my favorite thing about the film, is how the characters themselves never enter the room ... but we do. the camera pans back into it as they're staring at it, and then the colors change & the rain begins to fall. it's such an incredible scene.
I can't describe how this movie made me feel, its like waking up from a long lucid dream and still keeping your eyes closed so you don't forget it. If that even makes sense lol
This is one of the best slow burning, and suspense building films. It Def is a movie you can't look away from because the tension makes you feel like if you blink you'll miss something
I just finished watching Stalker and I had to look into it explained further. You absolutely nailed that and I still feel an experience even after watching it as you said, such an amazing film and can't wait to explore the rest of Tarkovsky's work! Thanks a lot for this video
Tarkovsky's films are like entering a temple of art where you are drawn in to contemplate life's mysteries. They surround you with all the elements of artistic creativity and slow you down so you can let your mind and soul experience another world. But this world is always rooted in human life, it's yearnings, loneliness, spiritual desire, memories, dreams. I have loved his films since I first saw The Mirror and seen them all many times except for his last The Sacrifice. Eduard Artemyev's electronic score in this film is to me one of the most haunting I've ever heard. I chanced upon a Cd of it one time and really enjoy hearing it and remembering the scenes that match up with the music and soundscape.
After experiencing Andrei Tarkovsky's film "Stalker" for the first time I couldn't stop thinking about it's atmosphere and it's real world parallels to Chernobyl. For an entire week this film inspired me and gave me so many new ideas for screenplays that I would find myself writing notes down while I was at work .
I first watched Stalker or some part of it as a child, probably aged 8 or 9, when it was on TV. I did not know the title of the film and had no clue what it was about. But I've never forgotten how it made me feel, even to this day. I tried to rewatch it as an adult but couldn't, as I remembered nothing. Just the atmosphere, which I guess is ungooglable. I finally found it at the age of 35, just stumbling upon some screenshots while browsing the web. Have watched it several times since. So, for me personally, Stalker is at whole other level of "haunting"
She was really good in “Mirror”👍 It’s actually really annoying as this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this error from a review of the works of Andrei Tarkovsky.
you said all : it is a movie to feel , direct made to the soul. I didn’t understand many things until i stop, read the synopsis or rewind. However i watched it like hearing music, and that’s already great. One can simply watch again.
Although there were times I disagreed with Roger Ebert, his words on Tarkovsky's approach to "Stalker" was pretty spot on to my own experience from watching the movie. I make a point of rewatching "Stalker" at least twice a year. Regarding Kubrick, I can see why Tarkovsky didn't like "2001" because it supported evolution. Where as Tarkovsky, as a Christian, would be offended by such an idea. Regardless, Tarkovsky is a brilliant filmmaker. I recently rewatched "Stalker", and I've since started queueing up Tarkovsky's other films. I'm watching "The Mirror" next. Thanks for your video. It was very well done.
I like this analysis because I can’t say I liked Stalker, but I far from hate it. It has sat in my mind every day from when I watched it a week ago. It’s a interesting film that make me feel like I was along with the writer and the professor, the long drawn out shots that let me think for myself the opinions of the zone and what the others were feeling. Good video love it
I felt the same way about Stalker and Solaris the first time I saw both movies. Repeat viewings take away some of the tension in Tarkovsky’s films but it lets you become more immersed in the atmosphere without worrying about what might be around the corner.
Does his daughter have 'special abilities', or is it the vibrations of the train going by? That is the question. You ought to read 'Zona': A book about a film about a journey to a room' by Geoff Dyer (if you haven't already). It's a wonderful personal perspective about the power of this film, a film that I too, adore. Thanks for your insightful assessment.
Was there any actual magic of the zone or could everything be explained and faith placed in it? The nut floating.. I couldn't tell because you couldn't see the top. Was it meant to be floating or was it stuck in a tree? When the man got ahead of them looking for his napsack... Was that just a shortcut in the caves? The indoor rain, was that just a hole in the roof? Natural light was coming through it and the place is decayed. Were all of these things meant to be both possible and impossible depending on your view? Or did I miss details.
I read it in some reddit post that the scene where the writer stalker and professor were sitting on the ground refusing to enter the room is where the camera is and where Tarkovsky places us. We were, the audience were in the room and looking at the three of them. So what was your wish?
Man honestly i didn't even understand the movie completely but atmosphere of the movie , rawness natural sounds ,shots especially when dog walks up in to the water .it kept me hooked & brought me to another reality another life without worries, & all just the moment
@@vipan1231 This is what Tarkovsky does. Every movie of his is dream like. So calm and meditating, like a poetry. And even though there are different interpretations of the film and whatever but the thing is that this film effects everyone differently.
@@pritpalsingh3609 how did you perceive it. Like my experience was near similiar to this video interpreter .i loved when the other director said arts ain't meant to have meaning neither life has one. It was physiological fantasy trip for me .these artworks pushes the bar too high for people like who hardly watch movies anyway & make question modern aesthetic cities shooting & all which hardly kick emotion rush but focus on context structure .i.e one atmosphere representative shot when train walk by & they walk on in their cart
During my first watch I didn't even pay full attention to the plot. This was my first Tarkovsky film so when the film begin I immediately knew it's gonna be something I've never seen before. I just got dissolved in the poetry and deep conversations the characters were having and the slowing moving shots. But I think this movie more of a quest for humans. The stalker represents us and the this movie is shown through the perspective of art and science i.e. the writer and the scientist.
I wouldn't even enjoy his movies so much, if it wasn't for the absolute, mind-blowing genius of his skill. How tf do his movies look like they look? Tarkovsky is probably the most talented director that ever existed. Unmatched vision and talent.
Man! I was trying to understand this movie since I watched it, it'd been months but I was not even near of understanding it. But today your video helped me a lot and that tarkovsky quote is the thing that singularly made me understand what tarkovsky wanted to say. An advice from me, those who want to understand Tarkovsky must read Dostoevsky. Why? Because: "Dostoevsky could be understood as the whole point of what I want to do in Cinema" ~ Tarkovsky himself. Especially if you want to understand Stalker, you should read Notes From Underground. That man is also a faith lacking Nihilist.
