monkey with some telepathic communication? At least she was using her telekinetic powers in the final scene to move the glasses on the table after reading (the same?) poem.
I wonder if the Stalker ever entered the Room himself and his daughter was the result? Or, would he ever enter the Room to try and save his daughter's legs? Is he afraid his deepest desire would betray her? So many unanswered questions based on that last scene, I can kind of see why it pisses @Bullitt68 off.
A lot of it would seem really a debate about "inner most desire" and what that might be, Writer basically takes the view that its actually most likely to relate to the darker more selfish parts of the id overriding the more moral personality overlaying them and his guesses about Porcupine do seem likely to be correct.
Really I would say by the end the character who seems wisest to the situation would be the Stalkers wife, at the end she has an air of confidence none of three men do and ultimately I think highlights that at a very basic level she chose the Stalker because for all his faults he's a decent loving person.
I am not sure, it's only MA level (though I was told my BA one might be suitable for certain niche history journals with some editing). But I suppose if I do decide to go down the PHD route it would be worth trying to publish some version of them. Of course, it also depends if it's actually any good or not. Still have to wait until I get my feedback lol.
I do have an academia account though, so I have uploaded it if you are curious (of course I have now noticed a few typos )
https://www.academia.edu/37432519/T...glish_Identity_in_Seventeenth_Century_Ireland
I suppose not, whatever the mysterious origins of the Zone, it's the impact on the characters which is more important.
I do agree with that tbf, it is certainly not natural the way in which people speak in Tarkovsky films, nor is masterfully and deftly woven into some a tightly-plotted coherent narrative. But Tarkovsky isn't intending to depict things naturalistically, so I guess I just see it as less important that it should be organic.
Don't get me wrong it can be boring at first, but that's kind of the point of the quote, as you keep watching it gives way to some other kind of meditative experience. Evidently not for you though
I'm not a Buddhist or anything, but I don't think the idea of desire and suffering means you have to give up all earthly desires to be happy. It seems like it's more about humbly accepting what life gives you. Or something.
I dunno, I like it because I'm super edgy. Anyway, this guy is in lockstep with the Stalker
You task me Bullitt.
The only way I can frame it to make sense is as follows. There is a progression of clues that lead to the final scene where the daughter moves the glasses with her mind. I have no idea if Tarkovsky intended it to be that way. We have to remember that directors are just people too and they make mistakes they don't intend to make.
Stalker tells the Professor, "Give up your empiricism Professor. Miracles are outside empiricism."
2. The Writer puts in his 2 cents by saying, "Remember how St. Peter was nearly drowned?" This is a reference to Matthew chapter 14. Jesus is in a boat with the disciples on the sea of Galilee when a storm arises. Jesus is sleeping in the bottom of the boat and the disciples become frightened that the boat is going to sink and they are all going to die so they wake Jesus up and tell him if you really are the son of God then calm this storm. This is the story when Jesus walks on water. Jesus tells Peter if he has faith, if he believes then he can walk on water as well and Peter does but when he gets close to Jesus out on the water he faith waivers and he begins to sink.
3. Porcupine hangs himself after realizing that only ones innermost wishes come true in the Zone meaning his was for money, not his brother. The Writer tells Stalker, "Render unto Porcupine what is Porcupine's", a direct reference to Jesus saying render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Mark 12:17, And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
The bonus thought here is that if the Zone was initially created by an atomic blast then what good is it to detonate another smaller nuke there like the Professor wanted to do? Just seems like more of the same. The bomb would only be effective if it was true and "the room" had miraculous properties. We don't know for sure but Stalker seems to convince the Professor that the world needs hope. So he doesn't detonate it.
Conclusion: There is an idea and progression of dialogue that moves the viewer toward the final scene with the moving glasses. Monkey still has the hope and faith that Stalker lament's the world has lost and her moving of the glasses is a direct reference to biblical scripture. Stalker's daughter is the hope that he feels is lost. I apologize for the length of this but I can't explain it clearly without including all the details that lead me to believe what I believe.
I have no idea what Tarkovsky really intended