Is Tarkovsky's "Stalker" One of the Greatest Films Ever?

Substack -- please subscribe to support this channel: learningaboutmovies.substack....
Sign up for my newsletter. KZbin channel updates, written reviews, and exclusive content -- free! -- eepurl.com/hbfI6v
Twitter: / drjoshmatthews
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/joshmatthews/
If you like this video or this channel, please consider donating to this channel to cover my expenses. The video has been demonetized. A gift of $10 or $5 or $1, via the "Applause" button right below the video really helps me out. Thank you!
Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 science-fiction film "Stalker" is a beloved classic today. It's a slow-paced, meditative movie in which three men travel into a mysterious Zone, which might grant their unconscious wishes.
This video will ask questions of the movie, present evidence, and judge it for what it is. My assessment is that it is overrated, but given what I say, I think you could come to the opposite conclusion.
The video will help prepare you for the movie, if you've never seen it. And it will help you re-think what you observed, if you've seen it.
See joshmatthews.org for more great movie criticism.

[@bullcutgaming7749]

Its funny, I didn't feel the length pressing on me in any way during my watch. The whole experience just feels like you're being pulled through a slow current of water with its pacing. The atmosphere which the movie creates is quite possibly the most rich that I can remember, and all the philosophy that is behind it is very haunting. The dream scene where the camera glides along the stream is my favorite part of the film.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you. With Tarkovsky, the question is which of his movies will completely hypnotize you -- I mean that in a good way. For me, it's Mirror and The Sacrifice. I see most people finding that experience in Stalker and Solaris. As I said in the video, my problems with both film might be only that the books on which they are based were powerful readings experiences I had prior to seeing the films. glad that Stalker haunts you, as it should.

[@sageantone7291]

It did for me. Found it tedious, and I love AT.

[@relaxhappysadboy8275]

Nah. It feels limited. The close shots? The monologue? Felt so unreal.

[@Winnerrr-nz7pm]

@@LearningaboutMovies I loved Ivan's CHILDHOOD,stalker and mirror

[@cyrollan]

Agreed! It did not feel that long at all. I think it's because there's a small amount of scenes, relatively. Take another long movie, a modern one like Tenet, and there's so much stuff going on, with hundreds (?) of scenes and probably thousands of edits. Stalker just doesn't have as much going on and shots are held for longer periods of time.

[@nocultist7050]

Every time when I watch it I feel like time does not exist. When it ends I wake up to reality with this dreamy melancholy. It's the most important movie to me. I don't feel the need to interpret it. I feel only the need to experience and feel it.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

yes, I hope anybody watching the movie has your experience.

[@groovydeath]

Same here dude, incredible meditative peaceful state every time after watching. It is such a pleasant experience from beginning to end.

[@cyrollan]

That's what makes a great movie even better: if it envelops your entire attention for it's runtime. Which is one of the reasons I like to watch movies "enhanced" with one substance or another

[@Johnnysmithy24]

I love being able to “feel” movies more than have to figure them out like a puzzle

[@renatok1956]

👆👍👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@jxomxo]

It’s a film that asks a lot of its audience; it’s slow, meandering, and full of philosophical discussion that most people wouldn’t bear to listen to. But it’s absolutely *worth it* in my opinion. The meandering and slow nature adds to the somber, existential, and beautiful atmosphere the film wants to convey. It, like much of Tarkovsky’s other works, is a meditation on a faith, art, and perseverance, and the “slow cinema” method of Stalker is the perfect encapsulation of its messages. It’s perfect in my book.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

excellent, thank you!

[@alawatcha1]

To me, the movie felt like ''the zone''. - It's as if we construct it according to our state of mind.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

it's a hallucenigenic drug that we may or may not want to take.

[@c.f.pedraza4057]

​@@LearningaboutMovies I was afraid to say that this movie reminded me of my time with psychedelic substances. Always looking for this answer to everything, searching in your head for a clue, a magical place and thing. Of course it's never the case, just contentment and wasted time. Also this movie reminded me of "Pi the Movie," and "Tetsuo, The Iron Man," for some odd reason. 😅. I think I should try to read the book and see the other films as you suggested.

[@itsanameisntit]

I had exactly the same experience. And I especially love that at the very end, you are inside the final run as the viewer, looking back at the three of them.

[@band1tt]

This movie completely bedazzled me. I was left with a feeling of awakening from a strange dream, I literally sat for like 20mins after staring at the screen wondering wtf just happened 😄

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Excellent! I hope you have many more such experiences at the movies.

[@anatolfrombelarus7940]

In the USSR, we had a joke: A man walks into a bar. Sits down at the counter. He sits silently for ten minutes. Turns towards the window, sits silently for another ten minutes. Calls the bartender. Looks into his eyes, the bartender looks back. This goes on for about half an hour. Asks for a glass of water. The bartender brings a glass. The man looks at him for five minutes. He puts his head on the table and lies there for another twenty minutes. He plunges his finger into the glass and begins to move it back and forth, stirring the water. It lasts an hour. After that, he gets up, puts on his coat and leaves, but freezes in the doorway and looks at the people in the bar for another hour and a half. People silently look back. Leaves. Bartender: - Tarkovsky genius!

[@GFNTheDrop]

Not just good, a total masterpiece.

[@robbanbobban2]

As a chronically unhappy person, this movie resonated with me like no other. I doubt I'll be able to explain why, but maybe strong dialogue and symbolism just cuts through the armor, without any need for analysis.

[@michaelrojas6227]

I feel like this movie is not meant to be viewer friendly on purpose, mostly due to what it’s trying to convey in the themes. I haven’t read roadside picnic, but Stalker seems like we’re voyeurs in an exercise of faith that the three characters are undertaking. It’s brutally long, boring, confusing, and you never get to even see the traps or “horrors” in the zone. It’s like we simply have to believe that the zone is as magical as people say it is. We don’t even get to see the inside of the room, which is the entire goal of the three characters. It’s like our faith is being tested with theirs. A difficult endeavor. And then, they don’t even choose to enter the room when they get there. The writer and the scientist kind of hash out that their innermost desires aren’t very pure, and that going into the room and attaining them would do them no good. But also, they lack faith. And this is what I think is the key to it. The writer and the scientist go back to suffering in their personal hells, while the stalker despairs at the end of the movie but comes out the other side better than the other two. He had faith in the power of the zone, his wife loves and has faith in him, and his disabled daughter is able to perform telekinetic miracles. I think the wife’s speech really hits the nail on the head. She married the stalker guy knowing there would be sorrow, but the sorrow allows room for happiness and hope. Her faith-like love is what allows her to be happy. And maybe this faith allows her to be a good person and to have pure intentions, which is what the writer and the scientist lacked and what stopped them from entering the room. And at the end of the movie, the family is shown in color as if the power of the zone has touched all of them.

[@musher7343]

Honestly the movie didn't feel slow to me. There's a single shot at the end that is 5 minutes, which shocked me, because it only felt like a minute or two to me. I have serious ADHD brain, so I don't think that it's because I have a crazy attention span. The shots are so well composed, I never really felt the length. The whole movie only felt like an hour and a half to me. The long silent moments are there to give you time to ruminate and think. I haven't read the book, but I have played the games, so that might explain why I wasn't confused by the nuts or alot of other details. It's definitely not a movie to throw on in the background for fun, but if you are ready for it, nothing can top it (at least nothing I've seen). I don't really like movies all that much (again, ADHD brain), but if a movie this slow can captivate me so much, it's clearly doing something right. I watched it for the first time yesterday, and I'm probably going to rewatch it again tonight.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

excellent, I am really glad that this movie spoke to you. If so, you might love other Tarkovsky fare, as I do.

[@papinbala]

the wasteland alone and what the actors had to endure puts what Leonardo de Caprio went through in the revenant a joyride. you cant create worse condition than what this movie has

[@LearningaboutMovies]

yes, the story of the filming of "Stalker" is remarkable and yet disturbing. There are few film shoots that were so arduous and had such negative consequences, such as likely causing the deaths of many crew members.

[@bobleroe3859]

I read and enjoyed Roadside Picnic, but I found Stalker a cure for insomnia.

[@rammantravadi]

I used to watch many movies. Hadn't heard of Tarkovsky before. I was watching one scene (not sure how I got to that), the rail car scene when they travel to the zone. I was mesmerized! To me, probably the best movie I've ever seen.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

excellent, glad that you loved it.

[@1gnore_me.]

one of the most hypnotizing films I've ever seen, I think the slow pacing is a key part of that. it almost feels like you're cast under a spell from the moment it starts, with the slow zoom into the bedroom. I will say, I think it requires a very specific state of mind to appreciate, which is why it's so polarizing.

[@frankiepaul9869]

Its an amazing film. I fell asleep once watching KZbin on the t.v . At some point in the night this film started to play. I awoke and watched the film and went back to sleep, when I woke the next morning I felt like I had dreamed the whole thing. Something about being half asleep and beautiful cinematography and pacing. It really stayed with me. For days after I just thought about this film constantly.

[@divinepretender]

Very very lucky coincidence you had, the best way to watch a tarkovsky film is like you watched it, as a dream ❤

[@juju10683]

Listening to this just solidified Stalker as my favorite Tarkovsky.

[@sophiehough2740]

I loved Stalker. I was moved by the beauty of the shots. The beauty that encompasses the stark, foreboding, and industrial zone. The length did not bother me at all. In fact I was a little disappointed that I didn't see more.

[@superninjapirate19]

This is one of those films that everyone is too afraid to say they don’t like.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I don't know what anyone's motive is, but it's true that shaming about movie opinions is some weird virtue-signalling that happens all over the Internet. If people let go of their egos, and realized the small takes involved, then the entirety of discussion of movies on KZbin would be very different.

[@relaxhappysadboy8275]

I agree, but i really tried. In the end its a waste of time.

[@viarnay]

I would't say I dont like it but it is not the good like people say

[@bookpaper105]

i see a lot of people saying they dont like it. i thought it was possibly the best and my fav movie i had ever seen when i watched it. i think u have to be in a certain place spiritually to adore this movie. i thought it was quite fascinating the acting was phenomenal as well. but favorite movie now is judgement at Nuremberg

[@superninjapirate19]

@@bookpaper105 get out of here with that spiritual superiority nonsense lol That’s the exact thing I’m talking about with elitist bs people pull with these types of art films. People can be fully capable of understanding the themes of the film on a “spiritually level” and still not adore the film. I, like many others can appreciate the film for its themes and obvious influences on cinema but I’d be lying if I said I adored STALKER just so I could get points on the internet.

[@josephspann4749]

Tarkovsky's films are what I can only describe as an "immersive" experience. He draws the viewer into worlds that are both completely familiar, even mundane, and utterly wrong at the same time. He does this through long sequences in which nothing in particular happens, giving the audience the opportunity to spend time really seeing the worlds that his characters occupy. Most movie goers want thrills and laughs a minute from their movies and that isn't what he's selling. His is a cinema for observers. As for "Stalker" I only just saw it for the first time last night and enjoyed it very much. My only disappointment was that I wasn't seeing it on a large screen, where I could have absorbed every visual detail of this strange world he created.

[@mlzplayer9243]

I found the movie enlightening, and indeed, a life changing experience

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@austingraham9325]

Top 5 favorite movies of all time

[@jajlertil]

YES, the answer is YES

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I've been thinking how doing a series of videos on judging movies and the assumed criteria for them. what does "great" even mean? probably this channel should define it.

[@R1618]

I loved the writer and the mysterious beauty of the zone

[@LearningaboutMovies]

tarkovsky is great at that.

[@relaxhappysadboy8275]

Mysterious beauty of the zone? No, i've seen better places before. It seems tiring. Its like, here's the budget, make it work. Wasted 2hours of time.

[@falloutgamr]

I’ve had one of the weirdest viewing experiences of this movie, yet I feel like I can still understand the greatness in this film and the way in which Tarkovsky portrayed its themes. For one I tried to watch this on KZbin and only got half of the movie, so I decided to read a descriptive summary up until the part where the movie pickups. This was also my first Tarkovsky film and I’ve never read the book. However while I was only able to watch half the film, I still picked up on the slow pacing of the film and it gave off the sensation of a lucid dream and dive into ones deep conscious. I also got the feeling of how the pacing was supposed to represent the working towards ones deep desire and the long arduous process of finding out what one really wants and ones own identity. I like the somewhat anti-climactic ending where nobody enters, because it sort of represents the idea of how we humans may never know what our deep desires are and our true identities, the journey is was makes us who we are. Also the choice the professor made to break his bomb and not destroy the room could be that he felt that who was he to destroy the ideal of others when he himself didn’t have the mental fortitude to enter the room and see what became of his true desires. I also was able to make my own theories on the film, such as that the Stalker might have entered the room once, however instead of getting a wish fulfilled that would have supported himself and his family, his wish that came true was that he’d have some deep-seated desire to take people to the zone and to the room (in a broader sense, his deep desire came from the freedom and sense of self-righteousness he either consciously or unconsciously felt during his trip outside the barbed wires fences). That’s why the stalker explains how he only wanted a purpose in life, when he was confronted by the writer on why he would take people to the room, and also why he would go on to deny that he entered the room (saying how stalkers must never enter the room, albeit in a shocked state and looking like a broken man. This could hint towards him having broken some rule as a stalker and entering the room, or his own conscience imposing this “rule” as a way to cope with the trauma he received from entering the room once before.) Anyways, maybe I’m looking in the wrong direction and should probably view this for a second time to get another point of view and more clarity.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you!

[@user-vd6nf6wl1e]

Welcome to the Russian soul. I am very pleased to read reviews like yours. I really want the people of the world to understand our depth and breadth of spirituality and our attitude to the world around us, life and death. I wish you and your loved ones a long and healthy life. God bless you. Here you can get acquainted with the works of Eduard Artemyev.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you. God bless you too. A number of people where I live (college profs) love and teach Dostoeyvsky, Solzhenitsyn, Chekhov. I"ll look into Artemyev.

[@nathancallas4649]

Want to throw in my two cents, I never read the book and this was my first Tarkovsky movie. I loved it, felt that the snail pacing kept the tension pressing forward. I didn't have a problem figuring out what was going on (I think), eg with the metal washers I figured they were some method of getting through the zone and avoiding some of the traps. Maybe I was misunderstanding aspects and not realizing it, but the movie still felt cohesive and whole. Stalker had an immediate impression on me, like a constant weight that can't be ignored.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

that's great, I am glad you like it. It should pay dividends on rewatching. "Annihilation" might be worth checking out.

[@nathancallas4649]

@@LearningaboutMovies I'll check that one out, thanks!

[@LuckyXinRu]

On a side note though, the book is completely the opposite of the snail pacing from the movie. The book is a thriller that you may read it through in 2 days because you can't let it down

[@nakfoor1846]

Seems like you see every foreign film I want answers, opinions, and clarification on. Glad to hear your insight once again.