My first Tarkovsky film was Nostalghia. I sought it out because a clip from it is used in the game, "The Witness." I was compelled by what I saw (the scene where he walks the candle back and forth through the empty bath) and felt that I might understand the reason for its use in the game better by watching it. It sort of did help somewhat but the film itself was mesmerizing. I decided to then consider seeing more of his films with my latest being Stalker which I only saw about a week ago. I can't get it out of my head either and I even had a strange dream about it too where I was on my own journey to the room. His films don't follow American templates and why should or would they? People that criticize his films for lacking things typical of American movies perhaps do not consider this.
First watched this movie when I was 14 or 15, in early 90s. Since then I watched it from time to time a dozen of times, maybe even more. I generally enjoyed the atmosphere and scenes, did not spend to much to name what it is telling. Then I thought about many things from time to time when I thought about the film.
I watched Stalker for the first time ever the day after my most recent ketamine therapy session. I’ve done psychedelic therapy for the last two years and it has completely transformed my perspective on just about everything. So when I went into this movie, I felt the expanse of it beyond just the film itself. It was deeply profound. I savored every moment of every shot, felt every word in my bones. The final scene however, I did not vibe with. I did not find it much different than the implications Kubrick had with the ending of 2001, but that’s esoteric filmmaking for you. It’s often the same message being repackaged differently. Trace it down to the root, might not like what you find.
I must've been 18 when I watched "Stalker" for the last time, gotta watch it again... every cell in my body already went through the 7 year cycle of renewal - I'm a different person now, even before I press the "Comment" button.
Tarkovsky said that he hated 2001 because it’s a such a beautiful movie, that was supposed to be a compliment. He didn’t hated it, how can anyone hate that movie ??
2001 pioneers the evolution of man to technology. Tarkovsky pioneers the evolution of the soul in a lifetime. It's man vs. nature. The two are at polar opposites.
A deep intelligence and insight of yourself and life is essential to understand Tarkovsky. I suggest that to understand Tarkovsky, you should read and listen J. Krishnamurti. He also advices to stop thinking and just Observe whatever is happening. Not trying to justify it, not trying to decide whether it is right or wrong, not trying to make a sense of it but to just Observe it. Because Observation is real understanding and thought is just a distraction.
when they speak about the wrath of the lamb, that makes me think of a new world untouched by humanity. The industrial world is dirty in black and white, and the noise of trains is contrasted with the quite and serene sounds of the Room. I’ve heard others say Monkey represents the second coming, and I agree with them.
Not sure how sound can create tension in someone who's already completely overcome by boredom. The pacing completely overwrote anything else I might have been feeling.
This was the way i interpreted the film the first time i watched it. I think when it comes to faith/spirituality, stalker, the character, represents our own spiritual journey. In the scene towards the end, when he pleads his case to his wife as he is on the bed, he says that people are just intellectuals, never using their imagination, or something along those lines. There are also a lot of references to the bible, something i highly recommend everyone to do, even if youre not a person of any religious affiliation. Just read it like pure poetry. The passage he references when the two men who are on the road to emmaus dont realize that jesus is with them. But at some point when he begins to break bread after he reads them moses and all the prophets, that's when they realize who jesus is. I think what Tarkobsky is saying is that these "esoteric" knowledges that we seek are innate to us. The room represents our very own true cosmic nature. Our subconscious. Our spirits. The writer and the professor represents the part of our nature that tries to keep us from this driving force that gives us hope, meaning, faith. Whatever you want to call it. Spirituality. God. Art. Imagination. In the end, the child is seen moving objects with her mind because a child is constantly in that state. The child was mutated/transformed by the "zone". Thats what Tarkovsky hopes we find. For us to be transformed by that zone. Or God, himself. I am sure that i am missing a lot but that's the basic gist of it.
I've only watched the film once but was interested enough to research deeper before I watch it again. In regards to kubrick I wonder if he isn't actually overrated? Much as I love 2001 it feels like the ending was cobbled together and much of its appeal is only from the music and the jupiter mission section. The ending of this film makes you want to go back and start the journey again.
so i understand that the professor didn't end up bombing the zone because he realized the room doesn't fulfill explicit desires but rather what u want deep inside. but what if someone's true deep desire really is something destructive and evil? i still am confused about why he chose not to bomb the room. doesn't the room still have the capacity to lead to villainous and nefarious outcomes?
Actually, the writer responded to that saying that people in general are very simple and naive, their biggest desires would be getting reach, famous, etc., almost no one deep inside would ever wish to destroy humanity.
@@thefilminformer Ah cool. I'll drop you a subscribe then! I really enjoyed both films, similar existential themes in both of them and Max Von Sydow is a legend of cinema.
Thank you for watching! What I meant by that was that the director, his wife, and Anatoly Solonitsyn (who played the writer) all died in the years following the films release. I talk about this in the video in more detail.
when we see such movies, especially today - we realize - that american movies have no patience, little character and time, when compared to non-american movies ...
@@thefilminformer why cant he "read the book" ? it was translated, you can even easily find and "steal" audiobook from the internet "roadside picnic", movie is only vaguely connected to the movie, movie was inspired by the book but they have almost no plot connection (if any at all); book is definately a must-read, personally i like it alot more than this movie
Actually that’s exactly why Stanislaw Lem, the author of Solaris, hated Tarkovsky’s version so much: Lem’s novel is about The Forever Unknown, that will stay this way, however hard we try. We have no tools to understand it and believing in it drives you crazy, you will only sink deeper in your own fears, crazy ideas and imperfections, but you will never connect, you will never understand. The idea wasn’t religious at all, actually just the opposite - there’s no way of understanding The Unknown, and calling it “God” is simplifying it. Same with Roadside Picnic, it’s a sci-fi story with barely any religious themes in it, they’re rather metaphysical. But Tarkovsky made both movies about The Unknown that is MAYBE God. But he doesn’t specify, thankfully. It’s just there for you to interpret.
Stalker (1979): In fact, the 3 people's journey in the movie goes back to the origins of human history but with religious color, every step they take in the Zone is a period of history. Zone suddenly appeared 20 years ago - 20 centuries. On each path, even back to the past, you should pay attention to the front and back position of each character. However, first we need to make it clear that the Stalker character named "The Hedgehog" is "who"? It is a people, the nation of this people collapsed in the middle ages (meat millers), then they exiled, they became rich, they supported a united empire and then later This empire turned to chase and kill them, this was nothing more than tying the noose on its own. Going back on the journey, it is not difficult to recognize the first paragraph where the old tanks are the symbols of the two world wars, now "science" comes first, "philosophy" follows, and finally " religion". The "enlightenment" period: philosophy and religion fought - Stalker threw the iron bar at Writer. The "renaissance" period: 3 characters gathered together, but Writer went to the "room" and returned, when he was ridiculed by the Professor as "Mr Shakespeare" - the writer representing the time. Renaissance period. The transition from medieval to renaissance: when Stalker and Writer go together and return to the Professor, marked by Dante's work of God Khuc (hell, purgatory, heaven) - where The intersection of philosophy and religion, details in the film may show that.... go to my website chi-blog(.)com, you will have answers about Andrei Tarkovsky movies
Excellent film, very nice analysis. Thx. Film is loosely based on this novel: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic (PS Never pronunce "especially" EX-specially - or "espresso, EX-presso! 😉)
Seen 6-7 reviews of "Stalker", that's the first one that gets it right. Which is quite strange, considering the fundamental idea is so simple. Unless you're stuffed to the brim with all sorts of ideologies and political propaganda. Which is the case for most people nowadays, I guess. Once you're trapped it's kinda tough to find your way out of this maze, life is too short for that. If you're born into Matrix you'll most likely die in the Matrix. And then there's those few lucky ones, looking at this strange carnival from the outside. Strange world, very strange. Btw, there's no radioactive poisoning in the area where Tarkovsky shoot the film. I've been in this area, I'm afraid it's just one of those urban legends. Quite a lot of chemical pollution though. So it's sort of roughly in the ballpark, or at least close. Unfortunately, up close the reality often tends to turn out somewhat less sexy/mysterious than it looks like from the distance.
I try my best to keep personal ideologies out of my film reviews, of course that's easier said then done. I'm proud of this video though and thanks for your kind words. Also, I believe you about the radiation. I did my research and with the creepy deaths of all the filmmakers it seemed to point to that conclusion but life is full of coincidence.
@@thefilminformer Oh no no, I don't think all those deaths were just a coincidence. Poison can kill you just as easily as radiation. Well that and too much smoking, probably... maybe I was too harsh about ideologies. Maybe all the difference is to have the right one, to have the key that opens this specific door. Who knows? Anyway, they don't seem to have the key, that much is clear.
@@vmasing1965 The theory about their deaths has nothing to do with radiation, it is merely speculating that the chemical runoff in the water at the time might have had something to do with all of them developing the same form of cancer later in life.
@@acaustik8763 Right. Yes. That's basically what I was saying too. The radiation was also mentioned, and I happen to know the area. So, I thought a little fact-check wouldn't hurt.
When I state my favourite film directors, Tarkovsky is always mentioned. Kubrick? Well, sometimes. I love Tarkovsky while I have conflicted feelings about Kubrick. It is not the godlessness that bothers me. It is the emotionlessness and cynicism of his works. As much as I love thought-provoking-ness, I also think the purpose of arts and entertainment is to make us feel humans. I can definitely be cynical at times.... and I hate it. I wish I can get rid of the cynicism in me.
I love this video and how passionate you are. My only comment is that you should learn to pronounce “Tarkovsky” and “Solaris.” Tarkovsky is now Polish, so it’s not “tar-COW-sky.” It’s more “tar-kOV-ski.”
Tarkovsky is not for the meek or faint-hearted. In his silent, seemingly meandering visions on film, he captures the imagination of his viewers from the first second of his scenic voyage. There is no other filmmaker, none . . . who grabs the viewer from the first second and forces him or her to wonder . . .! Oftentimes, it is just sheer confusion at what is happening on the screen, but more often it is the sheer visual beauty of what he has filmed. (I almost think Tarkovsky should be a silent film-maker!) Sound, however, is a tapestry of meaning in his films and he is a genius in how he uses sound to capture the imagination of the viewer. I feel that when his characters start to talk, the film ebbs and the salient import of what he is trying to establish is compromised. Yes, he is a religious film-maker, but when his characters get philosophical (religious), his Russian Orthodox moralistic attitudes rear their ugly head and obscure the poetry of his film. Poetry is about wonder and uncertainty. Religion is about certainty and implying that life is about making moralistic decisions. Meanwhile the landscape of Tarkovsky's films is about poetry, about philosophy and moralistic certainties that most religions foster just distracts from the beauty of Tarkovsky's films. In Russia, there is no individualism. Everything must be explained to the "powers that be". Everything must be defended. Tarkovsky lost his life because of the stupidity of a government who despised its people. It is a shame that he couldn't make films showing the reality of being a Russian whose government basically destroyed the "poetry" of life. Maybe this is what he is showing about "the Zone" and if I see the movie again, I will get his message. Unfortunately, Tarkovsky need to be clear about the evils of his government and how it was the antithesis of poetry and philosophy! He needed to be loud and clear about what his government was doing to his people and ultimately to him and his wife.
You don't know anything about Russia and its people.The history of Russia is so complex, tragic and diverse,it has so many peoples and destinies that you just can not imagine,and there would not have been Tarkovsky,if not for his father ,homeland,language,thinking.And in the bad USSR, he shot the best movies,and in Europe he died of homesickness.
There is no individualism in Russia?sorry, but it's not the Russians who are crying massively for a dead criminal, smiling and pretending that everything is OK
@@KatMark. I agree that I am no authority on anything. However, your defense of Russia's evil treatment of its people through the last century and even its present criminal leader Putin's evil control of his people, is baffling! Let's face it: Russia was not good for its people and acting like we should not judge them for this is stupid! My picture of composer Dimitri Shostakovich spending the night sleeping in a chair in case the KCB came for him and he didn't want to bother his family captures the kind of cruelty (both visible and invisible) that Russia exerted on its people. Yes, terror can produce its own kind of art, but Tarkovsky would have been better off making movies as an American. His homesickness for his horrible, treacherous, and evil country was stupid!
