Questions about Tarkovsky's "Stalker" (Warning : Spoilers).
05-29-03, 12:40 AM
#1
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
Questions about Tarkovsky's "Stalker" (Warning : Spoilers).
Saw this for the first time today on DVD. This is my fourth Tarkovsy film (I have also seen and own on DVD Solaris, The Sacrifice and Andrei Rublev ). I thought it was an excellent movie. I know that this is one of those films that is open to interpretation but I have a few questions I would like to ask:
Thank you for your help.
Spoiler:
Thank you for your help.
Last edited by inri222; 05-29-03 at 12:51 AM.
05-29-03, 12:04 PM
#3
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's my old review from last October (complete with now outdated "beltway sniper" references):
Here is my review of the R1 Image import of the Rusian Cinema Council DVD:
1. This is a REALLY GOOD film. Probably my favorite of all time. Minimal, poetic, adventurous, spiritual.....
2. The DVD picture quality is a revelation. I had only seen the film on VHS from Fox Lorber (which of course means it was $hit). Even though the film's color sequences are deliberately desaturated the DVD is far more colorful and detailed than the VHS. The image itself is at times a little shaky. I mean it litterally shakes around the same way a movie projected in a theater sometimes does, but it was not really distracting
3. The audio had one big problem I noticed. I watched the movie in original mono, but I also checked out the 5.1. There is a major sound drop out of about 1 second in the scene where the three men are stealing the small rail car and they come under fire. The mono track has a drop out when someone off screen fires a gun (because of the drop out we do not hear the gunshot). I switched over to the 5.1 and the gun shot was DEFINATELY there all right. The 5.1 puts the gun shot in the right suround speaker, and VERY loud. Let's just say that if I lived in Washington DC I would have hit the floor. While this bit of suround use was entertaining, there is no way it was ever intended by the director. The rest of the 5.1 mix has plenty of subtle as well as totally obvious diferences. There is music on the 5.1 track where there is no music on the original mono soundtrack. All in all, I prefer the mono of course, but the one drop out (and there is only one) is a disapointment because it comes at an important moment when they are being shot at (all the characters duck and react, yet we have heard nothing). I should also point out that it is not just a missing sound effect, but a complete drop out. Total silence is heard on the soundtrack for roughly one second.
4. Suplements include a REALLY good 15 minute interview with the assistant art director who recollects about, among other things, the lost footage of the original version of Stalker. We also get a 6 minute interview with the director of photography who was the last living member of the crew, and who died in 1996 shortly after the interview was taped. Hauntingly, everyone involved in the filming of Stalker died within 10-15 years of the film's completion. It is believed that this was a result of exposure to radioactive and/or toxic waste from an electrical powerplant facility that part of the movie was filmed at.
Other suplements include an excellent short film that shows us Tarkovsky's home. We also get excerpts from an early Tarkovsky film, The Steamroller and the Violine (this I havn't watched yet).
In spite of its soundtrack flaws, I highly recomend this disc because this seems to be as good as it's going to get.
Here is my review of the R1 Image import of the Rusian Cinema Council DVD:
1. This is a REALLY GOOD film. Probably my favorite of all time. Minimal, poetic, adventurous, spiritual.....
2. The DVD picture quality is a revelation. I had only seen the film on VHS from Fox Lorber (which of course means it was $hit). Even though the film's color sequences are deliberately desaturated the DVD is far more colorful and detailed than the VHS. The image itself is at times a little shaky. I mean it litterally shakes around the same way a movie projected in a theater sometimes does, but it was not really distracting
3. The audio had one big problem I noticed. I watched the movie in original mono, but I also checked out the 5.1. There is a major sound drop out of about 1 second in the scene where the three men are stealing the small rail car and they come under fire. The mono track has a drop out when someone off screen fires a gun (because of the drop out we do not hear the gunshot). I switched over to the 5.1 and the gun shot was DEFINATELY there all right. The 5.1 puts the gun shot in the right suround speaker, and VERY loud. Let's just say that if I lived in Washington DC I would have hit the floor. While this bit of suround use was entertaining, there is no way it was ever intended by the director. The rest of the 5.1 mix has plenty of subtle as well as totally obvious diferences. There is music on the 5.1 track where there is no music on the original mono soundtrack. All in all, I prefer the mono of course, but the one drop out (and there is only one) is a disapointment because it comes at an important moment when they are being shot at (all the characters duck and react, yet we have heard nothing). I should also point out that it is not just a missing sound effect, but a complete drop out. Total silence is heard on the soundtrack for roughly one second.
