tarkovsky's stalker

I want to go to this but it is on in one hour and my tutorial just finished and I did not go and I feel a bit guilty and don't want to bump into anyone who might make me feel worse.

the last film I saw, in arch and presented by the guy that is presenting this, was 'alphaville' and I hadn't had a lot of sleep beforehand and did doze off OK, a little bit, and I haven't had a lot of sleep, now, and I could see it happening, again, and it does last for two hours and forty minutes.

do you like long takes? really long ones?

thanks xxxxx

(nb i love stalker)

they're showing 'alphaville' again, in a week or two, have you seen that?

they're showing that at the gft? I'm going to all the godard things at the gft, which inc. 'alphaville', yeah. I have it around here on video somewhere.

sokurov raises more questions about pretentiousness and lack of content (though i usually like him too)

when i've seen solaris it's been like a kick in the gut, i cry and cry--stalker i have a greater distance from, perhaps that's in the design; the best part is when he gets the phone call in The Zone

is it a published number i wonder?

he had a hard time getting films made, and often they were only made because he was a "prestige" asset

but eventually it was difficult enough that he left, and he died in france

newer?

the one I know has the loop of the rail trolly looping while the filtered electronics slowly grow louder

is there another version?

if you haven't had enough sleep, don't go see Stalker. I don't really love it.. I've seen it twice but still feel like I'm missing something.

in spite of his concerns with the metaphysical/religious/spiritual (maybe implied, or maybe i just misinterpret) not being ones i resonate with, i nonetheless find his films very appealing. i get the same kind of awe as when looking at a magnificent cathedral or stained-glass window - they don't make me believe in god or the afterlife, but they are magnificent.

i got more 'psychological' than spiritual stuff from them - memory, desire, regret - though from certain angles those kinds of feelings sometimes verge on something more 'profound'

he made me appreciate the visual details of things more, and his fascination with rain/trickling/dripping water has something almost sensually/biologically resonant about it (iirc there is a few-seconds shot in 'nostalgia' of rainwater droplets hitting bottles/jars in sunlight - delicate and transitory beauty, all colourbursting microrainbows & gentle chiming , created in the midst of a grotty hovel from 'miserable' weather and a leaky roof...)

solaris is my favourite - it is the only one i have seen more than once - nostalgia second fav - stalker/andrei rublev/the sacrifice all pretty equal to me
i have never got to a cinema to see 'mirror' grrrr

(and ha yes don't go to a hot cinema when short of sleep to see one - this was my downfall at the ica cinema's showing of andrei rublev - iirc (it was 20 yrs ago so i may not) it was at least 3hrs 30min long and i slept through approx 30 mins in the middle...)

I never seem to go to the cinema. : (((

I wish cozen would make me.

I will keep an eye open for showings. thanks, ray.

I don't know what's happening to me, because my tolerance for long-held shots used to be so low that I needed films like Requiem for a Dream and Run Lola Run. Now, I'm to the point where Stalker's shots didn't really strike me as all that long, all told. Perhaps because so many of them are moving, panning, or tracking shots.

But, yeah, gorgeous film. As of yet one of only two Tarkovskys I've seen (Solaris), but I can't wait to catch Nostalghia and Mirror.

although i suppose i prefer long shots that have a painterly aspect, that observes one or another principal of interesting composition--which really is most of the long take films that are most respected; i've seen a film by philippe garrel which seemed purposely drab and affectless and even artless in its long takes, and it tested my patience (i take that phrase seriously, i think it's good sometimes to test your patience)

i've never seen "nostalghia" or "the sacrifice"

thanks. make me aware of upcoming trips!

☣️

uh sorry, i mean ☢️

I wonder if it was procion dye waste that was being dumped into the Jagala river. I used to knock about places that remind me of some of the Stalker locations and a dye company was dumping waste into the waterways at the time. The water + even some of the greenery in the surrounding area used to have a yellow tint and was horrible smelling at times. Also had an uncle who worked at the L B Dyes factory for 20 odd years and he was known as "Yellow Eddie" and loads of his co-workers died of lung cancer, but the yellow man defied the odds and died of a stroke.

Lots of skepticism from me on this thread, and if I were to watch it tomorrow, I know I'd drift off for stretches. But thinking about my twilight walks around town right now, I never would have guessed that life would more or less turn into this movie (or at least this movie plus the occasional car).

Finally watched this some months ago. Very moving, honestly.

Working my way through the ilx list and we watched this last night. It's a great film and liked it very much. It's possible it could have been edited tighter and it wouldn't have lost much and might have gained power. Otoh, I understand and accept the argument that the length is part of the journey and helps put you in the place of the characters.

Visually stunning and the final shot of the reactor is incredible.

I kept thinking about how this SF movie is largely without effects other than some lighting. Does anyone know how much of certain shots were staged versus just shooting what was there? Thinking of the dream sequence with the shots of objects in the water.

Watched this today, cocooned in a blanket, wind raging outside. I'm still processing it - the material reality of the film, and the experiential aspect of watching the thing. It felt quite close to meditation in places - watching the screen became watching the mind and what drifted across the internal screen. Did any of this chime with the stuff on the screen etc.