@Kat Mark re your remark: ". . .crying massively for a dead criminal, smiling and pretending that everything is OK" Kat Mark, you are racist!! Yes, the history of Russia is complex, but it is quite obvious that Communism absolutely destroyed the country and to think that the typical Russian citizen has any kind of validity in the eyes of its government is to be blindly patriotic and thinking like the peasants did under the Czar. Guess what? Stalin did not die. His present name is Putin. The artists of Russia are unique (Tarkovsky?) and some of the greatest on the face of the earth. However, how could Tarkovsky miss a country who basically killed his wife and he. Please check his biography because you sound like a generalizer about Russia and Tarkovsky. You need to get the facts!
@Griseo Hominem What's your point here? There isn't a section where Tarkovsky reflects his faith as a Christian. He's rather pushing the idea of spirituality and problems with faith. If I got the correct translation from Russian.
I agree, Kubrick makes beautiful works, but to me they lack depth and emotion like you said. They are cold and distant almost like staring at a painting through a computer screen. As well as mechanical, everything feels very robotic. Everything has to be perfectly aligned, he seems to be worried more about aesthetic then substance.. While like you said they have similar styles, Tarkovsky uses similar techniques but he isn't as worried about perfection, unless it perfectly captures the emotion he is trying to convey. Tarkovsky's films always leave me with this small glimmer of hope in what seems to be a bleak and futile world. While Kubrick's films just reinforce those feelings of futility. Both great filmmakers, but Tarkovsky takes the W for me. His films have made me ponder far longer and in greater depth into our struggle with the human condition then any of Kubrick's films. Stalker blew my mind on first viewing. I had never seen anything quite like it, and I watch a lot of old and foreign films. There are few other filmmakers who create atmosphere like Tarkovsky in my opinion, for example Bergman, Antonioni, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Malick, and Fellini. Great video though man. Keep it up.
@@HAL--gb6uf agreed, I feel a lot of people feel the need to attempt to give a take that doesn’t make sense about him in order to lift up other masters.
RE-VER-IE, not RE-VERE. Those are two different words with two completely different meanings. STALKER is a low-budget film that does exactly the opposite of what everyone so easily thinks is cinematic law. It tells, through endless dialogue, instead of showing. Now, that dictum is bogus, because JAWS, which so many "show don't tell" acolytes REVERE does exactly this in everyone's favorite scene, Quint telling about the sinking of the Indianapolis. Spielberg lets Rober Shaw TELL the scene, because they couldn't have afforded to SHOW the scene. Given the cinematic technology available in 1978, even in Soviet Russia, there's so much more that could have been done to convey the notions in STALKER. Even the weakest Nicholas Roeg film is a great place to start. STALKER is not so much a boring film as it's an overly stretched out film that talks too much and shows very little.
04:05 You are wrong... this movie doesn't keep the audience on guard... From the moment these guys reach The Zone, you know nothing's going to happen... Anyone with 1% of common sense knows that Tarkovski was too lazy to make anything interesting happen in The Zone... Why do that? It's easier to show us water and rusty pipes and crap... Bunch of cowards didn't even dare to enter The Zone... just as Tarkovski didn't have the guts to give us, the audience, something interesting happening...
Du solltest über einen solchen Film nicht sprechen, das ist eine poetische Welt die sich Menschen aus den kulturlosen Staaten nicht erschliesst. Jedes Wort ist zu viel: Verschwendung.
No, the movie was disappointing. I don’t think much can be learnt from this to be honest. It’s a good metaphor about religion but not a cinema master piece
After a film is over, still its atmosphere will linger....
True.
Good films are like engines. The metal stays hot even after it's no longer in motion.
watch threads, holy is that statement true for that film
my favorite thing about the film, is how the characters themselves never enter the room ... but we do. the camera pans back into it as they're staring at it, and then the colors change & the rain begins to fall. it's such an incredible scene.
The comparison between Kubrick and Tarkovsky through religion is spot on. Definitely gave me the clarity that I was searching for about the movie.
agreed. And explains why one is known by all the public and the other an unknown. Kubrick fits the narrative
It is a perfect cosmic horror movie, which in my opinion directly influenced the Annihilation.
💯
I can't describe how this movie made me feel, its like waking up from a long lucid dream and still keeping your eyes closed so you don't forget it. If that even makes sense lol
Makes total sense to me. That's why I really like Stalker. It gives me a dream like experience every time I watch it.
I regularly have lucid dreams whenever I get dreams, very relatable (I haven't watched the movie though).
@@shira_yone its a one a kind experience. I highly recommend watching it alone and in a quiet place.
@@MrDrezzy007 I will, thanks
This is one of the best slow burning, and suspense building films. It Def is a movie you can't look away from because the tension makes you feel like if you blink you'll miss something
I just finished watching Stalker and I had to look into it explained further. You absolutely nailed that and I still feel an experience even after watching it as you said, such an amazing film and can't wait to explore the rest of Tarkovsky's work! Thanks a lot for this video
Thanks for the kind words!
thefilminformer youre welcome
This movie completely bedazzled me. I literally sat for like 5mins after staring at the screen feeling like wtf just happened, but in a good way😄
Tarkovsky's films are like entering a temple of art where you are drawn in to contemplate life's mysteries. They surround you with all the elements of artistic creativity and slow you down so you can let your mind and soul experience another world. But this world is always rooted in human life, it's yearnings, loneliness, spiritual desire, memories, dreams. I have loved his films since I first saw The Mirror and seen them all many times except for his last The Sacrifice. Eduard Artemyev's electronic score in this film is to me one of the most haunting I've ever heard. I chanced upon a Cd of it one time and really enjoy hearing it and remembering the scenes that match up with the music and soundscape.
not to mention its so awesome and artful without falling into the trap of pretentiousness that so many art films do.
@@kg7219 yes seriously , tarkovsky is everything.
Reverie, (reh-ver-ee). A state of being pleasantly lost in a muse. Sort of a musical term too suggesting a dream-like, fantasy inspired state.
After experiencing Andrei Tarkovsky's film "Stalker" for the first time I couldn't stop thinking about it's atmosphere and it's real world parallels to Chernobyl. For an entire week this film inspired me and gave me so many new ideas for screenplays that I would find myself writing notes down while I was at work .
