scrobble.life
← Back

Title · no scrobbles indexed yet

Stalker

The first scrobble for this title is still propagating, but a community review is already indexed below.

Reviews

Longform community posts about this title

Stalker 1979 - garść zachwytów nad filmem. pl@gwyddpel934d
Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

Comments

No comments yet — be the first.

4 more reviews

  1. Stalker [ENG | ESP]: a true masterpiece? | ¿una verdadera obra maestra?@cristiancaicedo1843d

    One of the most remembered films of its director Una de las películas más recordadas de su director

    A few days ago I posted the review of my first encounter with the Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky and his film Mirror impressed me so much that I knew it would not be long until I saw more of his short but impressive filmography. On Saturday afternoon it was difficult for me to choose between several of his films that caught my attention until I finally settled on this 1979 work.

    Hace algunos días subí la reseña de mi primer encuentro con el director ruso Andrei Tarkovsky y su película Mirror me impresionó tanto que sabía que no pasaría mucho tiempo hasta que viera algo más de su breve pero impactante filmografía. La tarde del sábado se me hizo difícil escoger entre varias de sus películas que me llamaban la atención hasta que finalmente me decanté por esta obra de 1979.

    Stalker is classified as a science fiction film, a dystopia if we want to be more specific, but in my way of seeing things it's more of a drama, a thriller, a story with spiritual repercussions. The plot takes place in Russia, decades after a strange alien phenomenon occurred. Some say it was a meteorite that crashed, although they haven't seen it, but the truth is that after that incident the people who started going to that area disappeared. They didn't return. They vanished. That was why the government fenced off the entire area, militarizing access to what, from there, is known as The Zone. However, although it should be inaccessible, people can reach the place guided by one of the Stalkers, who illegally guides them through the vast area.

    Stalker está catalogada como una película de ciencia ficción, una distopía si queremos ser más específicos, pero a mi manera de ver las cosas es más un drama, un thriller, una historia con repercusiones espirituales. La trama sucede en Rusia, décadas después de que ocurriese un extraño fenómeno exraterrestre. Algunos dicen que fue un meteorito que se estrelló, aunque no lo hayan visto, pero lo cierto es que después de ese incidente la gente que comenzó a ir a esa área, desaparecían. No regresaban. Se esfumaban. Fue por eso que el gobierno cercó toda el área, militarizando el acceso a lo que, a partir de allí, se conoce como La Zona. Sin embargo, aunque debería ser inaccesible, las personas pueden llegar al lugar guiados por uno de los Stalkers, quienes de manera ilegal los guían a través de la extensa área.

    The term Stalker was taken from the original novel on which the story is based but it doesn't refer to its literal meaning in English but rather a guide, but why do people go to The Zone? Why would they need a guide? This is where the drama of the story begins

    El término Stalker fue tomado de la novela original en que se basa la historia pero no se refiere a su significado en inglés (acosador) sino que se trata más bien de un guía, pero ¿por qué va la gente a La Zona? ¿por qué necesitarían un guía? Aquí es donde inicia el drama de a historia.

    The Zone is a strange place. Time doesn't pass in the same way, the locations change, they move, we can see some sand dunes in a subway where there is no wind and in an even deeper place, we see the rain fall. There are no inhabitants, but a presence is felt permanently and although at the beginning they seem like ruins buried by dense vegetation that has grown after the abandonment of the place, as we enter, we discover tunnels, waterfalls, rivers, hatches, dilapidated rooms and even a telephone . All these elements reminded me of the island of Lost, my first television reference of a place where the most unlikely things happen and everything impossible is possible.

    La Zona es un lugar extraño. El tiempo no transcurre de la misma forma, las locaciones cambian, se mueven, podemos ver unas dunas de arena en un subterráneo donde no hay viento y en un lugar aún más profundo, vemos caer la lluvia. No hay habitantes, pero se siente una presencia de forma permanente y aunque al inicio parecen unas ruinas sepultadas por una densa vegetación que ha crecido después del abandono del lugar, al internarnos descubrimos túneles, cascadas, ríos, escotillas, cuartos ruinosos y hasta un teléfono. Todos estos elementos me recordaron la isla de Lost, mi primer referente televisivo de un lugar en el que suceden las cosas más inverosímiles y todo lo imposible es posible.

