Summary
The Zone. Dangerous. Alien. Restricted. So why would a Writer and Professor follow a guide called a Stalker to take them into the heart of the Zone? The Room found at the Zone’s center grants ones deepest desires.
The Verdict (in the wrong place)
I’m going to own, right from the start, the fact that I don’t “get” this film. There is a lot of dialogue that is very esoteric and confusing. There are a lot of silent scenes that seem pointless at times. However, there is something about this last Russian film by Andrei Tarkovsky that draws me in. I know something important is being explored; something deep. It is deep enough that it may take repeat viewings but those viewings will be outstanding meditative experiences.
So Tarkovsky Is Tough
On its surface, stalker is a very simple story. A Writer, Professor and a guide, called a Stalker, journey to the center of a mysterious and alien ‘Zone’ which contains a room that grants people their desires.
Entering the zone is restricted so they have to sneak in and the zone is large and confusing so it takes quite some time to arrive at the room. The bulk of the film is the characters walking together, talking, arguing, and debating the meaning of life, the existence of God, and what their desires and fears are.
In a way, there really isn’t much for me to say about the film except that, but in another way, I feel as if I have told you not even 1/100th of what is in this film, it is so complex and lovely.
Tarkovsky is one of those directors whose works are many times not really about the plot as much as the characters and their conversations. Some directors see themselves as a guide on a road leading their audience to a destination town, a ‘take away’ message or thought or moral.
Tarkovsky isn’t like this. Instead, he invites the audience into a forest with no path and wanders around, looking at various trees and flora, in the form of characters and thoughts. He doesn’t intend you to take the forest with you when you leave. He intends you to return to it over and over again to view again those thought you had, those ideas you had engaged with, and revisit them.
It is this quality that make Tarkovsky a favorite amongst cinephiles. There are no easy answers. There are endless alleys of trees and tufts of exotic grasses to intrigue the mind but no mythical elf will hop out from behind a tree and tell you how to master the forest. There is no mastering it, only living in it.
This is a movie which requires engagement. It punishes people with short attention spans and brutalizes those who wish to ‘turn off their brains.” It doesn’t give a whit whether or not an audience ‘enjoys’ the film. It is a film that aims itself at something higher and more rarified than entertainment. It wants your whole mind and attention to be engaged with the characters and the subject matter of the film.
As such, i suppose I could relate some of that conversation within the movie but removed from the film its context and thus meaning, intensity, and soul would be gone. The only way to glimpse what Tarkovsky is saying is to watch the film.
So what does that leave the lowly reviewer to say about a film like “Stalker?”
It’s beautiful. It’s melancholy. It’s dense. It is spiritual. It is among my favorite films. It is a true piece of art.
Review Written By: