I’ll start here- it’s simply one of the greatest films in the history of cinema
Whether you call it a sci-fi film, a religious film, parable, allegorical, philosophical, it doesn’t really matter—it’s controlling, potent– and the visual rendering by Tarkovsky is his strongest- which puts it up there with the rest of cinema history as the strongest
The casting is also his strongest- all 3 leads are superb but Aleksandr Kaydanovskiy gives a top, all-time level performance
There is mist/steam in nearly every scene just as there is water or dripping water on the soundtrack in almost every scene
The camera is constantly moving- framing with doorways (amongst other things) constantly
There could be a little myth-making here but apparently 3 people on the cast/crew, including Tarkovsky himself, died from the exposure to the on-location shooting chemical/nuclear area—reminds me of the John Wayne death story
Need to verify but according to IMBD trivia an average shot length of 88 seconds
Tarkovsky is credited with his own art direction here- and it might be the best in cinema history—every set is meticulously crafted, gorgeous dirt and decay and detail—it would go on to influence everyone from Jarmusch to cuaron’s children of men—it is damp—broken glass
There’s a distinct yellowish brown hue to the black and white
Bela Tarr would essentially make movies very similar to the opening “pre zone” portion of the film
Gorgeous blocking of the mise en scene here- one in particular is framing the action with a massive piece of wood nearly on top of the action dividing the action
The “zone” section is a wizard of oz-like color reveal—it’s also when the synthesizer score starts
The tunnel sequence set design is amazing
There are religious and political implications and meaning clearly- but also memory
I had read this review and the Tarkovsky director page, but nothing prepared for the effortless elegance of this film. I don’t think I have watched a deeper, more intellectual and philosophical movie than this, or one perhaps where the director’s presence can be felt in such a way. The floating, incessantly moving camera and the framing – SUBLIME.
I watched it again right up to the dream sequence, and confess the meanings of the recurring syringe image and the sequence of ponds with objects were beyond my understanding.
@Aldo and @Azman really sorry, I just watched the first Tarkovsky I could lay my hands on. Definitely will watch Ivan’s childhood next.
@JC. I wouldn’t have started with this one, but hey haha. Are you saying that it was difficult for you?
As I told @Azman, nobody can really prepare you, because nobody makes movies like Tarkovsky, did you enjoy it? I have never seen another movie like this again, I don’t understand many questions either, very deep.
Ivan’s childhood will be very easy for you, after having gone through Stalker
@Aldo – I loved it, enjoyed it, revelled in its glory and even cheated a bit by rewinding just to see how the heck a certain sequence was conjured.
Few sequences viz. the poetry, the sequence I mentioned above, veiled references were definitely beyond me. But I understood more than I expected to anyway, plus, I could always marvel at the shot composition when I couldn’t follow.
Yes you’re right this is a singular, unique style and gosh, the camera movement. Ethereal.
Thanks for your go ahead Drake, wouldn’t have started it without you and these guys?
Drake
August 8, 2020 at 6:24 pm
@JC- well I like that you just found what was available and went ahead! haha. You can always come back to Stalker and 2nd, 3rd…10th time. Never enough for a film like that. And the first viewing is the worst for Stalker and great films like it. Kudos to you.
@Azman – Yep that’s exactly why I apologised, felt bad that I didn’t stick to the lists both of you, kindly, shared. Definitely will watch the rest in the order 🙂
Interesting film series, this episode focuses on Stalker although it mentions that Tarkovsky’s camera apparently broke during the final shot of The Sacrifice lol, the one with the burning house.
The episode also talks about how filming of Stalker likely led to Tarkovsky’s early death considering most of the cast died early
Watched Stalker on Blue Ray on big screen, amazing as always. I have to say though sometimes watching a film like this I almost get a little sad knowing just how unlikely it is for these types of films to be made now a days. And by films like this I mean uber ambitious epics like Apocalypse Now, 2001, Aguirre, the Wrath of God . Obvious there are still great films being made in the 21st Century (There Will Be Blood, Tree of Life) but not as common.
From Roger Ebert’s review of Tree of Life in 2011:
“There were once several directors who yearned to make no less than a masterpiece, but now there are only a few. Malick has stayed true to that hope ever since his first feature in 1973.”
Directors like Coppola, Herzog, and Tarkovsky did more than just take artistic risks they risked their necks making their Masterpieces, especially Herzog. And of course I am not saying I want directors to risk their safety I am just making a point at the type of ambition where someone is willing to put everything on the line. I mean Tarkovsky basically (self) exiled from the Soviet to continue making films.
At the same time I try to be optimistic and films like The Revenant, Midsommar, and Blade Runner 2049 give me hope that their are still filmmakers who have the potential to make huge MPs.
I had read this review and the Tarkovsky director page, but nothing prepared for the effortless elegance of this film. I don’t think I have watched a deeper, more intellectual and philosophical movie than this, or one perhaps where the director’s presence can be felt in such a way. The floating, incessantly moving camera and the framing – SUBLIME.
I watched it again right up to the dream sequence, and confess the meanings of the recurring syringe image and the sequence of ponds with objects were beyond my understanding.
@Aldo and @Azman really sorry, I just watched the first Tarkovsky I could lay my hands on. Definitely will watch Ivan’s childhood next.
@JC. I wouldn’t have started with this one, but hey haha. Are you saying that it was difficult for you?
As I told @Azman, nobody can really prepare you, because nobody makes movies like Tarkovsky, did you enjoy it? I have never seen another movie like this again, I don’t understand many questions either, very deep.
Ivan’s childhood will be very easy for you, after having gone through Stalker
@Aldo – I loved it, enjoyed it, revelled in its glory and even cheated a bit by rewinding just to see how the heck a certain sequence was conjured.
Few sequences viz. the poetry, the sequence I mentioned above, veiled references were definitely beyond me. But I understood more than I expected to anyway, plus, I could always marvel at the shot composition when I couldn’t follow.
Yes you’re right this is a singular, unique style and gosh, the camera movement. Ethereal.
@JC_ great work here- thanks for sharing your comments!
Thanks for your go ahead Drake, wouldn’t have started it without you and these guys?
@JC- well I like that you just found what was available and went ahead! haha. You can always come back to Stalker and 2nd, 3rd…10th time. Never enough for a film like that. And the first viewing is the worst for Stalker and great films like it. Kudos to you.
@JC I’m confused-haha. What exactly are you apologizing to me for?
Now that you have seen stalker, I guess you could see any other Tarkovsky film since you’ve seen and liked his ‘style’ of filmmaking.
Because it didn’t start with Ivan’s childhood haha.
I do not like to brag @Azman, but @JC gave me the reason that his style (Tarkovsky) is unique haha
Haha. That made me laugh. Its true though. Tarkovsky has a unique style.
@Azman – Yep that’s exactly why I apologised, felt bad that I didn’t stick to the lists both of you, kindly, shared. Definitely will watch the rest in the order 🙂
[…] Stalker – Tarkovsky […]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhK7hMBli4s
Interesting film series, this episode focuses on Stalker although it mentions that Tarkovsky’s camera apparently broke during the final shot of The Sacrifice lol, the one with the burning house.
The episode also talks about how filming of Stalker likely led to Tarkovsky’s early death considering most of the cast died early
Watched Stalker on Blue Ray on big screen, amazing as always. I have to say though sometimes watching a film like this I almost get a little sad knowing just how unlikely it is for these types of films to be made now a days. And by films like this I mean uber ambitious epics like Apocalypse Now, 2001, Aguirre, the Wrath of God . Obvious there are still great films being made in the 21st Century (There Will Be Blood, Tree of Life) but not as common.
From Roger Ebert’s review of Tree of Life in 2011:
“There were once several directors who yearned to make no less than a masterpiece, but now there are only a few. Malick has stayed true to that hope ever since his first feature in 1973.”
Directors like Coppola, Herzog, and Tarkovsky did more than just take artistic risks they risked their necks making their Masterpieces, especially Herzog. And of course I am not saying I want directors to risk their safety I am just making a point at the type of ambition where someone is willing to put everything on the line. I mean Tarkovsky basically (self) exiled from the Soviet to continue making films.
At the same time I try to be optimistic and films like The Revenant, Midsommar, and Blade Runner 2049 give me hope that their are still filmmakers who have the potential to make huge MPs.