    But it happens that in the heart of The Zone there's a room that grants a wish to everyone who enters there. That's why people go. There are stories of fates that changed after entering the room, but those fates go hand in hand with triumph and tragedy. The film centers on one of the Stalkers who guides two other characters to the heart of The Zone, a scientist, named Professor, and an artist, named Writer. The fact that these two are precisely the occupations of the travelers is a direct symbolism of the central question of the film: to believe, or not, in The zone. Travelers are the arts and science, while the Stalker represents faith, religion, the clergy of a dogma, of a god called The Zone, for whom everything is possible, even the most hidden desires of your heart.

    Pero sucede que en el corazón de La Zona hay una habitación que le concede un deseo a todo aquel que entre allí. Por eso va la gente. Hay historias de destinos que cambiaron depués de entrar en la habitación, pero esos destinos llevan de la mano el triunfo y la tragedia. La película se centra en uno de los Stalker que guía a otros dos personajes al corazón de La Zona, un científico, llamado Profesor, y un artista, llamado Escritor. El hecho de que sean precisamente estas dos las ocupaciones de los viajeros es un simbolismo directo de la cuestión central de la película: creer, o no, en La zona. Los viajeros son las artes y la ciencia, mientras que el stalker representa la fe, la religión, el clero de un dogma, de un dios llamado La zona, para quien todo es posible, incluso los deseos más ocultos de tu corazón.

    Therefore, despite the extraterrestrial origin of The Zone, the film does not present many classic elements of science fiction of those years, but shows a post-apocalyptic Russia, destroyed, archaic, which makes everything concentrated in The Zone, exists? they may just be people's inventions, doesn't exist? then there would be no way to explain the strange things that happen. Faced with the dilemma of whether The Zone is real, or not, and whether or not it fulfills people's wishes, the last scene of the film is key because it makes the viewer lean towards one of those two options.

    Por eso, a pesar del origen extraterrestre de La zona, la película no presenta muchos elementos clásicos de la ciencia ficción de esos años, sino que muestra una Rusia post apocalíptica, destruida, arcaica, lo que hace que todo se concentre en La zona, ¿existe? pueden ser sólo invenciones de la gente, ¿no existe? entonces no habría cómo explicar las cosas raras que suceden. Ante el dilema de si La zona es real, o no, y de si cumple, o no, los deseos de las personas, la última escena de la película es clave porque hace que el espectador se incline a una de esas dos opciones.

    Now, beyond this story from which important philosophical and spiritual issues emerge, I think the most impressive thing about the film are the technical resources used by the Russian director. Use sepia tones for life outside The Zone and full color for what happens once they enter it, in the style of The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland; There are also wide shots, shots that change the focus, but especially long, very long shots. In any movie, or most of them, we can see cutscenes every two or three seconds, sometimes five, but no more than that. If it's a dialogue, the camera cuts between one speaker and the next every two seconds, it's normal. Well, in Stalker the shots last, on average, seventy seconds, which means that the scenes, for the most part, are not interrupted before the minute. A minute in real life flies by, but in the movies it's a long time.

    Ahora bien, más allá de esta historia de la que se desprenden temas filosóficos y espirituales importantes, creo que lo más impactante de la película son los recursos técnicos empleados por el director ruso. Usa tonos sepia para la vida fuera de La zona y full color para lo que transcurre una vez que ingresan a ella, al estilo de The Wizard of Oz con Judy Garland; también hay planos amplios, tomas que van cambiando el enfoque, pero sobre todo planos largos, muy largos. En cualquier película, o en la mayoría de ellas, podemos ver cortes de escena cada dos o tres segundos, a veces cinco, pero no más que eso. Si es un diálogo, la cámara corta entre un hablante y el siguiente cada dos segundos, es lo normal. Pues, en Stalker los planos duran, en promedio, setenta segundos, eso queire decir que las escenas, en su mayoría, no se interrumpen antes del minuto. Un minuto en la vida real se pasa volando, pero en el cine es bastante tiempo.

    In a figurative sense, if the protagonists have to walk a kilometer, Tarkovsky focuses on them throughout the journey, which makes for long and monotonous scenes, such as the one in which they are approached The Zone on a rail wagon. I didn't measure the time but it's about three or four minutes of the same. However, I must confess, the movie is not that long. I'm not going to say it flies by because it would be a lie, but its 163 minutes don't feel so endless.

    En sentido figurado, si los protagonistas tienen que caminar un kilómertro, Tarkovsky los enfoca durante todo el trayecto, lo que hace que haya escenas largas y monótonas, como en la que los viajeron se aproximan a La zona sobre una vagoneta de rieles. No le tomé el tiempo pero son unos tres o cuatro minutos de lo mismo. Sin embargo, debo confesar, la película no se me hace tan larga. No voy a decir que se pasa volando porque mentiría, pero sus 163 minutos no se sienten tan eternos.

