Stalker

Stalker

1979, 161 minutes, Not Rated

Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky

Screenplay by Arkady Strugatsky and Boris Strugatsky Based on their Novel “Roadside Picnic”

Cast: Alexander Kaidanovsky, Anatoly Solonitsyn, Alisa Friendlich, Nikolai Grinko

***1/2 out of ****

“Stalker” is the kind of film that, like all of Andrei Tarkovsky’s work, demands complete attention, patience, and total concentration to get wrapped up in it. It is not a conventional type of dystopian vision so much as a more thought-provoking one that causes you to question the very nature of its subject matter rather than be passively entertained by it. Think more like “2001” rather than “Mad Max”.

The film opens in an unnamed Russian city where we meet “The Stalker” (Alexander Kaidanovsky) who lives in a small apartment with his wife and disabled daughter. He has just been released from prison for entering “The Zone” which is forbidden by the government. He leaves his family, who fear he will never return, to take on a new trek inside the zone, which is what he does to support his family.

His latest clients are “The Professor” (Nikolai Grinko), and “The Writer” (Anatoly Solonitsyn) who have their own motivations for entering the zone. They are making the journey to discover a room that will grant the deepest desires of anyone who enters. The Professor wishes to earn a Nobel Prize and The Writer wishes to get his inspiration back so that he will be remembered for generations to come. The Stalker only gets money as he is forbidden to enter the room.

The zone is an area that seems far removed from the rundown city that these people inhabit. It is an area where the laws of physics are absent and ruins populate an otherwise more natural landscape which contains extraterrestrial activity from the remnants of a meteorite. Throughout their journey the three men encounter supernatural dangers which cause to constantly be cautious and suspicious of their surroundings and each other.

The film has a distinct visual texture for both the city and the zone. The sequences in the city are shot in a monochromatic sepia toned pallet which enhances the almost apocalyptic nature of the setting. The buildings are mainly brick and the streets are awash with a constant series of deep puddles. It never appears to be dry anywhere and the cinematography emphasizes the sense of desperation and danger that appears around every corner. The monochrome look gives it the feeling of an old nineteenth century photograph as if it were the remains of a once thriving and now oppressed civilization.

The Zone by contrast is in full color and is more of the natural world. The first thing one notices when the film shifts to color is green as grass and trees are everywhere. Water flows instead of puddles. The only things that are reminiscent of the city are the burnt out ruins that appear throughout the landscape. More natural but no less dystopic. At one point the camera lingers on The Stalker for minutes as he lays in the grass allowing use to feel his longing for nature that is otherwise absent from the everyday urban landscape.

Throughout the film Tarkovsky deliberately paces his camera and editing to absorb you in the imagery and moody consistency of his visuals. The opening shot, which a slow two minute dolly moving into a bedroom, is very telling of the kind of film you’re in for. One that relies on an almost methodical movement and sense of space and less on constant cutting between various camera angles. You’ll either be absorbed in it or you’ll wonder if something’s going to happen. These who are taken with the movement will that in fact a lot is happening.

The performances are all tremendous, particularly Kaidanovsky who gives his louse of a character a sense of depth and humanity that seem to contradict his actions. When the three move forward, he’s always the last one to go, at one point even cowering behind the Professor as he urges the Writer forward through their path. But he is also the one cares the most about their lives as he continuously and purposely directs them on the safest path. Later in the film, he resorts to a couple of acts of courage as the men become increasingly paranoid of their guide. He has a climactic monologue that hits you like a ton of bricks.

If there’s one thing that could have been enhanced I think it could’ve have been the photographic format that the film was shot in. Tarkovsky chooses the 1.37:1 square format which to be fair does enhance the sense of claustrophobia and oppression which runs through the film. But to give that visionary sense of place and atmosphere that it aspires to, he should’ve shot it in the scope 2.4:1 ratio which would have greatly opened up the visual spectrum and made the film all the more absorbing. That’s the difference between a great film and what could’ve been a masterpiece.