Stalker (1979)
Upon its release the film’s reception was less than favorable. Officials at Goskino, a government group otherwise known as the State Committee for Cinematography, were critical of the film. On being told that Stalker should be faster and more dynamic, Tarkovsky replied:
The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
The Goskino representative then stated that he was trying to give the point of view of the audience. Tarkovsky supposedly retorted:
I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called [Robert] Bresson and one called [Ingmar] Bergman.
Watched the film now. A masterpiece. Probably the best I’ve ever seen. Amazing photography, great direction and dialogue, and most uniquely a deep layer of allegories that actually make a lot of sense, not being too elaborate and spread thin as usual in the films that attempt them.
Several people involved in the film production, including Tarkovsky, died from causes that some crew members attributed to the film’s long shooting schedule in toxic locations.
We were shooting near Tallinn in the area around the small river Jägala with a half-functioning hydroelectric station. Up the river was a chemical plant and it poured out poisonous liquids downstream. There is even this shot in Stalker: snow falling in the summer and white foam floating down the river. In fact it was some horrible poison. Many women in our crew got allergic reactions on their faces. Tarkovsky died from cancer of the right bronchial tube. And Tolya Solonitsyn too. That it was all connected to the location shooting for Stalker became clear to me when Larisa Tarkovskaya died from the same illness in Paris.
The Chernobyl disaster, which occurred seven years after the film was made, led to depopulation in the surrounding area—officially called the “Zone of alienation”—much like the “Zone” of the film. Some of the people employed to take care of the abandoned nuclear power plant refer to themselves as “stalkers”.
Reminding I agree with Tolkien about how (his) creative works should be seen not as allegories, but having applicability — I thought this film was primarily about the relationship of Art, Science and Faith, explored through the three personalizations. The way Writer often went first or was made to go first suggested to me the idea that imagination must precede technological innovation. But the Writer pointed out how Science seems to be unable to produce any meaning and is only capable of supporting the creation and consuming of Art. Both the Writer and the Professor seem to agree that God is not really a necessary part in the process. This could perhaps be seen in how the Stalker guides the two with a silly method of throwing pieces of cloth tied to weights and making the companions walk to where they land. It seems like allegory about the arbitrarity of religion as a guide. On the other hand, by taking the Science and Art on a long detour to their destination is what allows the two to converse with each other and achieve enlightenment.
I think the subtitles I had were somewhat poor, but as I understood it wasn’t conclusively proved one way or the other whether the room had any magic power. I felt like it didn’t have, and the few points indicating otherwise can be explained away:
- The Zone had suffered some kind of environmental catastrophe, perhaps meteor a hit by a meteor as mentioned in the film or something like Chernobyl. Or some kind of war, which would also explain the tanks overgrown by vegetation. The military blockade was simply to protect outsiders from toxics, while not admitting it publicly because it would hurt the country’s image.
- The previous stalker who got rich and hanged himself could have gotten the money from a client.
- At one point the Writer appears to have collapsed for an unknown reason, which the Stalker says is because the Writer went alone against Stalker’s orders. This I cannot explain any better than by saying he tripped and fell.
- The telekinesis in the end isn’t real, it’s just the trains passing by.
The telekinesis scene seemed to be also an allegory about religion. It’s not necessarily as simple as Science bumping in and saying “nope! it was the trains”, but because of the glasses really do seem to move in a very particular pattern it makes me think about how religion often explains things after-the-fact, and how it’s a lot harder to refute it that way. For example take the most amazing emergent things from nature and say “this couldn’t possibly have occured spontaneously, it must be intelligent design and therefore God exists.” These days indeed even the most religious people seem quite ready to drop “antiquated” parts of the religious tradition where science has clearly shown an easier explanation than the supernatural.
One point the film seemed to make about Religion is how the Stalker has an urge to lead and try to make others understand, whereas the Writer goes even as far as to say he only cares about himself. The wife and dog also characterize Religion’s ability to attract followers, although it could never convince Art and Science who are determined to build their own path.