Stalker
Studio: Criterion
Jul 21, 2017 Web Exclusive
For years, Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker has seemed like an inevitable addition to the Criterion Collection library. It lacked a proper release that was easily accessible (I first saw it on a fuzzy YouTube transfer) and Criterion had already released several of Tarkovsky’s films. So it’s about time a decent restoration has become available. Other editions can be found, likely from other regions, but this one could potentially reach a larger audience.
But it’s more than a decent restoration, it’s a near-pristine one. For a film so dependent on its visual storytelling, anything short of stunning would have been a disappointment. Stalker begins in a sepia-toned city that appears to exist in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. It looks almost like someone spilled coffee or whisky on the negative. It sells a sense of desperation and despair, a prevailing undercurrent that remains through the very end. That’s not to suggest Stalker is entirely oppressive in its bleakness, but that it is an ever-present element.
Three men embark on a journey outside of the city to find a place called “The Zone.” The Stalker is the hired guide, and the film’s protagonist. With him are his clientele: the Professor and the Writer. Together, they form a sort of triumvirate. One is a man of God, one a man of science, and the other a man of art and different perceptions of faith and belief carve out each of their ideologies. The build-up plays out like a pulpy science fiction or action adventure film. The first struggle is escaping the city. The government doesn’t want the citizenry to go into “The Zone” for various reasons. Naturally, they make it but the initial journey is full of white-knuckle intensity. Then, as they inch away on a railway car, the pursuant gunshots fade and the cacophony from the city follows suit. Alexander Knyazhinsky’s camera slides in to close-up shots of the characters’ heads – often from behind – as the world around them becomes more silent.
This is followed by what is the most striking moment of the entire film. Previously drowned in brown hues, one cut splashes the screen with lush greens and blues. They’ve made it to “The Zone.” The purpose for their journey, supposedly, is to find “The Room.” Inside, they will be rewarded with their greatest desire, but “The Zone” has a mind of its own according to the Stalker. It may decide someone isn’t worthy, especially if he doesn’t follow the rules that only the Stalker knows.
Stalker is more of a meditation on faith than a plot-driven film. There are extended, dialog-heavy scenes where the characters are asking philosophical, almost rhetorical, questions about the nature of existence and the purpose of the lives they’ve chosen. The Writer, especially, becomes distraught with the notion that his station in the world is pointless and he reacts by acting skeptical and defiant, almost reckless. The Professor is calmer, and begins as the voice of reason when the man of faith (the Stalker) has lost his cache with the panicked Writer. The Professor, however, can’t let go of his belongings after leaving them behind, and himself turns rogue.
While the Stalker assures these men that “The Zone” is all powerful, there is very little they see to back this up. It is mysteriously vague about what is the true nature of “The Zone” and if perhaps the two adventurers are right in doubting their guide’s professed knowledge. Even the Stalker himself has moments where he is clearly in doubt of their journey and also succumb to fear, so it forces the viewer to reckon with the philosophies, ideas, and doubts within constantly.
Such a poetic and philosophical film, full of plenty of extended expository sequences, will ruffle some feathers or be seen as a waste of beautiful cinematography. But that is a somewhat short-sighted way of seeing it. Stalker doesn’t suggest it holds the answers to the universe, it doesn’t even really suggest those answers are worth pursuing, but it does toss around the struggles apparent with this specific line of inquiry – one that may be unavoidable.
The one disappointment in the release is that it is somewhat absent supplements. Though one interview, with cinematographer Knyazhinsky – as well as the accompanying essay written by critic Mark Le Fanu – explain why this may have been the case. The interview was shot in 1996, and by that time the majority of the principles behind the making of Stalker had died, and not at advanced ages. Tarkovsky died in 1986 at the age of 54. Actor Alexander Kaidanovsky died at 49 in 1995. Others involved likewise perished, and alternative footage was lost ages ago.
Stalker remains a landmark in Russian cinema and in Tarkovsky’s filmography. It may not be an easily digestible, but it is incredibly rewarding if you are able to buy into its inquisitive and curious nature, especially about the ephemeral. The lack of special features is forgiven because the ones included are excellent and the restoration is outstanding. Stalker works simultaneously as spectacle and inward theological debate. And while it has some definite Christian overtones – there is a literal crown of thorns – it doesn’t specifically require a Christian perspective or interpretation. It’s the type of film that can be debated, dissected, and discussed for years to come. And I’ve really only scratched the surface.
www.criterion.com/films/28150-stalker
Most Recent
- Seasons (Review) — Pete Jolly
- WFR Central, Derby, UK, March 23, 2024 (Review) — Altern 8, Maria Uzor, Warrington-Runcorn New Town Development Plan, Cholly
- Premiere: Sofia Bolt Shares New Single “Bus Song” Featuring Stella Donnelly (News) — Sofia Bolt
- St. Vincent Shares New Song “Flea” (Feat. Dave Grohl) and Announces New Tour Dates (News) — St. Vincent, Dave Grohl
- Elbow – Guy Garvey on Their 10th Album “AUDIO VERTIGO” (Interview) — Elbow, Guy Garvey
Comments
Submit your comment
August 18th 2017
4:28am
Tips and Tricks Hoow to Win Μore Coins in 8 Ball Pool!