[@vivekanand5563]

Despite his obvious mastery of his craft, it is difficult for me to completely love Tarkovsky's films (except 'Andrei Rublev' which is one of the best films ever) because of one reason. Ingmar Bergman is my favourite filmmaker. Even though Bergman and Tarkovsky are often bunched together, and they seemed to have a bromance going, I think there is a clear difference between them. While Bergman made films about God and God's silence, almost all his films had him seeking out answers in an agnostic manner. Or he might be struggling with the fact that he no longer has faith, and how he is jealous of those who *do* have faith. This makes him, as an artist, more human and more relatable. Tarkovsky on the other hand, is completely set his ideas on what is God, what is art, what is right, what is wrong, etc. I have watched his films, have read 'Tarkovsky on Tarkovsky', watched and read interviews, and it is evident. For better or worse, he thought faith was important, art should not be entertaining, Bresson and Bergman are the only two people whose opinion he cared about, etc. To put it in simplistic terms... His agenda was that he is an individualistic artist with faith, living and workinh in a God-less communist regime which focussed on science and philosophy, and his films pretty much reflected that. I think this struggle would have made for even better films if only he had chosen to be a bit more open-minded. In a film like 'Andrei Rublev', his struggle worked perfectly because the film itself was about that... An artist 'bound' by the monarchs to produce his art, who creates it with his faith not knowing whether the higher-ups would be pleased. 'Stalker' is a bit lesser in this regard. It seems like the whole room in the zone to be like a praying room, and when you are completely broken / meek, and have faith, God will help you. The writer and physicist are both intellectual USSR machinery dudes, the stalker is like a priest or a man-of-faith who needs to guide humanity to God, but is unable to due to the world believing more in science and art. On another level, it can also be taken as three parts of an artist - the intellectual, the factual, the faithful, and Tarkovsky's exasperation at the artist(s) of that time and/or place totally ignoring faith. This is a pretty angry film about him being trapped in USSR. (His next two films were made in Italy and Sweden after he left USSR.) I do think 'Stalker' is a very good film, but I am somehow not able to put it alongside 'Rublev' as a masterpiece because it does not transcend Tarkovsky's close-mindedness. He is so good that he is perfectly able to convey his point of view, and I do not necessarily subscribe to his point of view. It would be better if he were more questioning in his approach rather than provide the answers. Overall, in terms of the other complaints about this film, I did not mind them mostly. The pacing is fine, and I love the long takes. For example, the scene where he just holds on to the three of them inside the room, and there is a brief spell of rain... That scene creates a certain emotional connect *because* it lingers for so long. He is masterful as usual with his tracking shots, he films rain excellently, the film is beautifully lit, he uses the right scenes to shift from B/W to colour (unlike 'Solaris' where it seemed arbitrary), and the music is spell-binding. Yes, there are many of his signatures missing, but he is filming a landscape of an industrial ruin basically, and he is able to create beautiful shots of ugliness. I just finished watching 'Stalker' for the second time, and as I am writing and thinking about it, it does seem like I liked it a lot. But I am still disappointed that I do not regard it a masterpiece and one of the best films ever (like I do 'The Red Desert' which this one has borrowed from).

[@LearningaboutMovies]

a truly outstanding comment. thank you. in all sincerity, if this is your normal output, you should make videos, or write, or both. the only disagreement here is that I see the Bergman/Tarkovsky the opposite way, in that Tarkovsky's struggles were more difficult (maybe just because of political/censorship circumstances), and that the artist dealing with faith in a realm that declares itself atheistic has a greater challenge. Probably the difference between you and me here is priorities of assumption; although I have great admiration for the pagan agnostic struggling to know why anything exists and why we must suffer, the man of faith (Tarkovsky) has the same dilemmas, just alternate answers. I think the artist of faith may be as humane and relatable as you say Bergman is. I'm glad that we had both of them work hard for us, their viewers.

[@vivekanand5563]

@@LearningaboutMovies Thank you. While I can definitely agree that Tarkovsky might have 'suffered' more based on his restrictions due to geography, it is more due to the fact that he comes across as a close-minded, humourless git in his books and interviews, that I find him unrelatable. He has already decided, and just wants to present. Whereas someone like Bergman is unsure and wants to explore... I find that more interesting.

[@eligrivrerref]

@@vivekanand5563 Completely agree with both of your statements, but Tarkovsky compensates this personal flaw with hypnotic images and atmospheres which I think are stronger than Bergman's. His movies are so poetic and vague that you can approach them in a different way, even if the director originally intended to show his particular vision of religion (christianity). The clue is to consider them as spiritual and poetic movies, instead of religious ones.

[@nikithad9315]

@@vivekanand5563 I agree Bergman asks us tarkovsky gives us... BTW my favorite is Kubrick

[@theremin_vox1518]

@@vivekanand5563 If you knew the story of Tarkovsky's life, you would understand that he doubted and searched for the truth in different things, and all his films are not a statement of fact, but a search...

[@rayspickler5247]

I watched Stalker twice before reading Roadside Picnic. I fell in love with the movie, then found that I liked the book even more although the stories are quite different. I liked the slow pace (was prepared for it from reading reviews before) because it made me feel more connected with the characters and the environment. It also left a lot of room for philosophical discussion, which I enjoyed and seems to be very "Russian". I rate it very highly, probably in my Top 50 movies. I'm always on the lookout for "offbeat" films, so it fit with my general taste. I wish I could say the same about Solaris. While some of the movie is better than the Clooney version, overall I just didn't care for it as much. Tarkovsky's ending was more "Russian" than the American film, with the love of mother/father and a return to childhood being the real dream of the protagonist over the love of a woman. That's something that Hollywood and an American audience wouldn't buy into as well. I was highly anticipating it to become one of my all time favorites, like Stalker, and was left disappointed. I'll likely never watch it again. However, I'm still planning on watching The Mirror...we'll see where that one lands.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you. great comment.

[@RicardoDirani]

" the love of mother/father and a return to childhood being the real dream of the protagonist over the love of a woman. That's something that Hollywood and an American audience wouldn't buy into as well." interesting take. As a Brazilian, I can recognize this theme in a classic American movie, Citizen Kane... also referenced in Inception

[@Dippedwithsweet]

You will….

[@husnukural8566]

I would consider the Zone as the subconscious rather than the consciousness as nothing is ever the same in there and you can never go back or take the same road twice because of the fact that the Zone is perpetually transformed with every single new experience. The Zone is full of relics of the past, the rotting tanks and all sorts of other stuff, like the subconscious. Consciousness is clarity, it is the definable and attainable. At the level of consciousness 2*2 is always 4 but in the Zone it is 5 one day and 267 some other day. Yet on another day one can not even carry out a multiplication as human beings are not in charge within the Zone. The Zone is the uncontrollable sphere of human existence. And the Room is the deepest heart of the subconscious as the level of most suppressed desires which is totally closed to conscious intervention. One can only travel in the Zone trying to figure out his destiny, actually never reaching the target nor attaining the object of desire as these would have also transformed during the existential journey within the Zone. One can also imagine the Zone as the Ding an Sich of Kant ie the unknowable aspect of the object of knowledge. However hard you try to decipher the universe, there will always be a leakage in human truth. The Zone is the realm where these leakages pool together. Unfortunately this can be a toxic leakage too as was the case with the area the Zone was actually built upon. So good old Andrei’s attempt to guide us in the Zone as our Stalker cost him his dear life and the humanity sadly lost arguably the greatest ever artist at such a young age. Even this finale is an artwork in itself as it indicates the dangers of explorations into the Zone in the form of an uncanny and cruel metaphor. May he rest in peace.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

excellent. thank you.

[@gordospeti]

LOL! Yours is some interpretation!

[@oldjack-mi8gk]

I love the dog in this film. He can move freely through the Zone whereas the humans can’t. I understand why casual moviegoers would dislike this film but, as with music, I like what I feel when watching it. I also think the use of scripture -- which is part of Tarkovsky’s cinematic language -- is effective.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

the dog! yes, that's important. Don't dogs show up randomly in Tarkovsky? I recall "Mirror" and certainly "Nostalgia."

[@anima6035]

@@LearningaboutMovies dog is just god rearranged........

[@greenscottydog_1769]

i liked it and im normal movie goer :/

[@LearningaboutMovies]

That is great. However, having taught thousands of students, I am not sure you are that normal. Five minutes into the movie, everyone would have their phones out, for the entire movie.