    Now, despite the visual delight and some reflections that the film leaves, I didn't connect with it, I didn't manage to immerse myself as happened with Mirror, which perhaps is due to my personal taste, but the truth is that I didn't feel it as a masterpiece, what indeed happen to me with that other film, which is why I would like to see it again and also I feel that there are things that escape me, what with that ending? What relevance can the innkeeper have? What does the dog symbolize? How could he live where he was? How did they get out of The Zone? Questions whose answers I will seek when I look again at this remembered work of the great director that was Andrei Tarkovsky.

    Ahora bien, a pesar del deleite visual y de algunas reflexiones que deja la película, no conecté con ella, no logré sumergirme como me pasó con Mirror, lo que quizás se debe a mi gusto personal, pero lo cierto es que no la sentí como una obra maestra, lo que sí me pasó con esa otra película, razón por la cual me gustaría volver a verla y además también siento que hay cosas que se me escapan, ¿qué con ese final? ¿qué relevancia puede tener el tabernero? ¿qué simboliza el perro? ¿cómo podía vivir en donde estaba? ¿cómo salieron de La zona? Preguntas cuyas respuestas buscaré cuando vuelva a mirar esta recordada obra del gran director que fue Andrei Tarkovsky.

    Reviewed by | Reseñado por @cristiancaicedo


    Other posts that may interest you:

    Otros posts que pueden interesarte:

    La noche de los niños (Libro): la última novela de Toni Morrison |

    --- | ---

    Crazy, Stupid, Love [ENG / ESP]: one of my favorite comedies / una de mis comedias favoritas |

    El ruido del silencio: ¿qué dicen los libros? |

    Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
  2. 🎬 FILM ESSAY : STALKER / Andrei Tarkovsky@marinauzelac3039d



    After filming Nostalgia and before his last film Sacrifice, Andrei Tarkovsky in his probably the most meaningful interview [1] says that this world is not given to man in order to be happy in it, and that perhaps the greatest challenge is to get to know yourself. All Andrei Tarkovsky's films from Ivan's childhood to the latest film shot in Swedish production before the director's death can stand between these two coordinates, at least in their thematic and conceptual sense. But what does the thematic framework and selection of the creator tell us about his work? Well, nothing or almost nothing.

    Most of those who wrote about the films of this Russian director fell into the temptations of personal insights or variations on one of the "main" subjects of Tarkovsky, and so they actually wrote their own reflections on certain problems, and about the films themselves if they said a bit. What is it that makes one movie an artistic? In the modern world it seems to be hardest to say because the film as art is on the very edge of the art piece and increasingly into the commercial "treasure" and Hollywood blockbuster paradigm.

    Tarkovsky himself said that the film for him was in time, and the criterion by which he differs from other arts, that is, his basic unit is a rhythm. Already, on the first ball we see that the terms that the director chooses to formulate their manifest are quite picturesque, i.e. borrowed from the theories of other arts (fine arts, musical). In his redesign manifest called the Sculpting in Time [2], Tarkovsky writes that the characteristic of his films is that he tries to follow the logic of emotions, the logic of something super-real, in the editorial process, and that so achieving penetration into the spiritual world, and the "hieroglyph of the absolute truth". [3] Naming the rhythm as a differentia specifica of his film, Tarkovsky tries to mark a certain internal dynamics of "images" in the film, which the director finds more in his intuition, rather than deliberate intention.



    The poetics of Tarkovsky in this film, as well as in the Mirror and Nostalgia, owe a little bit of the haiku poetry experience [12], which Tarkovski read and very respected. This topic goes beyond the margins of this work, it should be explored within a special topic, but it should also be noted that a future viewer would have in mind while trying to figure out the secret of Andrei Tarkovsky's films, and his films are certainly a secret.

    Stalker plot is very simple and it was written so many times, so this time let's skip this repetition. We will follow the direction of the director himself. Tarkovsky wrote that he wanted to make a film about "what is dignity, and how can a man suffer if there is no self-esteem"[13]. And that gives us the entrance to the melancholy lobby, because if sadness is a sadness for some lost object, fictitious or realistic, melancholy is a variation of grief, especially with the "loss of self-esteem" [14]. Who loses self-esteem, why he loses it and where does the loss lead him?

    This spiritual phenomenon, which is not characteristic of a particular geographical area, although it is "embedded in the cultural pattern of Western civilizations" [15], has multiple incarnations and modalities, from existential emptiness, indicators of the genius of the individual, spiritual moors to the feeling of emptiness and imperfection. A melancholy constant that can incorporate all of the above-mentioned moods into itself is a feeling of transience. [16]  Melancholia brings with it excellent state of mind, titrating the most intimate in the being. Only a melancholy can feel the "fullness of existence" [17], but only in conjunction with a view of nothingness. Thus, melancholy itself becomes a paradox, but it doesn't disappear from the spirit.

    What does that have to do with our Stalker?



    From the beginning of the film, one specific mood was emphasized, one atmosphere among the heroes, which fills the Stalker, and which we tend to call melancholic. Two representatives of the society, the social elite: The Writer and the Professor reveal their intentions at the beginning of the trip to the Zone. The writer in lamentation at the beginning of the film regrets the Middle Ages, that is, for the mankind that was young in the Middle Ages, and now the world is boring, because there is no telepathy or deception. What does this tell us?

    The writer, as a social figure leading the society in a spiritual sense, sketches the contemporary spiritual situation in several sentences. The youth characteristic of the Middle Ages, would present here, a spiritual freshness and serenity, a world with a strictly determined and established center - and that is God himself. So far, the dominant contemporary phenomenon has been excluded from the Middle Ages because in the Middle Ages, the spiritual situation is primarily determined by a religious view of the world, it's determined by faith. In a situation where God remains "alive and active", the meaning of individual existence is guaranteed, or at least mediated through the subjective experience of faith.

    The modern world is the world dominantly secular (non-religious), but more importantly, with the disappearance of religion from the historical scene, also faith disappeared (faith as a psychological term, not purely religious). The writer is self-aware. He knows that his writing is a job, a profession, not an invitation (as Tarkovsky insisted), and that his role is essentially an egoistic rather than altruistic one.

    He ceded to cynicism [18], and writing (which is appreciated or not?) is just an instrument to prove to others that something is worthwhile, although he knows that he would certainly not write if he was a genius.

    Here we encounter another melancholy derivative, because the melancholy is from the old age, and through Direr until the modern age it was bound to the genius, as a certain color of genius. Like the Professor, whose fate is even more underlined [19], the Writer is not a "genius." The genius reveals things, and our heroes rule certain knowledge, aware of the destructiveness of their ego.

    As cynics, they are still tied to the world, bound with the bitterness of disappointing expectations that doesn't give the possibility of forgiveness. They have not yet crossed into post-cynicism [20], which signifies a pessimistic view of the world, but the post-cynic is cut off to the world, doesn't feel any emotional or moral responsibility to the world.
    On the other hand, Stalker is someone who has chosen to be the guide through the Zone, the guide the desperate on the way to Hope. Deeply committed to his work, to the extent that he leaves his wife in despair, conscious of all the obscenity that this profession carries, [21]

    Stalker is the one who carries faith, despite the miserable life, despite the immobile daughter-mutant, he persists in his call, though there is a certain recurrence in Stalker's personality.

    Stalker is not simply a christian figure, such as Dostoevsky's Alyosha Karamazov. Stalker's faith is a belief-in-hope, so the question remains whether Stalker believes that he hopes or hopes to believe. But let's go back to the above mentioned recidivism.

    Although there is a certain degree of belief present in Stalker's character, there is a second half of his personality, that precipitate at the bottom of a creature that, apparently, no faith can disperse. Let's remember just the scenes on the way to the Zone, and they are accentuated by the sepia tone in the frames when Stalker is immovable in the water with a face expressing emotions ranging from fear and despair to helplessness [22]. How this feels to someone who believes?
    The feeling that Stalker is bearing is that knowledge is insufficient and meaningless, and yet the truth is insecure, and that feeling of truth and knowledge would be called melancholy.  It is a dialectic of melancholy written by Guardini. The feeling it awakens in a man is a feeling of constant unrest, a growing uncertainty that is spreading, "whose boundaries can not be determined" [24].

    Awareness of the infinity of the cosmos, the impossibility of absolute knowledge, and, on the other hand, human transience and death makes Stalker the authentic bearer of modern melancholy. When the Professor and the Writer transfer him to use another's misfortune to gain profits, we see that Stalker himself is one of those desperate ones who, with each new entry into the zone, renews faith in himself.

    He needs the Zone to keep his faith alive. His faith (in salvation or God, if we speak in Christian terms) is not monolithic and homogeneous. It is spread within itself with a modern consciousness, because Tarkovsky's overall view of the world forms only as three faces of one being, three forms of the spirit.