*its
I first watched Stalker or some part of it as a child, probably aged 8 or 9, when it was on TV. I did not know the title of the film and had no clue what it was about. But I've never forgotten how it made me feel, even to this day. I tried to rewatch it as an adult but couldn't, as I remembered nothing. Just the atmosphere, which I guess is ungooglable. I finally found it at the age of 35, just stumbling upon some screenshots while browsing the web. Have watched it several times since. So, for me personally, Stalker is at whole other level of "haunting"
The actress is NOT Larisa Tarkovskays. It is Margarita Terehova. She still is alive.
She was really good in “Mirror”👍 It’s actually really annoying as this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this error from a review of the works of Andrei Tarkovsky.
Awesome video it deserves way more appreciation
you said all : it is a movie to feel , direct made to the soul. I didn’t understand many things until i stop, read the synopsis or rewind. However i watched it like hearing music, and that’s already great. One can simply watch again.
Although there were times I disagreed with Roger Ebert, his words on Tarkovsky's approach to "Stalker" was pretty spot on to my own experience from watching the movie. I make a point of rewatching "Stalker" at least twice a year. Regarding Kubrick, I can see why Tarkovsky didn't like "2001" because it supported evolution. Where as Tarkovsky, as a Christian, would be offended by such an idea. Regardless, Tarkovsky is a brilliant filmmaker. I recently rewatched "Stalker", and I've since started queueing up Tarkovsky's other films. I'm watching "The Mirror" next. Thanks for your video. It was very well done.
I like this analysis because I can’t say I liked Stalker, but I far from hate it. It has sat in my mind every day from when I watched it a week ago. It’s a interesting film that make me feel like I was along with the writer and the professor, the long drawn out shots that let me think for myself the opinions of the zone and what the others were feeling. Good video love it
Thanks for the kind words. Tarkovsky isn't for everyone but Stalker has a wonderful way of seducing it's audience
@@thefilminformer is it availabe hindi dubbed anywhere??
I felt the same way about Stalker and Solaris the first time I saw both movies. Repeat viewings take away some of the tension in Tarkovsky’s films but it lets you become more immersed in the atmosphere without worrying about what might be around the corner.
Does his daughter have 'special abilities', or is it the vibrations of the train going by? That is the question. You ought to read 'Zona': A book about a film about a journey to a room' by Geoff Dyer (if you haven't already). It's a wonderful personal perspective about the power of this film, a film that I too, adore. Thanks for your insightful assessment.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.
@@thefilminformer I was disappointed that his daughter was not a literal monkey.
SHE MOVES THE GLASSS WITH HER MIND IF I SAY SHE DOES
Shes a product of the zone. Shes in color at the end just like when they are in the zone. Everything else is sepia. Shes moving it.
Was there any actual magic of the zone or could everything be explained and faith placed in it? The nut floating.. I couldn't tell because you couldn't see the top. Was it meant to be floating or was it stuck in a tree? When the man got ahead of them looking for his napsack... Was that just a shortcut in the caves? The indoor rain, was that just a hole in the roof? Natural light was coming through it and the place is decayed. Were all of these things meant to be both possible and impossible depending on your view? Or did I miss details.
I read it in some reddit post that the scene where the writer stalker and professor were sitting on the ground refusing to enter the room is where the camera is and where Tarkovsky places us. We were, the audience were in the room and looking at the three of them. So what was your wish?
Man honestly i didn't even understand the movie completely but atmosphere of the movie , rawness natural sounds ,shots especially when dog walks up in to the water .it kept me hooked & brought me to another reality another life without worries, & all just the moment
@@vipan1231 This is what Tarkovsky does. Every movie of his is dream like. So calm and meditating, like a poetry. And even though there are different interpretations of the film and whatever but the thing is that this film effects everyone differently.
@@pritpalsingh3609 how did you perceive it. Like my experience was near similiar to this video interpreter .i loved when the other director said arts ain't meant to have meaning neither life has one. It was physiological fantasy trip for me .these artworks pushes the bar too high for people like who hardly watch movies anyway & make question modern aesthetic cities shooting & all which hardly kick emotion rush but focus on context structure .i.e one atmosphere representative shot when train walk by & they walk on in their cart
During my first watch I didn't even pay full attention to the plot. This was my first Tarkovsky film so when the film begin I immediately knew it's gonna be something I've never seen before. I just got dissolved in the poetry and deep conversations the characters were having and the slowing moving shots. But I think this movie more of a quest for humans. The stalker represents us and the this movie is shown through the perspective of art and science i.e. the writer and the scientist.
That the movie would end
10:02 a clarification: the actress is Margarita Terekhova
I realized this after making the video but thank you for the knowledge!
I wouldn't even enjoy his movies so much, if it wasn't for the absolute, mind-blowing genius of his skill. How tf do his movies look like they look? Tarkovsky is probably the most talented director that ever existed. Unmatched vision and talent.
Man! I was trying to understand this movie since I watched it, it'd been months but I was not even near of understanding it. But today your video helped me a lot and that tarkovsky quote is the thing that singularly made me understand what tarkovsky wanted to say.
An advice from me, those who want to understand Tarkovsky must read Dostoevsky. Why? Because:
"Dostoevsky could be understood as the whole point of what I want to do in Cinema" ~ Tarkovsky himself.
Especially if you want to understand Stalker, you should read Notes From Underground. That man is also a faith lacking Nihilist.
In total agreement....Tarkovsky Rules!
Solaris, Mirror and Stalker are absolute incomparable Masterpieces!
When I watched this movie yesterday, I felt like I was living in it. There are only a handful of movies I’ve watched that have sucked me in like that.
Agreed!
Dude, you stole every word out of my mouth and mind!
My first Tarkovsky film was Nostalghia. I sought it out because a clip from it is used in the game, "The Witness." I was compelled by what I saw (the scene where he walks the candle back and forth through the empty bath) and felt that I might understand the reason for its use in the game better by watching it. It sort of did help somewhat but the film itself was mesmerizing. I decided to then consider seeing more of his films with my latest being Stalker which I only saw about a week ago. I can't get it out of my head either and I even had a strange dream about it too where I was on my own journey to the room. His films don't follow American templates and why should or would they? People that criticize his films for lacking things typical of American movies perhaps do not consider this.
First watched this movie when I was 14 or 15, in early 90s. Since then I watched it from time to time a dozen of times, maybe even more. I generally enjoyed the atmosphere and scenes, did not spend to much to name what it is telling. Then I thought about many things from time to time when I thought about the film.