[@goosebumpsemiliano9104]

I really enjoyed this movie. I can't get all in detail here but I'll give an example. After watching the movie with my dad the theme song kept playing in my head over and over. I had dreams of going in the zone and interpreting things about it that were first unclear. This movie is simple in terms of what happens. But the film contains layers that make it a slow journey into a unknown land.

[@AMPTHAMAN]

This film is creative in its critique of the Soviet Union. With some retrospective analysis of the dwindling belief in the USSR you can see the parrell. It is suprising that is passed Soviet censors.

[@Dread_Cast]

I think it’s a great movie bc it’s a metaphor about people and their pursuit for happiness and what they think they want in life but ultimately it’s something else entirely… Not sure how that ties in with the girl’s powers at the end but I’d say it symbolizes that the greatest mysteries and gifts of life can come from the least expected places

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@kieranmccruden2714]

I just finished watching Stalker for the first time. I really enjoyed it as a philosophical piece that made me really think and would not be recommending it to any Marvel fans! As I see it, The Writer and the Scientist must trust the Stalker, a man of "faith" with belief in the system created by the Zone, in order to survive. But like any faith, what proof do we have that it actually performs any real action in our lives? It is our faith in religions' ability to protect us that makes it real. So the fact that "nothing happens" despite being warned of the dangers means we are left to ponder the nature of what the Zone is and trust in the rules and what we are told by the Stalker - much like any organised religion. I think the film effectively manages to put the viewer in the position of the two "tourists" by deliberately failing to give us a grounded idea of what the Zone is. Instead we are forced to trust in the religious figures vague assertions to find our way in making sense of the world in which we find ourselves. What these three men believe in and are looking to gain from the Zone becomes our own questioning of what we want from life and why. What are our motivations in life? Are we being honest to ourselves when we declare them? And what are the consequences of our actions should we be dishonest? Much more than just a movie, even after just one viewing, I see Stalker as an in-depth and still-relevant lament on the nature of faith (religious and non-religious), it's benefits, and it's place in a reality where technology and the idea of notoriety/respectability are key to our concept of the world and where we exist within it.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@Iguana93]

I just finished watching it and while I'll admit the cinematography is wonderful and I don't really mind slow pace per se, I must say I don't find the contents that substantial. I've certainly never seen anything quite like it though. And no, I'm not a Marvel fan at all, quite the contrary. But when I watch or read something meant to be thought provoking, I like when it actually presents something that makes me think. Not to sound "superior" or something, but I think about the meaning of life and the purpose of humanity quite often and this movie gave me zero new thoughts. During my life, I went through the requisite youngster naivete and idealism, then through some moderately depressing sobering-up and I guess I emerged into some kind of acceptance of the general human mess. Maybe I'm to stoic these days in my general world-outlook to be dragged into the whole "the world is boring and drab and people are empty shells" schtick. People are just people. They have different motivations, virtues and vices. There's ugliness and there's beauty in life. The theme of the film meanders around all that, but never presents anything very coherent. I guess that's part of the intention, but I conclude that this is simply a very specific piece of film that does a very specific thing and while it is being generally hailed as a masterpiece, it just didn't resonate with me for some reason. I find its philosophical dialogues to be slightly cheap and I believe the same set of themes could have been presented much better. But again, that's just my opinion. It definitely works more as a piece of visual art than traditional film. Oh, and the part of the daughter and her apparent supernatural abilities was completely unnecessary and didn't add anything of value. If anything, I had to bite down a laugh, because in that single scene there seemed to be the only thing that actually qualified this movie as "science fiction". Otherwise it was just three men running around ruins, having a high-school level philosophy debate. Ok, maybe that was too harsh, but I guess it's my disappointment talking.

[@singingchef23]

So your comment is completely elitist. I own every Marvel and DC film as well as Stalker and Solaris because you dont need to be an snob to appreciate something.

[@BobbyLectric]

I adore your reply. There is a potent felling of faith, that the Marvel universe has. Believe, and you will find joy.

[@yasedky]

@@Iguana93 I can't agree more regarding the point that this movie doesn't answer what's the meaning of life. And I feel that this is exactly what was in his mind.. The movie (In a very very slow manner) showed them suffering .. Crossing through water, sleeping on rough ground, walking through destructed tiles or piles of sand.. It's walking through life in suffering with no answers, thinking that we are pursuing a meaning or a goal. ... And guided by a man who thinks himself as a savior , (when he recited the Bible verse where Jesus was not recognized hy two of his disciples) And this man, can't support his family and can't notice the uniqueness of his own child And you can see how sad she is (the daughter) While being carried on her father's shoulders .

[@catambwe]

Are there really people who are unable to guess why they are throwing the bolts after a few throws, or that the zone is forbidden to enter by the fact that they get shot at from a jeep on their way in? I shudder for the future of popular movies and humanity in general.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Certainly a fantastic reason to shudder.

[@namelastname1085]

Whenever I have trouble sleeping, I put this on. Hasn't failed so far. I only decided to actually finish the film after waking up this morning. It was boring, but I still liked it for some reason. The music was hypnotizing, the scenes felt like daydreams. Felt like being stoned.

[@relaxwithmyhorns3312]

Sorry, but after having a deep love for the aesthetic and concept offered by the film and book and games, upon my first watch, this film instantly fell into my Top 10. From the cinematography to the many monologues offered by the characters to even the music and the sound design, this movie encapsulated me. This movie was geared towards me 100%, and I could happily fall asleep to this movie or watch it all the way through and either way i’d be content

[@LearningaboutMovies]

very glad you like it.

[@fe4000]

Really liked your video and loved the movie. So many interesting points of view in the comments that I don't think I can come up with something original yet. But I have a question: why do they need to throw the nuts before following a path in the Zone? You said it has to do with the novel, so I decided to ask as I keep trying to find a physical copy in my country. Congratulations on the content, cheers!

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I wrote a comment here but it disappeared! Anyway, there are "graviconcentrates," invisible gravity traps that suck you in and kill you. The stalkers throw nuts to determine where they are. I don't recall the movie mentioning anything like that. btw, just reread the book for class and it remains amazing, especially the ending.

[@cgbleak]

The first time I watched this movie, I could have sworn there was one time they threw the nuts and you couldn't hear them land. Danger!

[@planetmusic11]

First thanks a lot for this amazing video and your brilliant version about it. I chose not to agree, in my opinion Stalker was and will be an eternal movie, deep, philosophical and divine, its an amazing lesson to learn from someone younger or older than us it is really not important, we just have to learn during all our life, in this case is good to learn from Andrei Tarkovsky a lesson how to exist and try to be good human being and minimizing our ego that most of the time is disturbing the true in our soul. I watched Stalker more than 30 times in various period of my life and every time i discovered more deep and important details. I still and will keep learning from this Chef D'oeuvre, as Andrei said, Cinema is a mosaic of time and i said that time is always in movements exactly like our thoughts, so the great in all this concept is that we always can choose and change it when we decide that the before was true at his time but in the time of now is wrong for us. I do believe that maybe one day if you will try to watch it again in various periods of your life, you may change your opinion, no one can convince no one, you are the soul of the business and the soul of the business is you ( Chico Science ). About the genius Edward Artemiev, he is the brilliant music composer of the soundtracks Solaris, Mirror and Stalker. Take Care Mate

[@LearningaboutMovies]

outstanding comment, thank you. I'm glad that Stalker has spoken to you in this way, and that's completely understandable. The Sacrifice is that Tarkovsky movie that speaks to me.