    Stalker is actually a passion for an absolute in (yet) a skeptical soul, or for the great melancholic Sioran said "an angel on top of the leper." [25] He has the need for an absolute, for Truth, which science and art seem to lose at the present moment. It's a melancholy feeling that "there is anyone who is not immortal ... with whom no suffering can be compared in this world." [26].

    This was my translation from Serbian to English from PULSE article ''Сталкер – анђео или губавац'' by M.Avramovic

    ________________________________________________
    If you're fan of Andrei Tarkovsky:
    Here is another different review I did for STALKER
    And here is essay about MIRROR (ZERKALO)
    _________________________________________________
    Thank your for reading, and invest in my existence! :)

    Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
  3. Stalker (1979)@gavrilo3086d

    Ամեն անգամ, երբ ասում են, թե հիշեք, որ «ՍՏԱԼԿԵՐ» կողմից Անդրեյ Տարկովսկու, կան նոր մեկնաբանություններն իր առավել դժվար է ամեն իմաստով պատկերված են, մոռացել են, կամ անհայտ փաստեր են կենսագրության, քննադատները բացեիբաց խոստովանել, Տարկովսկի պատկերակը ներքին կինոարտադրության, իսկ կենտրոնական հեռուստատեսությամբ դրա մասին գրեթե մի հիշեք:

    Որպես արդյունքում երկար, ցավոտ ու տքնաջան աշխատանքի տնօրենի եւ ամբողջ անձնակազմի ֆանտաստիկ գրական բնօրինակն փոխվել գրեթե անճանաչելի ու շրջվել ոչ թե սուրբ առակի հետ երեվակայություն խորհրդանշական պատկերներ, ոչ թե առեղծվածը մարդկային ոգու խաչմերուկում, հաւատքի եւ անհավատություն, կամ անվերջ ճանապարհին բացարձակ ճշմարտությունը, որը չափազանց հեռու է դարձել, կյանքը որպես հրաշք համարելու համար չօգտագործվածների համար.

    stalker.jpg (pic.source)

    Գոտի Տարկովսկին, այնպես էլ շատ պարզ է եւ շատ բարդ է, եւ նրա «բնավորությունը», որը ձեւավորվում է նրանց կողմից, ովքեր ստանում է այնտեղ ժամանակավորապես կամ մշտապես: Այս տեղը չէ արգելքներն ու բացառումը, պատճառելով թերությունները աշխարհի, որի իրականացումը ցավալի է գիրք ինժեներ, ապարդյուն փորձելով ներդաշնակեցնել հոգու մտքի եւ զգայարանների, քանի որ եթե անիմացիոն վրա էկրանին պատկերների պրոֆեսորադասախոսական կազմի եւ գրողների. Թերեւս դա է նրանց, որ մենք կարող ենք տեսնել, որ հատկանիշները վերոհիշյալ բնույթի, որը հանդիսանում է հակառակ պայմանական հերոսի Ալեքսանդր: Գոտում չեղյալ է օրենքները տարածության եւ ժամանակի մեջ, ջնջել բոլոր հնարավոր սահմանները միջեւ կոնվենցիայի եւ իրականության, բայց ստանում այնտեղ չի դառնա սուրբ. Դե, քննադատական ​​մտածողությունը, իրոք օգնում է տեսնել, որ աշխարհի ավելի թափանցիկ, դա միայն կարեւոր է հաշվի առնել, որ գոտում, այն կարող է վերածվել մի անանցանելի խոչընդոտ, քանի որ կան շատ տարբեր կանոնները, որոնցից կարեւորագույնը - բացակայությունը որեւէ կանոնների: Եթե ​​դուք առնվազն երեք անգամ Նոբելյան մրցանակի դափնեկիր Լանդաուն հանճար, որ ուժեղ ձեր բնավորությունը միջոցով կյանքի եւ համոզմունքների, այնքան քիչ հնարավորություն է, որ դուք կհանդիպի այստեղ առջեւ բանի զարմանալի. Այս առումով, խոսքը ուժեղ եւ թույլ կողմերը այս աշխարհի են, ուրիշ ոչինչ չի կարող բացահայտել էությունը խորհրդավոր տեղը.