This is the best video about Stalker that I watched
I watched Stalker for the first time ever the day after my most recent ketamine therapy session. I’ve done psychedelic therapy for the last two years and it has completely transformed my perspective on just about everything. So when I went into this movie, I felt the expanse of it beyond just the film itself. It was deeply profound. I savored every moment of every shot, felt every word in my bones.
The final scene however, I did not vibe with. I did not find it much different than the implications Kubrick had with the ending of 2001, but that’s esoteric filmmaking for you. It’s often the same message being repackaged differently. Trace it down to the root, might not like what you find.
My favorite movie. Great analysis.
Great video thank you.
great video, thanks.
I must've been 18 when I watched "Stalker" for the last time, gotta watch it again... every cell in my body already went through the 7 year cycle of renewal - I'm a different person now, even before I press the "Comment" button.
Tarkovsky said that he hated 2001 because it’s a such a beautiful movie, that was supposed to be a compliment. He didn’t hated it, how can anyone hate that movie ??
I think he hated 2001 because from his perspective it was devoid of meaning.
2001 pioneers the evolution of man to technology. Tarkovsky pioneers the evolution of the soul in a lifetime. It's man vs. nature. The two are at polar opposites.
A deep intelligence and insight of yourself and life is essential to understand Tarkovsky. I suggest that to understand Tarkovsky, you should read and listen J. Krishnamurti. He also advices to stop thinking and just Observe whatever is happening. Not trying to justify it, not trying to decide whether it is right or wrong, not trying to make a sense of it but to just Observe it. Because Observation is real understanding and thought is just a distraction.
when they speak about the wrath of the lamb, that makes me think of a new world untouched by humanity. The industrial world is dirty in black and white, and the noise of trains is contrasted with the quite and serene sounds of the Room. I’ve heard others say Monkey represents the second coming, and I agree with them.
Thank you ...... A sublime film!
The Mirror changed my perspective on what a film can be.
Stumbling upon him for the first time, I would’ve wanted Tarkovsky to handle the making of my script.
Тарковский Tarcovsy genies!!
Whoa, love it. 💕
Not sure how sound can create tension in someone who's already completely overcome by boredom. The pacing completely overwrote anything else I might have been feeling.
I read the filming locations were contaminated with toxic chemical runoff from factories, meaning they were not radioactive.
Спасибо!!!
This was the way i interpreted the film the first time i watched it. I think when it comes to faith/spirituality, stalker, the character, represents our own spiritual journey. In the scene towards the end, when he pleads his case to his wife as he is on the bed, he says that people are just intellectuals, never using their imagination, or something along those lines. There are also a lot of references to the bible, something i highly recommend everyone to do, even if youre not a person of any religious affiliation. Just read it like pure poetry. The passage he references when the two men who are on the road to emmaus dont realize that jesus is with them. But at some point when he begins to break bread after he reads them moses and all the prophets, that's when they realize who jesus is.
I think what Tarkobsky is saying is that these "esoteric" knowledges that we seek are innate to us. The room represents our very own true cosmic nature. Our subconscious. Our spirits.
The writer and the professor represents the part of our nature that tries to keep us from this driving force that gives us hope, meaning, faith. Whatever you want to call it. Spirituality. God. Art. Imagination.
In the end, the child is seen moving objects with her mind because a child is constantly in that state. The child was mutated/transformed by the "zone". Thats what Tarkovsky hopes we find. For us to be transformed by that zone. Or God, himself.
I am sure that i am missing a lot but that's the basic gist of it.
I totally agree, i love Kubrick for 2001 and Shining but Tarkovsky Movies are more magic... Just like David Lynch did it with his movies.
I've only watched the film once but was interested enough to research deeper before I watch it again. In regards to kubrick I wonder if he isn't actually overrated? Much as I love 2001 it feels like the ending was cobbled together and much of its appeal is only from the music and the jupiter mission section. The ending of this film makes you want to go back and start the journey again.
the same with me, Stalker is like music.
You don’t understand the ending of 2001
Really nice video:) Thanks.
Thank you sir!
Films are art which don't have religion. So this why we are all accepted.
so i understand that the professor didn't end up bombing the zone because he realized the room doesn't fulfill explicit desires but rather what u want deep inside. but what if someone's true deep desire really is something destructive and evil? i still am confused about why he chose not to bomb the room. doesn't the room still have the capacity to lead to villainous and nefarious outcomes?
Who told you the room actually existed? Maybe it’s just Stalker’s cult that he created around himself?
Actually, the writer responded to that saying that people in general are very simple and naive, their biggest desires would be getting reach, famous, etc., almost no one deep inside would ever wish to destroy humanity.
Great review. Do you know what happened to your ambient background music? It would appear and disappear continuously throughout the video.
This film reminded me of The Seventh Seal
Hey that's actually the topic of my next video
@@thefilminformer Ah cool. I'll drop you a subscribe then!
I really enjoyed both films, similar existential themes in both of them and Max Von Sydow is a legend of cinema.
Thank you for this review.
I don't understand this, however: "All died several years after the film's release." (?) (9:45)
Thank you for watching! What I meant by that was that the director, his wife, and Anatoly Solonitsyn (who played the writer) all died in the years following the films release. I talk about this in the video in more detail.
@@thefilminformer Yes, and all they died due lung cancer, which likely destined by work in last from three filming areas.
the u!! after!!!
when we see such movies, especially today - we realize - that american movies have no patience, little character and time, when compared to non-american movies ...
What is that music that starts at 8:47?
I'm 99% sure it's music from Mirror, I wish I'd kept better track...
Not sure if you still need to know it but it's "on the nature of daylight" by max richter
@@markusschonhofer3219 Yes, I still needed to know. Thank you.
It's a pitty you can't read the book, it is o good. and btw you pronounce Tarkovsky's name right.
I do? Awesome!
@@thefilminformer why cant he "read the book" ? it was translated, you can even easily find and "steal" audiobook from the internet "roadside picnic", movie is only vaguely connected to the movie, movie was inspired by the book but they have almost no plot connection (if any at all); book is definately a must-read, personally i like it alot more than this movie
Actually that’s exactly why Stanislaw Lem, the author of Solaris, hated Tarkovsky’s version so much: Lem’s novel is about The Forever Unknown, that will stay this way, however hard we try. We have no tools to understand it and believing in it drives you crazy, you will only sink deeper in your own fears, crazy ideas and imperfections, but you will never connect, you will never understand. The idea wasn’t religious at all, actually just the opposite - there’s no way of understanding The Unknown, and calling it “God” is simplifying it. Same with Roadside Picnic, it’s a sci-fi story with barely any religious themes in it, they’re rather metaphysical. But Tarkovsky made both movies about The Unknown that is MAYBE God. But he doesn’t specify, thankfully. It’s just there for you to interpret.
Stalker (1979): In fact, the 3 people's journey in the movie goes back to the origins of human history but with religious color, every step they take in the Zone is a period of history. Zone suddenly appeared 20 years ago - 20 centuries. On each path, even back to the past, you should pay attention to the front and back position of each character. However, first we need to make it clear that the Stalker character named "The Hedgehog" is "who"? It is a people, the nation of this people collapsed in the middle ages (meat millers), then they exiled, they became rich, they supported a united empire and then later This empire turned to chase and kill them, this was nothing more than tying the noose on its own.
Going back on the journey, it is not difficult to recognize the first paragraph where the old tanks are the symbols of the two world wars, now "science" comes first, "philosophy" follows, and finally " religion".
The "enlightenment" period: philosophy and religion fought - Stalker threw the iron bar at Writer.
The "renaissance" period: 3 characters gathered together, but Writer went to the "room" and returned, when he was ridiculed by the Professor as "Mr Shakespeare" - the writer representing the time. Renaissance period.
The transition from medieval to renaissance: when Stalker and Writer go together and return to the Professor, marked by Dante's work of God Khuc (hell, purgatory, heaven) - where The intersection of philosophy and religion, details in the film may show that....
go to my website chi-blog(.)com, you will have answers about Andrei Tarkovsky movies
Excellent film, very nice analysis. Thx. Film is loosely based on this novel:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic
(PS Never pronunce "especially" EX-specially - or "espresso, EX-presso! 😉)
Seen 6-7 reviews of "Stalker", that's the first one that gets it right. Which is quite strange, considering the fundamental idea is so simple.
Unless you're stuffed to the brim with all sorts of ideologies and political propaganda. Which is the case for most people nowadays, I guess. Once you're trapped it's kinda tough to find your way out of this maze, life is too short for that. If you're born into Matrix you'll most likely die in the Matrix.
And then there's those few lucky ones, looking at this strange carnival from the outside. Strange world, very strange.
Btw, there's no radioactive poisoning in the area where Tarkovsky shoot the film. I've been in this area, I'm afraid it's just one of those urban legends. Quite a lot of chemical pollution though. So it's sort of roughly in the ballpark, or at least close. Unfortunately, up close the reality often tends to turn out somewhat less sexy/mysterious than it looks like from the distance.
I try my best to keep personal ideologies out of my film reviews, of course that's easier said then done. I'm proud of this video though and thanks for your kind words. Also, I believe you about the radiation. I did my research and with the creepy deaths of all the filmmakers it seemed to point to that conclusion but life is full of coincidence.
@@thefilminformer Oh no no, I don't think all those deaths were just a coincidence. Poison can kill you just as easily as radiation. Well that and too much smoking, probably...
maybe I was too harsh about ideologies. Maybe all the difference is to have the right one, to have the key that opens this specific door. Who knows?
Anyway, they don't seem to have the key, that much is clear.
@@vmasing1965 The theory about their deaths has nothing to do with radiation, it is merely speculating that the chemical runoff in the water at the time might have had something to do with all of them developing the same form of cancer later in life.
@@acaustik8763 Right. Yes. That's basically what I was saying too.
The radiation was also mentioned, and I happen to know the area. So, I thought a little fact-check wouldn't hurt.
When I state my favourite film directors, Tarkovsky is always mentioned. Kubrick? Well, sometimes. I love Tarkovsky while I have conflicted feelings about Kubrick.
It is not the godlessness that bothers me. It is the emotionlessness and cynicism of his works.
As much as I love thought-provoking-ness, I also think the purpose of arts and entertainment is to make us feel humans.
I can definitely be cynical at times.... and I hate it. I wish I can get rid of the cynicism in me.
Tarkovsky looks like Jason Bateman with a mustache.
I love this video and how passionate you are. My only comment is that you should learn to pronounce “Tarkovsky” and “Solaris.” Tarkovsky is now Polish, so it’s not “tar-COW-sky.” It’s more “tar-kOV-ski.”
Glad you enjoyed it! This is funny because I'm Polish myself and I'm 99% sure I'm pronouncing it correctly 😅
Thanks for this very interesting and well-researched essay ! Why did they have to re-shoot the film three times?
ruclips.net/video/lhK7hMBli4s/видео.html
He goes into detail on the situation
Check your pronunciation of the word "reverie". You pronounced it like "revere".
Showed me how garbage modern film is
Unbelievable how great the movie is
sheeit sitting here like fuck the movie was the dog poisoned too damn
Lurk Moar
Да что иакое мир после................нет не чео не чего не осталась.... Профессор он хотел уничетожить зону ради мести....
Did it teach you that most films are unbelievably bad?
i wanna c ur face where has it been :’(
Sad to hear the tradegy.
Tarkovsky is not for the meek or faint-hearted.
In his silent, seemingly meandering visions on film, he captures the imagination of his viewers from the first second of his scenic voyage.
There is no other filmmaker, none . . . who grabs the viewer from the first second and forces him or her to wonder . . .!
Oftentimes, it is just sheer confusion at what is happening on the screen, but more often it is the sheer visual beauty of what he has filmed.
(I almost think Tarkovsky should be a silent film-maker!)
Sound, however, is a tapestry of meaning in his films and he is a genius in how he uses sound to capture the imagination of the viewer.
I feel that when his characters start to talk, the film ebbs and the salient import of what he is trying to establish is compromised.
Yes, he is a religious film-maker, but when his characters get philosophical (religious), his Russian Orthodox moralistic attitudes rear their ugly head
and obscure the poetry of his film.
Poetry is about wonder and uncertainty.
Religion is about certainty and implying that life is about making moralistic decisions.