The two shots that are currently bouncing around in my head are the lingering (when doesn't the camera linger?) shot of the heroin paraphernalia in the apartment and the vast wall of books - and what both mean for the stalker's state of mind and his purpose for entering and re-entering the zone. Are we to believe that he's been multiple times but hasn't been 'able' to enter the room?

I've read the Strugatsky book but don't remember it sufficiently to know how whether a re-read will throw new light on the the film. Man, what a trip.

I’ve seen this movie three times and I’ve never noticed the heroin paraphernalia. Like needle, what else?

I have maybe concocted it but definitely recall a tray with a syringe and cotton wool balls. Multiple syringes underwater throughout as well. And I read his wife's first tirade as a reaction to his falling back into addiction (as well, clearly, as continually falling for the allure of the Zone).

I would assume that was an allusion to the unspecified health problems of the daughter?

That’s what I might have thought

We’re ringing down the curtain on 2022 with this tonight, gonna be a good time

I specifically left tonight empty with no obligation to do anything. My 16yr old son has just asked if a 'few friends' can come over as they have nowhere else to go. Give me Stalker any day.

xps - ah ok, that makes perfect sense.

Maybe this could be an NYE tradition: watch Stalker and then watch Dinner for One.

I’m due for another viewing but to me seems like a more perfect reflective New Year’s Day viewing.

But my wife didn’t like Andrei Rublev and I’m afraid what she’s think about Stalker. 🙁

definitely saw the drug paraphernalia as medicating the kid who is getting telekinesis

(this thread being bumped prompted me to t0r3nt every tarkovsky for my collection)

I did that years ago and it was a very good move

(Genuine question from someone who has forgotten how: um, where does one t0r3nt from these days? All my old places are long dead.)

With regard to the stalker and his obsessive returning to the room, I can't stop thinking of the phrase 'you had everything you needed right there'.

https://i.imgur.com/zT6HsAK.png

chinaski, drop me a line via ilx mail about plex

stalker was available for a long time on youtube, some semi-official moscow film upload

oh, still is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3hBLv-HLEc

Nice, thanks! In 4K, no less! It looks like Mosfilm also uploaded *Andrei Rublev* (first cut (205 min) and final cut (182 min)), *The Mirror* and *Ivan's Childhood*.

"(Genuine question from someone who has forgotten how: um, where does one t0r3nt from these days? All my old places are long dead.)"

I went through the same despair, now I pay a few quid per 6 months for a usenet provider and something similar for a nzb site and now I don't bother with the ghost-towns of formerly good torrent sites any more!

they’re all on criterion, just subscribe to criterion

there is always one bloody venture scout on every thread! (joking obv)

Point taken obviously, but it's not available in the UK, and never has been. (I could get a VPN, of course.)

Right. We had this discussion earlier about Criterion being US-only.

I was in a 7/8 class this morning, so for Tarkovsky's birthday (and forgetting it was MLK Day--got to him later) I talked about the S&S poll, then played the final three minutes of Stalker. Couldn't get any sound, which definitely mattered.

They were a good class, so they listened and watched without interruption. But I sensed the general feeling in the room was "What the fuck is this guy going on about?"

I know you will have told them!

In my own fumbling manner--"So to sit there completely mystified for two-and-a-half-hours, and then to end with this...amazing!--yes. (Told them I loved the ending, that I've struggled with the film three or four times, and that I have drifted off every time.)

You should show them the rail journey. That's my fave part.

If I had to introduce somebody to Tarkovsky using a clip of only a few minutes...maybe the balloon ride from Rublev? Or the missile attack in The Sacrifice where the milk jug crashes to the floor?

The clip I feel like I see used most as a Tarkovsky emblem is this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Q7cvTh_jU

Watching Stalker for the first time was actually life-changing, inasmuch as it totally rewired my brain's way of thinking about landscape, art and even time.

Currently reading the Southern Reach trilogy by Jeff VanderMeer which feels like it is consciously riffing off the Zona/Roadside Picnic/Stalker (as did M. John Harrison in his Kefahuchi Tract books). Really good.

The film of Annihilation definitely plays off of Stalker too.

except, sucks

I don't suppose anyone managed to save the 4K Stalker before it disappeared?

I enjoyed Annihilation for its proggy trippiness.

you mean on blu-ray? can't find anything about this. link?

xp

oh wait, you're talking about the mosfilm yt upload. seems strange that it got pulled when the others are still up there.

I think it's most likely geoblocked? Might try to find a solution.

Mosfilm has so much good stuff up. The other day I watched a 90's comedy about a 19th century noblewoman who dreams she works in a canteen in Moscow in the 90's, it basically felt like Traumazone: The Movie.

what was it called?

Dreams

🇨🇳 China discovers 'limitless' energy source that could power the country for 60,000 years, geologists in Beijing claim. pic.twitter.com/ieLQIURhwf

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) March 2, 2025

More information on the technical side of those new nuclear reactors

"Unlike uranium-based reactors, thorium molten-salt reactors (TMSRs) are compact, do not require water cooling, cannot experience a meltdown, and produce very little long-lived radioactive waste."