[@planetmusic11]

@@LearningaboutMovies Wooooow well The Sacrifice is a movie not easy at all to understand, i think that this is the deepest work of Tarkovsky psycologicly. Outstanding for you too 👌 I will keep dig it until to get it 👍

[@apistosig4173]

The film is terrific on many levels, most notably, the manner in which it was shot (filmed). The gorgeous use of sepia and other very muted colour scapes also wonderfully employed. The pace of the film is necessary to allow the viewer to drink in what Tarkovsky wants you to see. I would happily watch this again - ditto Federico Fellini's 8+1⁄2 of 1963

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@alleygh0st]

Just like the Zone, it's not for everyone and certainly not every day, and I can live with that.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

they didn't need to brave the Zone, a bunch of guys looking for miracles somewhere in a half-fantasy land. The miracle was at the kitchen table, the telekinetic girl.

[@Anti-CornLawLeague]

I liked it much more than Annihilation (2018). I wish more movies with people exploring dangerous zones were made.

[@organicagroventure9373]

Great masterpiece. Must watch atleast 10 times

[@subodhgautam649]

Great review really

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@RicardoDirani]

I found out about Tarkovsky in the 90s, in my 20s, through Solaris. I loved it. Then I proceeded to Zerkalo (Mirror) and loved it even more. Then I got to Stalker. It seemed to be the mostly well known of them. I didn't get it at all. At this point I already absolutely loved Tarkovsky, so I assumed it was something with me. But I never tried to watch it again... until I found it in the Mosfilm channel here and watched it. It almost all made sense. I probably had more references now to figure out what was going on. But I was still puzzled. Sometimes it felt like it was all just a big game of make believe. The only positive signal that there was anything happening outside of their minds was the glitch with the bird flying in the dune room, and the daughter's telekinesis in the end (which I felt didn't quite fit the story otherwise). So I went ahead and picked up Roadside Picnic (the restored version). Whoa. Now everything made sense. I still like the movie a lot, but I surely would want a fully realized cinematic adaptation of the novel. It's a shame the 2016 TV series project didn't pick up. I see so many references to the novel now: Tales from The Loop is definitely a riff on it, but also Annihilation and, 20 years ago, Animatrix Beyond, my favorite episode of the series, in which an abandoned block of a Japanese city is glitched with areas of null gravity, mirroring the "bug traps" of the book. Even Mamoru Oshii's Polish movie Avalon might have paid some tribute to it, with it's sepia primary scenario. I'm probably going to take the next weeks to watch all other Tarkovsky's movies that I either didn't watch or watched 30 years ago and barely remember anything.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

excellent, thank you. great comment. The ending of Roadside Picnic is one of the most profound I have ever come across. Probably have analyzed that with six different college classes, and we always find many new things in the final (fourth) section and in the last few pages.

[@rmsrmsrmsrms]

The game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is the most fully realized adaptation of the novella there is.

[@agdgdgwngo]

I genuinely thought it was brilliant, beautiful and very deep. I was transfixed

[@410ghost5]

I’ve never read the book or watched any other of tarkovskys films but actually enjoyed this film, it was intense but without the action, scary but not in the way that a normal horror movie is, I don’t know why I like it but I do it’s strange.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

that's great. You would probably like Tarkovksy's Solaris -- a similar mood and pace.

[@410ghost5]

Learning about Movies thanks I will definitely check it out I’m definitely now fan of this director 👍

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I have a video on Tarkovsky. You may have seen it.

[@milxl]

The mood is great but the story not much

[@LearningaboutMovies]

it's a kind of parable. Had it been written out as such, it might be a paragraph or two.

[@juju10683]

In one of your videos you stated that you would love to see the critics of sight and sound describe what makes a movie good. Could you please provide us with your explanation of what makes a movie good?

[@Rishabh-Dev]

You'll have to watch this film several times to get a hold over it and truly understand it's context. I have watched this film more than 10 times within a span of 1 year, and now i think this will stay with me for the rest of my life.

[@AlbertKarhuFilms]

Same here.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you. I think that films are naturally hypnotic, but not all for all people.

[@Rishabh-Dev]

@@LearningaboutMovies Yeah i completely agree, These kinda films aren't everyone's cup of tea.

[@MightiestBeard]

I just watched this last night, first Tarkovsky movie that I've seen. I expected to love it based solely on the imagery I'd seen and the poster which to me implies some sort of almost Lovecraftian vibe. Alas, it's very meandering and has no real climax that I was wrongly expecting. I'm glad I found your video because after watching it I was thinking "Am I the only one who didn't just flat out love this?" I enjoyed a lot of it, but it was a bit of a slog. All the poetry and philosophy is cool, but I'm too dumb for the sheer volume of it in this movie. I've seen a lot of people say one watch isn't enough so I may revisit it after watching a few more of his movies. But thank you for this video and confirming that I'm not crazy.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

you're welcome. it's beloved, yet I know from experience that many don't love it. Great if you do, but consolation to those who do not see it as great. It is a movie worth trying again at some point.

[@cgbleak]

I don't think there's such a thing as "too dumb" for Stalker. There might be such a thing as having too many conventional expectations of what a movie should be and do. My understanding is that Tarkovsky was highly critical of Kubrick's 2001. And yet, I think he was a little obsessed with that film and was keenly aware of the many cinematic conventions it subverted. Maybe both Stalker and Solaris were Tarkovsky's way of saying, look, I can can create comparably subversive and philosophically weighty worlds with no special effects at all. I find the first half of Stalker surprisingly compelling given its slow pace. And the second half a bit anti-climactic. None of the characters really change (unless the Stalker decides he'll never visit the Zone again). The Scientist's motivations for bringing what he brings into The Zone could be better developed. The talent displayed by the stalker's daughter at the end seems to bring the whole purpose--or length--of the film into question. And yet... If there's such a thing as an imperfect but nonetheless great movie, Stalker is a perfectly imperfect example.

[@antekpjk]

The bolt thing might've made no sense to people who were unfamiliar with the setting but damn was it cool when I as a fan of the STALKER video game saw them doing something with bolts. Instantly knew what they would do with them.

[@mitchellgardepe7812]

If this is the first video you’re watching on this, I recommend that you watch another. There’s so much depth to be found in this movie and I don’t think the author of this video took the time to really process it.

[@IndieAuthorX]

Great movie, but I am glad that somebody is taking a negative look at it, at the very least it steelmans a criticism of what I believe to be one of the greatest movies ever. First thing. I think the vagueness and lack of exposition regarding things like the wingnuts leaves the audience to infer a wider number of interpretations. Maybe the the bits of metal are like prayer. Maybe The Stalker is being foolish and superstitious? Maybe they plot the way? They take on an almost spiritual quality by the end, when a bird flies through the strange room of sand dunes. I read the book after and I am glad I did not read it before, because I was able to take the wider interpretation. The pacing. While different than Andrei Rublev and very difficult to stay awake through, I think it forces a lucid dream state of mind. Tarkovsky uses science fiction as a way to get his philosophical and spiritual cinematic poetry past the soviet censors and so as to get approval for the films budget. So, while technically sci fi, Tarkovsky is really making films about spiritual reality in his present day.

[@nichola8127]

I just loved it. Gloomy but hopeful. The Stalker encouraged the Professor not to blow up the room!

[@memorivas7515]

how many movies have you seen? and im very curious, what is your top 10 movies of all time? thank you bro

[@LearningaboutMovies]

please check letterboxd -- the link is in the description. Also, on the channel there are a few videos with lists. For example, my choices for BFI top ten.

[@gs-xmastree7013]

Andrei Rublev was my first Tarkovsk film and wow, I thought it was a masterpiece. This one not so much,. But having said that I loved the visuals and the haunting music. I feel I will grow to love Stalker, because it has stayed in my mind. A little disappointed it's not cinemascope as the visuals are awesome.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

it's worth trying the rest of Tarkovsky and seeing what you like. I couldn't figure out why I liked Nostalgia a lot but not this movie.

[@gs-xmastree7013]

@@LearningaboutMovies I'll check that one out. Cheers.