Meanwhile the landscape of Tarkovsky's films is about poetry, about philosophy and moralistic certainties that most religions foster
just distracts from the beauty of Tarkovsky's films.
In Russia, there is no individualism. Everything must be explained to the "powers that be". Everything must be defended.
Tarkovsky lost his life because of the stupidity of a government who despised its people.
It is a shame that he couldn't make films showing the reality of being a Russian whose government basically destroyed the "poetry" of life.
Maybe this is what he is showing about "the Zone" and if I see the movie again, I will get his message.
Unfortunately, Tarkovsky need to be clear about the evils of his government and how it was the antithesis of poetry and philosophy!
He needed to be loud and clear about what his government was doing to his people and ultimately to him and his wife.
You don't know anything about Russia and its people.The history of Russia is so complex, tragic and diverse,it has so many peoples and destinies that you just can not imagine,and there would not have been Tarkovsky,if not for his father ,homeland,language,thinking.And in the bad USSR, he shot the best movies,and in Europe he died of homesickness.
There is no individualism in Russia?sorry, but it's not the Russians who are crying massively for a dead criminal, smiling and pretending that everything is OK
@@KatMark. I agree that I am no authority on anything. However, your defense of Russia's evil treatment of its people through the last century and even its present criminal leader Putin's evil control of his people, is baffling!
Let's face it: Russia was not good for its people and acting like we should not judge them for this is stupid!
My picture of composer Dimitri Shostakovich spending the night sleeping in a chair in case the KCB came for him and he didn't want to bother his family captures the kind of cruelty (both visible and invisible) that Russia exerted on its people.
Yes, terror can produce its own kind of art, but Tarkovsky would have been better off making movies as an American.
His homesickness for his horrible, treacherous, and evil country was stupid!
@Kat Mark re your remark: ". . .crying massively for a dead criminal, smiling and pretending that everything is OK"
Kat Mark, you are racist!!
Yes, the history of Russia is complex, but it is quite obvious that Communism absolutely destroyed the country and to think that the typical Russian citizen has any kind of validity in the eyes of its government is to be blindly patriotic and thinking like the peasants did under the Czar.
Guess what? Stalin did not die. His present name is Putin.
The artists of Russia are unique (Tarkovsky?) and some of the greatest on the face of the earth.
However, how could Tarkovsky miss a country who basically killed his wife and he.
Please check his biography because you sound like a generalizer about Russia and Tarkovsky.
You need to get the facts!
fuckin right
Ehm, it's "stream of consciousness", not "conscience"
Great vid, but it's "rEveree" not "reveer" since it's a quote, I felt obliged..
Dude, seriously?? Tarkovsky a Christian?? I thought there is a difference between being a spiritual and a religious person!! 😳😳
This guy is an idiot.
I wasted 12 minutes here.
@Griseo Hominem What's your point here? There isn't a section where Tarkovsky reflects his faith as a Christian. He's rather pushing the idea of spirituality and problems with faith. If I got the correct translation from Russian.
Love tarkovsky.. and Kubrick.. but David lynch... Eh no not so much.
Well, that sucks.
I agree, Kubrick makes beautiful works, but to me they lack depth and emotion like you said. They are cold and distant almost like staring at a painting through a computer screen. As well as mechanical, everything feels very robotic. Everything has to be perfectly aligned, he seems to be worried more about aesthetic then substance.. While like you said they have similar styles, Tarkovsky uses similar techniques but he isn't as worried about perfection, unless it perfectly captures the emotion he is trying to convey. Tarkovsky's films always leave me with this small glimmer of hope in what seems to be a bleak and futile world. While Kubrick's films just reinforce those feelings of futility. Both great filmmakers, but Tarkovsky takes the W for me. His films have made me ponder far longer and in greater depth into our struggle with the human condition then any of Kubrick's films. Stalker blew my mind on first viewing. I had never seen anything quite like it, and I watch a lot of old and foreign films. There are few other filmmakers who create atmosphere like Tarkovsky in my opinion, for example Bergman, Antonioni, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Malick, and Fellini. Great video though man. Keep it up.
Idk man. 2001 moved me very deeply. I don't think Kubrick is cold like people seem to tell
Don’t know if you’ve seen Barry Lyndon or Paths of Glory then lol
@@HAL--gb6uf agreed, I feel a lot of people feel the need to attempt to give a take that doesn’t make sense about him in order to lift up other masters.
RE-VER-IE, not RE-VERE. Those are two different words with two completely different meanings.
STALKER is a low-budget film that does exactly the opposite of what everyone so easily thinks is cinematic law. It tells, through endless dialogue, instead of showing. Now, that dictum is bogus, because JAWS, which so many "show don't tell" acolytes REVERE does exactly this in everyone's favorite scene, Quint telling about the sinking of the Indianapolis. Spielberg lets Rober Shaw TELL the scene, because they couldn't have afforded to SHOW the scene.
Given the cinematic technology available in 1978, even in Soviet Russia, there's so much more that could have been done to convey the notions in STALKER. Even the weakest Nicholas Roeg film is a great place to start.
STALKER is not so much a boring film as it's an overly stretched out film that talks too much and shows very little.
04:05 You are wrong... this movie doesn't keep the audience on guard... From the moment these guys reach The Zone, you know nothing's going to happen... Anyone with 1% of common sense knows that Tarkovski was too lazy to make anything interesting happen in The Zone... Why do that? It's easier to show us water and rusty pipes and crap... Bunch of cowards didn't even dare to enter The Zone... just as Tarkovski didn't have the guts to give us, the audience, something interesting happening...
You’re just stupid. It’s okay, it’s normal. Most people are.
Just a very uncomfortable film. Subject matter is gross , but is real.
Viewing this movie is like watching paint dry.
Du solltest über einen solchen Film nicht sprechen, das ist eine poetische Welt die sich Menschen aus den kulturlosen Staaten nicht erschliesst. Jedes Wort ist zu viel: Verschwendung.
write in chinese or ancient greek, so more people will understand you
The sound and the soundtrack are the only good things about this movie...
No, the movie was disappointing. I don’t think much can be learnt from this to be honest. It’s a good metaphor about religion but not a cinema master piece
It taught me this movie sucked
The word is pronounced "REV-er-ee".