"Molten-salt breeder reactors are the most viable designs for thorium fuel, says Charles Forsberg, a nuclear scientist at MIT. In this kind of reactor, thorium fluoride dissolves in molten salt in the reactor’s core. To turn thorium-232 into fuel, it is irradiated to thorium-233, which decays into an intermediate, protactinium-233, and then into uranium-233, which is fissile. [...] When thorium is transformed into uranium-233, it becomes directly usable in nuclear weapons."

"China isn’t alone in its thorium aspirations. Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in addition to India, have shown interest in the fuel at one point or another."

Sources:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/endless-thorium-supply-china-help-135908082.html
https://spectrum.ieee.org/chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor

I've been thinking a lot about Stalker since watching it on Imax last year with those lovely UK ilx0rs whose handles I am totally blanking on. I read it so much differently from all the other kinds of media related to Roadside Picnic that I've seen.

It's not something I could have watched alone. I'm a fraidy cat when it comes to movies, especially when it comes to psychologically scary movies. Stalker is very psychologically scary. It's got this terribly oppressive atmosphere. At some point, though...

This might be a weird take, but I see Tarkovsky's Stalker as a distinctly Russian comedy, a comedy about people who are scared of changing, even for the sake of the thing they want most in the world.

I guess that's a personal take, based on my own experience. The Stalker, I think, says that in order to reach the Room, one has to approach with an attitude of complete despair, complete hopelessness. I've been there. I've felt that. I've spent years crawling through a landscape that _looked_ ordinary, a landscape I knew to be dangerous and terrifying, where it felt like every move meant my certain and inevitable doom. I've spent years _not_ moving as well. Paralyzed. Not knowing which way was safe. Looking for a guide, someone to show me the way, but not trusting them, quite, in those times when they appeared. Most of all, in the depths of my despair... not knowing, or at least not being able to name, what it was I wanted most, what I wanted more than anything. Afraid of what it could be. Afraid of what I might find. Afraid that what I wanted would mark me as terrible, depraved, as a monster, as life unworthy of life.

At some point in the film, I realized this. I realized that I had walked into the Room, that I was just as terrified and fractious and suspicious as the Stalker and the Professor and the Writer. And I talked a lot of shit, like the Stalker and the Professor and the Writer do. A lot of shit about what I didn't know, even though I _could_ know it. And in the end, when none of them enter the room, they all make their excuses, I laughed, and I said these foolish, superstitious men.

I think of the Room as a sort of basilisk. And I think basilisk are just as silly. Roko's Basilisk is superficially scary but when I really look at it, it's not an inevitable doom. It's a call to change. It's the realization that _on this path_ lies doom, that change is required. This fear that a computer will be malign... computers know only what we tell it. And if the only truth is the assumption underlying Roko's Basilisk, it will happen. The basilisk is an acknowledgement of who we are, at heart. It is the fear that we are, at heart, like the mythical "Porcupine", that we will die as Porcupine does.

I'm not. I know that because I walked into the Room and what awaited me was not riches or wealth but something _else_. And maybe I am _special_ but I don't believe that I am, not truly. I think all of the things that the Stalker and the Writer and the Professor fear are within themselves. They hear a voice. Did you speak? Did you speak? All of them believe they didn't speak. Perhaps one of them spoke and was too afraid to acknowledge it. Afraid of their own fear, that spiral, that recursion. That's why to enter the Room one has to abandon everything, let go of everything, what one knows, what one wants, what one _is_, because that is the only way to break that cycle. That's why to fail to do that is death, in whatever form you like.

It's distinctly Russian, in a way. The joke is on humans. What fools we humans are! When the Stalker gets back to his home and there's that wonderful camera angle reveal, to me that is so hilarious, and so telling, so indicative of the film. Suddenly, we see things from a different perspective. All the adults in the film, they refuse to do so. The Stalker's wife refuses, as well. And she makes the excuses and the hard-luck stories and the CHILDREN, won't somebody think of the CHILDREN, to be a child of a stalker is such a cruel fate. And then we see that last shot and it is the only thing in the film that can genuinely be called "science fiction". This is cruel fate? This is to be lamented? They seek miracles in despair, they see joy as a cause for despair. They blind themselves to the joy that is already part of their lives. Is this not too human? Do I not choose to do this, over and over and over again?

I haven't finished reading Roadside Picnic - I've read only the first chapter. But it seems to me to be a very different book. I've also started reading... there is a yuri manga based on Roadside Picnic, "Otherworld Picnic", a sort of isekai yuri take on it. And I find that interesting as well. I'd like to read more. But Tarkovsky's Stalker, that speaks to me most of all. I think to think of Tarkovsky as a "science fiction" director is... at best reductive. I should like to see more of his films.

Sure, five of his seven features have no science-fiction content at all (though I guess at a stretch The Sacrifice could be seen as a very slow Twilight Zone-type story). I think of him as a religious director.