[@cheeZDude12]

Just found this channel, thanks for the video and gonna look out at other ones!

[@LearningaboutMovies]

welcome, and thank you.

[@HallgeirOlsen]

I think you're wrong, It's an easy (if a bit long) story to follow. I have not read the book and I never felt that I should have. It is not slow all the way, it even has a car chase. It looks amazing. I love it and it is truly a great film. It really reminds me of the recent film, Annihilation.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Well, I just watched all of Tarkovksy movies. This one is a change of pace (slower) than his earlier work. Need to get a timer out to measure his shot length. Where is the car chase? They avoid the police in the first 30 minutes but it's not a chase. No quick cutting in the movie. But yes, as I said in the video, I can see how a lot of people admire it. "Annihiliation" definitely borrows from it, partly because the book it's based on borrows from either Roadside Picnic or Stalker or both.

[@HallgeirOlsen]

@@LearningaboutMovies I was preparing yself for a very slow experience, and was pleasantly surprised :) What You call avoiding the police, I call a car chase. It can't possibly last for 30 minutes! I love your videos by the way.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you. I mean that the "chase" scene is in the first 30 minutes of the movie. Tarkovsky's "The Mirror" is a quick action movie compared to "Stalker." Glad you love the movie, though. Keep loving it! thank you for the compliment. Please keep watching and commenting.

[@themooingmooer415]

I love STALKER and have it as one of my genuinely best movies of all time. At the same time I can easily recognize that this movie has a very “unique” feel. And because of it I will only recommend this movie to a certain type of person. Someone who just wants calm and simplicity.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you

[@newTellurian]

You're totally right, it is a depiction of the soviet union. There is a russian literature critic Bykov who analysed the Roadside Picnic from this prospective in detail, like all those deadly traps represent KGB, and the Sphere represents the communist bright future which will never come. And after watching your video I realised that Tarkovsky did even a better job at depicting the USSR. Stalker is the communist ideology who's leading people into that wasteland and asking them to "believe", the room which is the communism itself which is supposed to make everybody happy but in reality it brings only sorrow and desperation. And the imagery of this movie is the best possible representation of the USSR. Men lying in a polluted swamp with industrial trash all around. Uncomfortable and desperate place.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

the end of Roadside Picnic is brilliant on communist ideology. great comment, and yes, those who have lived in communist countries where the state basically controls the economy -- they know this imagery pretty well. although it does not have to apply just to communist regimes, of course.

[@Hactavish]

i'm very picky about slow paced movies but this is probably the best boring slow paced movie i've ever watched because i really like the cinematography in this film, it's just looks really good tho i don't really understand the movie but i'd like to watch the movie again because how it looks

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I feel the same way about Tarkovsky's Nostalgia and the Sacrifice is fabulous.

[@Hactavish]

@@LearningaboutMovies i might check another his works, Stalker is the only Tarkovky's film i watched recently

[@shahbazsheikh3545]

I have no clue why this movie felt great to me. Maybe it was just hype (I heard awful lot of amazing things about this movie beforehand). Or maybe truly great works of art touch you in ways you can't describe.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Tarkovsky was a great hypnotist.

[@WhuDhat]

Glad im watching this first, i assumed this took place in the chernobyl exclusion zone lol. Also i just watched a japanime called uraseki (otherside) picnic which also has a similar premise minus the motivation for entering. Must have been inspired by the book, it all clicked and i found that kinda cool.

[@dann536]

I literally just finished watching the movie , couldn’t care less about the director no movie snobbery here but the book is FAR SUPERIOR

[@marguskiis7711]

The movie has almost nothing to do with book which is great.

[@jacobkdl3483]

This was my first Tarkovsky film. Literally just finished watching. Definitely interesting. The comments relating to despair and bleakness created and felt during the Soviet Union and its relation to the film are compelling. Having no frame of reference to other Tarkovsky films, I did like this one. Its runtime was only felt towards the end. I am eager to dive further into the director’s filmography.

[@Vikramottungadeva]

Please, watch Andrei Ruble too

[@archivesmoviegoer7259]

Only one long shot at the very end of the film, which begins as a close-up and ends as a panoramic view, ranks this film among the masterpieces of world cinematography. Without any words, everything is expressed there: abandonment, the unfulfillment of the deepest desires and all the despair of the post-apocalyptic world.

[@FIRSTNAMELASTNAME-zt4kf]

Need to find me a copy it seems pretty good.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

The criterion bluray. Occasionally they have it on their streaming service.

[@kamilmoravek8130]

Its on KZbin for free

[@BobbyLectric]

The question is; do you want to visit the zone?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

No, I prefer the matrix.

[@electrictrojan6719]

I like it because I think it shows these men of the Industrial Age going on the only kind of religious pilgrimage their world can offer.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@noti4882]

This movie is poetry

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@davidc5191]

There's a 2018 movie, Annihilation, with a similar premise of some kind of zone on Earth created by aliens whose strange properties are investigated by teams of humans. But otherwise not similar to Stalker.

[@StoicTheGeek]

Yes. Annihilation was ostensibly based on on a Jeff Vandermeer story, but watching it shows that Garland was heavily influenced by JG Ballard. It is as you say a very different movie

[@pokpok3037]

Stalker is my first 'Tarkovsky' film & i enjoy it, after reading the comment section i am seeing the rant about 'pace', well what did you expect from a poetic/artistic Director like him?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I am not sure about the "pace" rant. Here, we love all kinds of movies. E.g., Nostaligia by Tarkovsky is great, and there you watch a man walk a candle back and forth. That's a shot with pace, about pace!

[@pokpok3037]

@@LearningaboutMovies Thanks for the recommendations, sir. I'm sure i'm going to love these films.

[@yosefveira]

I read the book after (must confess) play the STALKER pc game and then I eat almost anything of Arkady and Boris Strugatsky fall in my hands. Ci-Fi and cinema in all of its aspects is one of my passions. As an graphic artist and musician, I got always the same 2 questions: is possible some kind of "objective" experience of art? and: is the art an intellectual experience or a emotional one? Personally, I don't believe the objectivity even exist, so any critics always got a substantial limit. And the experience of art I think is a combination of mind and hearth, a mix we can call "artistic sense" or so. Another reason, for me, to take any critic with a lot of relativity. Stalker is actually the only movie I see of Tarkovsky and I like it so much. It was like those "asmr" videos this days infected the net. Probably the word I search is "hypnotic". The film give me room for see, hear, nothing to do, nowhere to go. Was an obscure and relaxing journey at the same time. My modest opinion is the matter is not what happen in the movie but what happen inside me. I doubt we can cut the reel only because "nothing happen". A silence in music can consider nothing happen, but is part of it. Of course an extremely long silence kill the song. I think this not occur in STALKER. In fact its remember me the spirit of the literature of Strugartsky's bros: the desperate impossibility of understanding why certain things happen. You inspire me to watch it again. Thanks. Stay safe and healthy.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

The Strugatskys are great. I've never played the game; probably should try it. The first is the greatest art question of all. If we all have a shared humanity, across space and time and culture, then maybe the answer is "yes." If not, as a lot of American academics think today, then "no." Many who answer "yes" will appeal to Kant's attempt to find an objective view of aesthetics. There's a character in a Godard movie who says that cinema is an emotional medium. Later in the movie, someone responds that emotions have their ideas. If art is as complexly allusive as it can be, it probably will be affecting all aspects of us.

[@yosefveira]

@@LearningaboutMovies if you let me, I recommend you "Rerberg and Tarkovsky. The Reverse Side of ‘Stalker’ ", a documentary film about the fight within this two genius that almost brake the make of Stalker, put an end in one of the more great partnerships in the cinema history and probably the end of a vision of the art apply to the filming... just in case you like.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you!

[@StoicTheGeek]

I love the Strugatskys, and Roadside Picnic is brilliant and very powerful. I thought it was their masterpiece until I read the Doomed City, which is just incredible.