    «Ստալկերը» շատ ավելի խաբուսիկ է հեռուստադիտողին, քան առաջին հայացքից արտաքին ակցիան նախատեսված է միայն հիշեցնել ձեզ, որ կա միայն մի պահ միջեւ անցյալի եւ ապագայի, շրջում է Բրոունյան շարժման համընդհանուր կարուսել. Երբեմն ֆիլմը, իրոք, կարծես մի հսկայական, մոռացված կամ ձախ հատուկ մեկին կամ ինչ-որ բան է շրջանակներում: Եվս մեկ շատ անսովոր է իր կատարելության մարդկանց մեծամասնության, որոնք օգտագործվում են, որ կարողացել է «լիովին հասկանում է ամեն ինչ, բացարձակապես ոչինչ չի սովորում»: Կատարման իրենց գաղտնի ցանկությունների մասին երազում շատերին, սակայն պետք է պատասխանել այն հարցին, թե ինչու ի վիճակի միավորները, ինչպիսիք են մերժվածի, ինչպիսին. Պատկերն է նման եւս մի հրաշալի երազ տարբեր գույներով, որը ներքին գաղտնիքները հազարավոր տարբեր մարդկանց եւ այն ավարտվում բոլորի համար իրենց սեփական ճանապարհով: ոմանք մնում են հիասթափված, բայց որեւէ մեկը նոր հորիզոններ մտքի.

    Վերը նշված բոլոր այս լուռ աճել յուրահատուկ հմայքը տարածության, որը կառուցվել է ոչ թե մտքի ու սրտի վրա ռեժիսոր եւ ամեն մանրուքի մեջ այն է, չափազանց կարեւոր եւ անփոխարինելի: Անձրեւ է, որ թափանցում դեպի սենյակի նման է կրակի շնորհով, որ ամենին տալիս թանկարժեք պահեր ավելի մոտ են իրար յուրաքանչյուր երեք մարդ: Dim, խոնավ ավերակներ խոսել հանդիսատեսին բոլոր նույն բանաստեղծական լեզուն, թե ինչ դիմում է իր ուղեկիցները, բայց այդ խոսքերը հասցեագրված են նրանց, ովքեր կարող են լսել, որ անլսելի, տես անտեսանելի է եւ պատրաստ է գնալ բոլոր ճանապարհ, առանց ամաչելու իր զուտ մարդկային թուլությունների: Թերեւս Տարկովսկին ցնցուղ էր, օրինակ, եւ ամբարտավան սարկաստիկ իր դեմքը թաքցրել մի մեծ երազանք, որ տնօրենը Աստված չի կաշկանդվելու հետ կիսել հանդիսատեսին.

    Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
  4. / Film essay / Stalker - an angel or a leper? / essay@marinauzelac3102d



    After filming Nostalgia and before his last film Sacrifice, Andrei Tarkovsky in his probably the most meaningful interview [1] says that this world is not given to man in order to be happy in it, and that perhaps the greatest challenge is to get to know yourself. All Andrei Tarkovsky's films from Ivan's childhood to the latest film shot in Swedish production before the director's death can stand between these two coordinates, at least in their thematic and conceptual sense. But what does the thematic framework and selection of the creator tell us about his work? Well, nothing or almost nothing.

    Most of those who wrote about the films of this Russian director fell into the temptations of personal insights or variations on one of the "main" subjects of Tarkovsky, and so they actually wrote their own reflections on certain problems, and about the films themselves if they said a bit. What is it that makes one movie an artistic? In the modern world it seems to be hardest to say because the film as art is on the very edge of the art piece and increasingly into the commercial "treasure" and Hollywood blockbuster paradigm.

    Tarkovsky himself said that the film for him was in time, and the criterion by which he differs from other arts, that is, his basic unit is a rhythm. Already, on the first ball we see that the terms that the director chooses to formulate their manifest are quite picturesque, i.e. borrowed from the theories of other arts (fine arts, musical). In his redesign manifest called the Sculpting in Time [2], Tarkovsky writes that the characteristic of his films is that he tries to follow the logic of emotions, the logic of something super-real, in the editorial process, and that so achieving penetration into the spiritual world, and the "hieroglyph of the absolute truth". [3] Naming the rhythm as a differentia specifica of his film, Tarkovsky tries to mark a certain internal dynamics of "images" in the film, which the director finds more in his intuition, rather than deliberate intention.



    The poetics of Tarkovsky in this film, as well as in the Mirror and Nostalgia, owe a little bit of the haiku poetry experience [12], which Tarkovski read and very respected. This topic goes beyond the margins of this work, it should be explored within a special topic, but it should also be noted that a future viewer would have in mind while trying to figure out the secret of Andrei Tarkovsky's films, and his films are certainly a secret.

