Have you seen the Russian film Stalker? If so, what did you think of it?
I watched it this afternoon on DVD.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Have you seen the Russian film Stalker? If so, what did you think of it?
I watched it this afternoon on DVD.
I loved the long drawn out shots, the setting was interesting too. What did you think?AAllxxjjnnAll of that was great. The photography almost carried the movie on its own. I just dont quite understand a lot of the conversations or what the subtext of the movie really was. I think i liked first half of the movie better than the second.
Iirc it's based on a book called Roadside Picnic, and STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl was influenced heavily by the book/movie.Theres a STALKER movie? I hope it doesnt suck.
Zerocrossings
Iirc it's based on a book called Roadside Picnic, and STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl was influenced heavily by the book/movie.[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Theres a STALKER movie? I hope it doesnt suck.
DigitalExile
Oh a book based movie. Then its fine i guess.
Iirc it's based on a book called Roadside Picnic, and STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl was influenced heavily by the book/movie.[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Theres a STALKER movie? I hope it doesnt suck.
Zerocrossings
Oh a book based movie. Then its fine i guess.
lol yeah its not a Uwe Boll film - oh god I hope he doesnt read this and get any ideasSTALKER 2: Monkey's Return! Starring Tara Reid as Monkey!
I live in Russia, but didn't see this film. But I heared, it's old, isn't it?COBRA1138Made in 1979 - fresh as monkey's breath.
[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]I loved the long drawn out shots, the setting was interesting too. What did you think?biggest_loserAll of that was great. The photography almost carried the movie on its own. I just dont quite understand a lot of the conversations or what the subtext of the movie really was. I think i liked first half of the movie better than the second. I've only seen it once and, like you, i still don't really get all that. The main reason i finished it was the beautiful cinematography, i'm interested in seeing how Andrei Tarkovsky's other movies are filmed now, i haven't seen any others. I've been meaning to rent it again though, and maybe buy the book it's based off, Roadside Picnic.
I love Tarkovsky so yes. Seen it three times I think. So calm and beautiful but with a constant sense of something mysterious beneath the surface - kind of like the zone itself. The last scene with Monkey and the train is amazing in its simplicity.inoperativeRS
Yes, its my second favorite Tarkovsky film behind Andrei Rublev the score and the cinematography were amazing.Jazz_FanCan either of you explain it ?
Haven't seen it in a while and I'm not sure I know but I feel like its actually a journey of one man and the three personatiles inside him.Jazz_FanOh yeah. That would be an interesting theory. I am also wondering what the significance of the daughter is. Its a really interesting film. I might see if i can find some books on it.
Storywise it was not that interresting, but the techniques, and style of it is amazing, I think it is filmed a whole lot better then alot of newer movies...
It is a nice movie, a beautiful one, and cinimaticly a stroke of genious. Still the story is a pretty good mix of dystopia, sci fi, and the likes But average.
I know some people might look at me funnily, but I see similarities between this one and BladeRunner, altho they are very differently in setting and color, and that Bladerunner is a lot more "western" They sort of give me a similar impression.
[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]I love Tarkovsky so yes. Seen it three times I think. So calm and beautiful but with a constant sense of something mysterious beneath the surface - kind of like the zone itself. The last scene with Monkey and the train is amazing in its simplicity.biggest_loser
Yes, its my second favorite Tarkovsky film behind Andrei Rublev the score and the cinematography were amazing.Jazz_FanCan either of you explain it ? Tarkovsky's films are usually quite slow and dreamy and full of beautiful imagery. I guess with Stalker you could say it's meant to create an atmosphere of uncertainty where it feels like the movie is 'real' but still magical while inside the zone - Tarkovsky himself always complained about how modern man has lost the ability to believe in the metaphysical IIRC. The ambiguity of the zone leaves the whole plot of the movie open to interpretation since we never quite know what it is they seek from it. If you look at the zone as just what it is presented as, an area where metaphysics seem to be just as important as actual physical laws and where dreams - both conscious and unconscious - come true, the role of the professor becomes quite clear: he's the rational science that has destroyed our belief in such things. However in the film the writer and Stalker don't let him blow the zone up, even if it can be used by evil men (which is the reason the professor wants to blow it up, which again would work quite well in this context). Compare to the last scene of the movie: we don't know whether Monkey moves the glasses with some kind of special powers she has gained as a 'child of the zone' or if it's just the vibrations from the passing train that makes them move. She is perhaps a part of the grey, normal world which still has some features of the zone, but just like the zone itself it's all very ambiguous. Of course it's also possible to draw comparisons to the way the army guards the zone and the banning of religion in the Soviet Union, and the way the world outside the zone is sepia/black and white while the zone is full of colors. In short, IMO it's about the importance of dreams and faith in a world where such things are considered outdated - and just how beautiful and dark those beliefs can be. This all sounds much more pretentious than I thought it would. :P
I loved the writing in the movie, but I must say that I didn't like the camerawork as much as other people did. Tarkovsky's style doesn't exactly grow on me (though I've yet to see Andrei Rublev). Still, it's a solid movie that's definitely worth a look.Kicker_of_CansHaving tried to write a script lol, it amazes me to think about someone actually sitting down and writing out that dialogue.
[QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]Haven't seen it in a while and I'm not sure I know but I feel like its actually a journey of one man and the three personatiles inside him.biggest_loserOh yeah. That would be an interesting theory. I am also wondering what the significance of the daughter is. Its a really interesting film. I might see if i can find some books on it.
You don't need "some books on it", just Roadside Picnic. Every scene of the film has a correspondent in the book, despite Tarkovsky's claims that only the setting is similar. So we can safely assume Monkey really is a mutant, and the stalker was leading people into the Zone.
There's no definite answer to any of your questions though, and that's also a trait of the book. Despite the trend in the Eastern European science-fiction of the time, Roadside Picnic doesn't explain anything besides the Zone's apparition, and it ends right at the climax.
Like so many Russian authors, the Strugatsky brothers intended to question humanity and society in their works. But this one was written when they were upset about the communism falling apart around them. They avoided references to their society. It doesn't even take place in the Siberian Zone, but in Canada. It's just a science-fiction adventure with an emphasis on human psychology, like Solaris.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment