Stalker (Mini Review)

I can't remember if it was after the release of this film or Solaris or Stalker but Russian critics complained about the slow pace of start. Tarkovsky replied, "It should be slower so that the people who shouldn't be there leave before the actions starts". Well, last night a few shouldn't have been there. In particular, the person who sat near me and was asked "have you seen this before?", "No, but I have played the video game". Stalker has now officially entered the realm of top tier all-time favourites. A film I've seen several times and it gets better every time (Lawrence of Arabia and Mulholland Drive are two other examples). Every level of film making has exemplary qualities that should be held up before every other film ever made as an example of the potential of cinema. My favourite part of the film is, in fact, the sound design. A major contributor to the hypnotic qualities of the film and its ability to tell the story is never overdone as to not become obvious. The sound is manipulated in a way that enhances the environment but upon close inspection, the sound bits used aren't the sound one would actually here. It shows confidence from Tarkovsky and his sound man Vladimir Sharun. The sound water makes is often reshaped to fit the tone Tarkovsky is after. Walter Much, editor of Godfather Part 2 and Apocalypse Now is known for his rule of six (aka the six reasons to cut) when it comes to editing. The first rule is to cut because it emotionally fits because it feels right. I think Stalker is an ideal example of why the same should apply to sound. This is well and truly a director's film and the performances are often forgotten about. Though after several viewings you can start to pick up more of the nuances on their face. Professor's performance is subtle and reserved throughout until the end when he explains why he has brought such an object into the zone. The moment of realisation and acceptance from Stalker is equally powerful as his hurdle is the most universal. I a saw a short Letterboxd review (and I get a sense of this interpretation a lot) that said this film was about the interpretation of high art. I have two objections this. The first being it's far more meta than that. It's about the way we interpret high art. There is high art and our exposure to it then we analyse how we expose ourselves to it and there's questioning all of that. Of which is what Tarkovsky is doing. The second reason being the film is about other things as well. There are undertones of criticism of the Soviet regime, exploring and fearing our deepest desires and therefore our truest selves, of which humans are not ready to confront. How greed influences and power corrupts and I don't think any other film has shown the influence greed and power have on people the same way before or since. I would also comment on the cinematography but since I saw an old 35mm print last night, what is fresh in my mind isn't the intended feel. A DVD rewatch would be required for that. In short. See Stalker every opportunity you get in a cinema. I might be doing it again later in the week.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think of Stalker?

Stalker is available on DVD and Blu-Ray. I recommend getting your hands on the Criterion restoration copy, or you can wait for a cinema screening to pop up and see it the way it was intended.