4. Suplements include a REALLY good 15 minute interview with the assistant art director who recollects about, among other things, the lost footage of the original version of Stalker. We also get a 6 minute interview with the director of photography who was the last living member of the crew, and who died in 1996 shortly after the interview was taped. Hauntingly, everyone involved in the filming of Stalker died within 10-15 years of the film's completion. It is believed that this was a result of exposure to radioactive and/or toxic waste from an electrical powerplant facility that part of the movie was filmed at.
Other suplements include an excellent short film that shows us Tarkovsky's home. We also get excerpts from an early Tarkovsky film, The Steamroller and the Violine (this I havn't watched yet).
In spite of its soundtrack flaws, I highly recomend this disc because this seems to be as good as it's going to get.
05-29-03, 12:21 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As to answering your question:
Well, in a film like this there really are no right or wrong answers, but I'll give you my version.
(everything Spoilers from here on)
It's been established that Stalkers are "different" somehow. You don't just choose to become a Stalker. Stalkers are mutants that gained their ability as a result of the fall-out from the creation of The Zone. What created The Zone? No one knows. But these mutants, these Stalkers, have the ability to navigate its dangers.
It is said by someone (I don't remember who exactly; Professor or Writer I guess) that the Stalkers have mutant children. Our Stalker (the main character) has a daughter who is disabled (she can't walk).
After the three men have returned from The Zone (and the film has returned to black and white) we are presented with what apear to be 2 miracles; one false miracle, and one "posible" miracle. Both of these "miracles" are presented in color, which seems to suggest their link to the powers of The Zone.
1. The girl appears to be walking, but as the camera pulls back we see that she is only riding on her father's shoulders. We thought it might be a miracle, but our hopes are deflated.
2. The girl appears to make the glasses on the table move. Perhaps with her mind. But as the shot lingers, the train approaches. The whole house begins to shake, just as it had at the begining. Did the glasses move because of the girl's telekinetic mutant/Stalker/The Room powers or did the train's vibrations simply shake them around the table.
Deciding whether the glasses moving is a miracle or just the train is the point of the whole movie: Is there a place for miracles anymore? Is there a place for hope in a secular society? Does man posses the fundamental power of belief and faith (in himself and God)?
Well, in a film like this there really are no right or wrong answers, but I'll give you my version.
(everything Spoilers from here on)
It's been established that Stalkers are "different" somehow. You don't just choose to become a Stalker. Stalkers are mutants that gained their ability as a result of the fall-out from the creation of The Zone. What created The Zone? No one knows. But these mutants, these Stalkers, have the ability to navigate its dangers.
It is said by someone (I don't remember who exactly; Professor or Writer I guess) that the Stalkers have mutant children. Our Stalker (the main character) has a daughter who is disabled (she can't walk).
After the three men have returned from The Zone (and the film has returned to black and white) we are presented with what apear to be 2 miracles; one false miracle, and one "posible" miracle. Both of these "miracles" are presented in color, which seems to suggest their link to the powers of The Zone.
1. The girl appears to be walking, but as the camera pulls back we see that she is only riding on her father's shoulders. We thought it might be a miracle, but our hopes are deflated.
2. The girl appears to make the glasses on the table move. Perhaps with her mind. But as the shot lingers, the train approaches. The whole house begins to shake, just as it had at the begining. Did the glasses move because of the girl's telekinetic mutant/Stalker/The Room powers or did the train's vibrations simply shake them around the table.
Deciding whether the glasses moving is a miracle or just the train is the point of the whole movie: Is there a place for miracles anymore? Is there a place for hope in a secular society? Does man posses the fundamental power of belief and faith (in himself and God)?