    Stalker plot is very simple and it was written so many times, so this time let's skip this repetition. We will follow the direction of the director himself. Tarkovsky wrote that he wanted to make a film about "what is dignity, and how can a man suffer if there is no self-esteem"[13]. And that gives us the entrance to the melancholy lobby, because if sadness is a sadness for some lost object, fictitious or realistic, melancholy is a variation of grief, especially with the "loss of self-esteem" [14]. Who loses self-esteem, why he loses it and where does the loss lead him?

    This spiritual phenomenon, which is not characteristic of a particular geographical area, although it is "embedded in the cultural pattern of Western civilizations" [15], has multiple incarnations and modalities, from existential emptiness, indicators of the genius of the individual, spiritual moors to the feeling of emptiness and imperfection. A melancholy constant that can incorporate all of the above-mentioned moods into itself is a feeling of transience. [16]  Melancholia brings with it excellent state of mind, titrating the most intimate in the being. Only a melancholy can feel the "fullness of existence" [17], but only in conjunction with a view of nothingness. Thus, melancholy itself becomes a paradox, but it doesn't disappear from the spirit.
    What does that have to do with our Stalker?

    From the beginning of the film, one specific mood was emphasized, one atmosphere among the heroes, which fills the Stalker, and which we tend to call melancholic. Two representatives of the society, the social elite: The Writer and the Professor reveal their intentions at the beginning of the trip to the Zone. The writer in lamentation at the beginning of the film regrets the Middle Ages, that is, for the mankind that was young in the Middle Ages, and now the world is boring, because there is no telepathy or deception. What does this tell us?

    The writer, as a social figure leading the society in a spiritual sense, sketches the contemporary spiritual situation in several sentences. The youth characteristic of the Middle Ages, would present here, a spiritual freshness and serenity, a world with a strictly determined and established center - and that is God himself. So far, the dominant contemporary phenomenon has been excluded from the Middle Ages because in the Middle Ages, the spiritual situation is primarily determined by a religious view of the world, it's determined by faith. In a situation where God remains "alive and active", the meaning of individual existence is guaranteed, or at least mediated through the subjective experience of faith.

    The modern world is the world dominantly secular (non-religious), but more importantly, with the disappearance of religion from the historical scene, also faith disappeared (faith as a psychological term, not purely religious). The writer is self-aware. He knows that his writing is a job, a profession, not an invitation (as Tarkovsky insisted), and that his role is essentially an egoistic rather than altruistic one.
    He ceded to cynicism [18], and writing (which is appreciated or not?) is just an instrument to prove to others that something is worthwhile, although he knows that he would certainly not write if he was a genius.

    Here we encounter another melancholy derivative, because the melancholy is from the old age, and through Direr until the modern age it was bound to the genius, as a certain color of genius. Like the Professor, whose fate is even more underlined [19], the Writer is not a "genius." The genius reveals things, and our heroes rule certain knowledge, aware of the destructiveness of their ego.
    As cynics, they are still tied to the world, bound with the bitterness of disappointing expectations that doesn't give the possibility of forgiveness. They have not yet crossed into post-cynicism [20], which signifies a pessimistic view of the world, but the post-cynic is cut off to the world, doesn't feel any emotional or moral responsibility to the world.



    On the other hand, Stalker is someone who has chosen to be the guide through the Zone, the guide the desperate on the way to Hope. Deeply committed to his work, to the extent that he leaves his wife in despair, conscious of all the obscenity that this profession carries, [21]
    Stalker is the one who carries faith, despite the miserable life, despite the immobile daughter-mutant, he persists in his call, though there is a certain recurrence in Stalker's personality.
    Stalker is not simply a christian figure, such as Dostoevsky's Alyosha Karamazov. Stalker's faith is a belief-in-hope, so the question remains whether Stalker believes that he hopes or hopes to believe. But let's go back to the above mentioned recidivism.

    Although there is a certain degree of belief present in Stalker's character, there is a second half of his personality, that precipitate at the bottom of a creature that, apparently, no faith can disperse. Let's remember just the scenes on the way to the Zone, and they are accentuated by the sepia tone in the frames when Stalker is immovable in the water with a face expressing emotions ranging from fear and despair to helplessness [22]. How this feels to someone who believes?



    The feeling that Stalker is bearing is that knowledge is insufficient and meaningless, and yet the truth is insecure, and that feeling of truth and knowledge would be called melancholy.  It is a dialectic of melancholy written by Guardini. The feeling it awakens in a man is a feeling of constant unrest, a growing uncertainty that is spreading, "whose boundaries can not be determined" [24].