[@itsanameisntit]

With a very deepest of respect, as I'm sure you know infinitely more than I do about science fiction, I suggest that you do not view this as a science fiction film. The book is used in the same way that Stanley Kubrick used Stephen King's book "The shining". The family in King's novel travels in a red VW beetle. Kubrick's family travels in a yellow VW beetle. Along the way, they see a red VW beetle crushed under a truck. That was Stanley Kubrick's way of telling Stephen king, "this is what I did with your novel". Stalker is a mirror of one's own spiritual, or philosophical maturity. Just as meditation is a mirror of one's State of mind. The film itself is a meditation. Many people meditate for years and get nothing out of it. They sometimes say that meditation is useless. The long cuts are Tarkovsky's way of allowing the viewer to see the beauty in even the most desolate of circumstances, but not just to have an aesthetic pleasure from the desolate beauty, but to give oneself to it completely. To date, I have seen the film 30 times. The very first time I watched it, I thought it was the most nihilistic film I had ever seen. As time went on, I found myself returning to it again and again. Little by little, things were slowly revealed, which I had previously missed. I certainly don't mean to seem critical of you, but if I may offer a word of caution; for way too many years, I dismissed things which I couldn't immediately appreciate as being simply attempts by pretentious people to appear intelligent. If you are obsessed with science fiction, you are very probably right brained, science minded. I had a friend who is a math professor at a prestigious university, and he has very different taste than I do, so I certainly respect what may be hindering you from seeing what I believe I see. Still, I enjoyed your video! Thank you!

[@tonyc.4392]

Gotta say, I watched this film the first time years ago and just didn't quite get it. Since then, I've learned some basic conversational Russian and re-watching it is a completely different experience now.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you. I bet it's improved, maybe greatly, by knowing its contexts.

[@tonyc.4392]

@@LearningaboutMovies if you remember the scene where the Professor gets a surprising phone call. I don't think the subtitles really capture how weirded out the Writer was by the telephone ringing. He kept muttering the word telephone in between his diatribe in that scene. Like that was the final breaking point for him.

[@justin_sanchez_]

I think Stalker is a masterpiece, but this is a great analysis/take nonetheless.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thanks, I appreciate it. definitely was trying to respect your and anybody else's view.

[@guillaumekalfon9117]

I has been considering if the (ultimately unreached, or disappointing) room that grants wishes, wasn't the West, the other side of the Iron Curtain?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

yes, that could be. From the novel, the Zone could grant utopian dreams, or it gives stuff/commodities that could be bought or sold. It may even be more fruitful to try to see the "wishes" as just a better life, period, beyond a totalitarian state.

[@malikmatiyahu4240]

It is a great work of art. The slow pace coaxes one into the meditational mood required, if you allow it (many won't be able to - I don't think that makes it elitist - just not available for all). The writer and the professor are ultimately unable to make use of their experience, I think, despite their erudition, although we don't know how their lives go on from there. But the Stalker has faith, and this results in the miraculous power of his daughter, even amidst the depressing (post)industrial degradation of the environment she inhabits. I don't think you need to have read the book (I have not). Whatever the novel is about, that does not alter the film's zen-peregrination meditation upon life. Yes the oppressiveness of the Soviet system is there, but ultimately the Stalker triumphs against it. In many ways, it is Tarkovsky's purest statement. Its only fault is that it so transcend the normal boundaries of Cinema that it is perhaps closer to a spiritual experience than a movie.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

See I think Tarkovsky figured out this style better in subsequent films, Nostaligia and The Sacrifice. It would be interesting to know what you and others think of those.

[@Ocean5ix]

I felt like the movie tried to cramp most of the philosophical moments of the book in it in 2 and a half hours. The problem (to me) is that compared to the book, the movie feels very surreal and abstract with all the monologues and philosophical speeches, while ignoring the surreal and abstract nature of the Zone itself. And I mean, I get it, the book has a message, it has a point that it's clearly trying to convey but it's also a "story" that feels real and immersive while the movie feels like a spin off of Twin Peaks.

[@rocky.sroger8855]

this reminds me of those games

[@LearningaboutMovies]

yep, those games.

[@mountainclawoutdoors]

Is there no feeling of despair in this country at this time?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

What?

[@neilward5825]

I'm not persuaded by the idea of elitist art. Elitist art is presumably art which has as one of its express objectives, the aims of alienating or criticising at least some and presumably a large part of its audience. This movie asks questions of its audience, no doubt, and questions which sit uncomfortably in the mind. But I think true art, of which this is surely an example, has a universality that can reach into the soul of any human by virtue of it's humanity. The circumstances surrounding it's creation, even it's creator, it's reception but most importantly the way in which an audience is exposed (or deliberately not exposed to it) can all introduce a certain elitism, but the elitism is conferred from external sources, and is not contained within the art itself. That it is not easily accessible is a value judgement which may or may not be true, but that in an of itself is not an elitist quality. Stalker is the kind of movie you live with. A first encounter can just be an exercise in meditation and just letting the experience wash over you. You can keep coming back to it and allow the layers of meaning to reveal themselves. Elitism only enters into the discussion if we say to a particular part of the audience, "don't bother with this, it's too difficult. If you watch and don't understand it, first time, then you aren't getting it."

[@LearningaboutMovies]

an example is Modernism, a lot of which is accused of elitism, and frankly some of those artists were deliberately anti-populist/anti-masses. Art that seeks to alienate, or be esoteric, or be only for the privileged/in-the-know, is pretty common -- as any jaunt through a museum will indicate. One doesn't even have to impute that value to the work; you can look up the historical circumstances and just be a historicist to make these claims.

[@neilward5825]

@@LearningaboutMovies Yes. I think that's a fair response. But I'm not sure it really applied to Tarkovsky, taking his work on its own terms, and in spite of some of the things he himself said about it.

[@averagegoslingenthusiast2033]

Great video, so glad I came across your channel. Ive only seen the film once, so my thoughts about it are still very fresh. However, I did find it quite underwhelming after hearing so many people call this film a “life-changing experience”. I only have one issue with the film, but it’s one that greatly soured my viewing experience. That is us being that Tarkovsky basically resorts to random character monologues and even voiceovers to relay his philosophical themes and musings. The characters would break into 3 minute long monologues that would basically recite paragraphs about existential philosophy. I found that this left very little for us to interpret about the subject matter and opinions of Tarkovsky himself. I understand that the philosophy behind this film is incredibly hefty and some amount of dialogue is needed to convey the messages or questions of the director, but this felt very forced and as though it served little purpose to the story as a whole. IMO, Films such as Apocalypse Now did a far better job of balancing storytelling with some amount of exposition as a way to serve the story. Idk, this was my first Tarkovsky film and it is definitely a different experience of film, so perhaps it’s an acquired taste.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you very much. Appreciate your comment. Please keep trying Tarkovsky. He really is a master of the medium, and he has a shot to be remembered for a long time. This channel has videos on "Mirror" and "Andrei Rublev," plus a "Great Director" video on him. That last video might prove useful to you in figuring out what to watch next from him. All this despite my judgment that Stalker is overrated.

[@GamesWithBrainz]

agreed! i liked the film but i cant see how its considered to be one of the absolute best movies

[@richardsreviews8820]

3:20 never read the novel. I thought it was to know where they are going as they say the zone changes a lot and if you go off path there could be dangers.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

That's correct, though what is the threat? In the book, it's an invisible gravity well that can suck you in, part of the landscape of mysterious alien artifacts. Tarkovsky didn't have the budget to show that, though that is not necessarily the reason for his depiction here.