    Awareness of the infinity of the cosmos, the impossibility of absolute knowledge, and, on the other hand, human transience and death makes Stalker the authentic bearer of modern melancholy. When the Professor and the Writer transfer him to use another's misfortune to gain profits, we see that Stalker himself is one of those desperate ones who, with each new entry into the zone, renews faith in himself.
    He needs the Zone to keep his faith alive. His faith (in salvation or God, if we speak in Christian terms) is not monolithic and homogeneous. It is spread within itself with a modern consciousness, because Tarkovsky's overall view of the world forms only as three faces of one being, three forms of the spirit.

    Stalker is actually a passion for an absolute in (yet) a skeptical soul, or for the great melancholic Sioran said "an angel on top of the leper." [25] He has the need for an absolute, for Truth, which science and art seem to lose at the present moment. It's a melancholy feeling that "there is anyone who is not immortal ... with whom no suffering can be compared in this world." [26].



    END OF PART ONE.

    This was my translation from Serbian to English from PULSE article ''Сталкер – анђео или губавац'' by M.Avramovic

    Литература:
    [1] Донатела Баливо, „Разговор са Андрејем Тарковским“ у Тарковски у огледалу (Нови Сад : Простор, 1994).
    [2] Андреј Тарковски, Вајање у времену, прев. Владан Добривојевић, (Београд :  Књиге Обрадовић, 2014).
    [3]Исто, 45.
    [4] Наша анализа ће се надасве бавити филмовима Сталкер (1979) и Носталгија (1983).
    [5]Исто, 287.
    [6]Исто,140.
    [7]Николај Бурљајев “Један од свих – за све – против свих!” у Тарковски прев. Весна Товстоногов (Нови Сад : Прометеј, 1998).
    [8]Сличну тврдњу излаже и Лотман у својој студији Семиотика филма.
    [9]Тијана Тропин, “Сталкер Андреја Тарковског као адаптација књижевног научнофантастичног дела” у Словенска научна фантастика, зборник радова, ур. Дејан Ајдачић и Бојан Јовић, (Београд : Институт за књижевност и уметност, 2007).
    [10]Прва верзија филма је уништена у лабораторији Мосфилма због неисправних Кодак филмова на који су материјали снимљени, а неисправност филмова утврђена тек по завршетку снимања, па је Тарковски захтевао од браће Стругацки да напишу нови сценарио те је изнова, са знатно оскуднијим средствима снимио нов филм. Какав је био први Сталкер можемо само да нагађамо, мада постоји сведочанстово сценариста о том документу, али о самој филмској верзији не.
    [11]Тарковски у огледалу (Нови Сад : Простор, 1994), 28.
    [12]Вајање у времену, 84.
    [13]Исто, 253.
    [14]Сигмунд Фројд, “Жалост и меланхолија” у Градац : часопис за књижевност, уметност и културу, Год 33., број 160/161, (Чачак : Дом културе, 2006/2007), 167.
    [15]Славица Батос, “Лица и обличја меланхолије” , Исто, 5.
    [16]О споју пролазности и меланхолије говоре Јулија Кристева, Романо Гвардини, Бела Хамваш и др. За више информација погледати цитирани број часописа Градац.
    [17]Романо Гвардини, “О смислу меланхолије”, Исто, 138.
    [18]Он и каже како је цинизам које знање доноси за собом у ствари канта за смеће, указујући наузалудност сазнања и немогућност да се кроз (научно) знање дође  до иситинске спознаје света и себе.
    [19]Професор жели да пронађе Зону да би добио Нобелову награду и тиме показао колико вреди.
    [20]О пост-цинизму више у Мило Ломпар, Моралистички фрагменти, (Београд : Нолит, 2009).
    [21]Сталкер је хапшен неколико пута јер је улазак у зону нелегалан, а живот му је под ризико сваки пут кад прекорачи границе Зоне.
    [22]Свесни смо да овакво препричавање сцена банализује садржину филма, али се надамо да ће рад читати они који су већ гледали филм или ће оне који нису подстаћи да га одгледају.
    [23]Достојевски је до крајњих консеквенци развио ову дихотомију у Браћи Карамазовима.[24]Константин Захарија, “Сиоранове меланхолије”, у Градац : часопис за књижевност, уметност и културу, Год 33., број 160/161, (Чачак : Дом културе, 2006/2007), 214.
    [25]Емил Сиоран, Сузе и свеци, (Нови Сад : Братство-Јединство, 1989), 78.
    [26]Бела Хамваш, “Анатомија меланхолије”, у Градац : часопис за књижевност, уметност и културу, Год 33., број 160/161, (Чачак : Дом културе, 2006/2007), 80.




    Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post