[@richardsreviews8820]

@@LearningaboutMovies Yes we never see any actually see any threat and there is no proof it is real in the film. There is also no proof that the room actually grants any desires either. I thought this was intentional as the stalker mentions at the end how nobody believes in the zone. But knowing that in the book big budget threats are shown, it makes me question that. I would also add that things that aren’t shown in the film seem to have importance. Frequently, there are frames within the frame that block off what the viewer can see. This is especially notable during the scene where the three sit in front of the room. The characters see more of the room than the audience does. I don’t think I understand the point of it, but things being hidden from the audience does seem to be intentional here.

[@ScoopDogg]

I think I got a bad subtitles file, I thought it was rubbish, I need to watch it again with proper subtitles. If I have to come to KZbin for an explanation to what I just watched, it's a bad film. I will go read the book now

[@LearningaboutMovies]

read Roadside Picnic carefully. I hope you get much out of it.

[@joaquinmombergbarria516]

If you have to watch youtube video to understand a movie it doesn't mean it's bad, it means you're stupid.

[@ScoopDogg]

@@joaquinmombergbarria516 READ THE BOOK, ITS TERRIBLE

[@ScoopDogg]

@@joaquinmombergbarria516 how dumb your comment is, how else do i watch a video to understand a movie. you will never understand how dumb your comment is. tip: movie, watch, video.. what else am i gunna do do read a movie to understand a video. you plum

[@renatok1956]

Without a doubt, it's a great film. Fiction unfolds along with our imagination. The sequences and shots are masterful. It is a masterpiece of cinema. It's #1

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you

[@carlmonty7290]

It sucks, sorry

[@marguskiis7711]

its a crap actually

[@AgernonTheUnfair]

Watched it yesterday didn’t like it I was liking the ambience but the story and what happens at the end was disappointing and some scenes take too freaking long

[@Hartfilmsandstuff]

Honestly this film flys by it felt like an hour and a half both times I’ve watched it

[@LearningaboutMovies]

excellent, glad you liked it!

[@desaturated-firefox]

So what are the nuts there for then? They don't really do much to show whether the path is safe, do they? I had the hypothesis that it's a way to show the zone where you're going so it knows beforehand. Since it's never explained how exactly its "traps" work, this idea is as good as any...

[@ryanwingfield6092]

When I watched the movie I kinda thought they were like the ender pearls in Minecraft, where they move in the direction of the safe path when thrown.

[@alphabetadams1024]

Yes

[@kx5462]

I just watched Stalker after years of putting it off. Considering I love the Stalker games I probably watched it with the wrong mindset expecting to see visualy flashy anomalies like in the games. After watching it I dont know why the film is considered a masterpiece, or a scifi, or a thriller. Dont get me wrong, the film does possess very human, very interesting characters, some nice water cinematography, compeling explorations of desire and provokes questions about the innermost human nature, but that doesnt make it an one of a kind film. The scifi setting also feels wasted since it is in question by the viewer until the very end and it is nearly nonexistent. The stalker believes in the strange power at work and he convinces his companions to believe too, who take him on his word for self preservation reasons, but Stalker could be tricking tourists into taking the trip for money into a simple restricted area until we see the bird disappear. So in truth, the philosophical debate could have taken place anywhere else instead of inside the zone, no need for scifi. I like Lovecraft stories and existential horror but the only time I was convinced something might happen was within the tunnel when writer fell and he didn re enter the frame for a long time, so no thriller here. Perhaps I have been spoiled by modern movies that dont leave interpretations to the viewer and spam action scenes throughout films, still I would have liked some actual supernatural stuff in the film that feels impactful. Like, when the scientist disappeared and then reappeared before the tunnel I was expecting him to be a miraze, one of the zone`s traps there to make them stay as the enviroment changed around them. The black dog following the Stalker home could have been death, now shadowing him as he has lost his faith in the zone and overcame his grief, making him less desperate and thus vulnerable by the Stalker`s admitance. The black dog/death following him signifying that Stalker`s next trip to the zone will kill him. Also when the Stalker returned home there was colour, could be a new beginning brough by a new sense of purpose... but the golden shawl the girl wore looked like the mounds of golden sand in the zone chamber. I was so expecting for it to be revealed that the Stalker was tricked by the zone and never returned home and his daughter is an illusion of his realized wish to help his loved ones from now on instead of strangers and make a difference in his daughter`s life or something.

[@josmafer4133]

The thing i found very interesting about your "negative" review it's what you said about Tarkovsky's cinematic language, it's true that some of his "symbols" are lacking and others like milk aren't showing something very meaningful, but i think it's because this movie is probably the least personal of his movies, and i think that's ok because he moves away from his problems to show what he thinks it's THE problem with humanity. Obviously i agree about the hole soviet union stuff but the message of humanity having lost faith it's still there, at least that's why i think it's like the big meaning, obviously his movies have a lot of layers, meanings and messages. Always love your reviews.

[@imadequate3376]

Man... 2 years late but you are really onto something towards the last 1/3 of this talking about Tarkovsky, maybe it was just artistic choice or a product of his environment in the USSR but Tarkovsky referred to Kubrick's 2001 as a "phoney" and how it felt fake, and with how squeaky clean and perfect that ship was then Solaris and the out of place things, radom items here and there, it feels more alive and like it has a soul, or maybe that's what he thought space at that time would really look like. Since you said what you did it got me thinking more and more because 70s-90s russia was a time of slow decline until completely collapsing

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@BruceMincks]

I had no idea what to expect when I dialed up this movie. I'm more an intellectual than a populist and no particular fan of science fiction. I enjoyed its symbolism before I understood the science-fiction elements of the plot, and I understood that the slow pace of the narrative was intended to drive the symbols toward coherence rather than a plot toward some resolution (that I didn't already know from reading the book). As it progressed, I understood that the slow pace was developing an idea of circular time, not linear narrative, which was confirmed by the ending as the characters returned to life rather than memory of what they had experienced. The stalker seemed opposed to his two clients as his grasp of "nature" seemed to justify his authority and direction for their expedition rather than to explain its reasons. They were clearly professionals of the type that the stalker did not respect, and his knowledge of the zone, based on previous experiences there, flipped the professional motives in control over "society" with the consistently anti-social attitude of the stalker. So the "purpose of life" was put into a kind of suspended animation as this invasion of what's left of nature (after Soviet technocracy, as you imply) left the muted daughter and the insecure wife behind. But the ending only confused the symbolism which the director had developed as the surreal foundations of the story only returned to "normal" without explaining whether the zone was the result of an asteroid or alien creatures or what, as though the purpose of life (or the expedition) was never worth the risk of knowing better than the reasons they had to sneak into the place at the beginning.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you.

[@3du76]

I think it is ALWAYS a mistake to approach any film thinking about the genre or the adaptation. Also, the movie has a lot of "action", perhaps more than any other, in the sense of classic unity. And "symbols" are not resources that you take out of a bag, which is why Tarkovsky hated that concept. The bells, the birds and the horses would not have had a poetic weight in the film (unlike the dog). As for the children, she is the core of the hole movie.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

and yet, if anybody has read the book, it can't be helped. Also, it's clearly not ALWAYS a mistake, because Hollywood has long cashed in on the success of popular books to make movies of them. It's part of cultural and historical criticism of any film adaptation to think about the work it's based on; no scholar would say the opposite. I just watched Lolita. Impossible not to deal with book v. film there. As well, movies use associational logic; "symbols' also can't be helped. One thing will be associated with another, creating a link of meaning. Now you are close to the normal definition of symbol. Which is poetry: allusivity spilling over onto everything.

[@ryanvandoren1519]

Name of the track playing?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

if it's not in the description, then it might be lost to me. It's a free track in KZbin's audio library for creators, somewhere under the "ambient" category.

[@ryanvandoren1519]

@@LearningaboutMovies thanks

[@MeMe-ph1wd]

2 h 42 min, it makes this longer than 7 samurais. I did see 7 samurais, it was great, but little exhausted thing to watch. I try find this movie 1 day and watch.