
by Allan Fish
(USSR 1979 161m) DVD1/2
Welcome to The Zone
d Andrei Tarkovsky w Arkady Strugatsky, Boris Strugatsky novel “Roadside Picnic” by Arkady Strugatsky, Boris Strugatsky ph Aleksandr Kynazhinsky ed Ludmila Feganova m Eduard Artemyev art Andrei Tarkovsky, R.Safiullin
Aleksandr Kaidanovsky (stalker), Anatoli Solonitsin (writer), Nikolai Grinko (professor), Alissa Freindlikh (stalker’s wife), Natasha Abramova (stalker’s daughter),
My first encounter with Tarkovsky’s existential sci-fi epic came when I was but nineteen. Having been fascinated by his Solaris I was eager to view this later work, but in the end, as one might expect, I was unprepared for it emotionally. To my immature teenage eyes there seemed something faintly laughable about it, its protagonists going on a journey in which, for long stretches, the danger is taken for granted and not actually demonstrated. It was almost like that ridiculous Monty Python sketch about climbing the North Face of the Uxbridge Road. I just wanted to cry out “get on with it!”
In the midst of an industrial wasteland called The Zone, turned to desolation following an apocalyptic event (possibly a meteorite landing), there exists a mysterious hidden room with the power to grant one’s deepest desires, but only for those with the physical and mental fortitude to make it there. Only specialist stalkers are up to the journey, and one of them agrees to take a scientist and a writer to the room.
From the very outset we realise we are in Tarkovsky’s world, a bleak, barren hell on earth in which even the simplest of philosophy now seems redundant. “One small country has seen the birth of a miracle” we are told, but it’s in the eyes of the viewer that the miracle takes place. Miracles don’t have to be unexplained paranormal phenomenon but can also be lucky accidents, tricks of the light that leave one awestruck. One such moment occurs near the end of the film where the three protagonists are huddled together in a bombed-out shell of a building and the lighting takes on a golden tinge. There, as if by magic, a hideously faded floor pattern flooded out by the inclement weather that rains down inside, suddenly appears like honeycomb. As if our travellers, in search of their own land of milk and honey, have to part their own Red Sea in their mind, by opening it to all possibilities. Ironically, as fate would have it, it is not those who sought the room who are most affected by it, but the stalker who takes them there. As if he’d undergone his own inner miracle, an epiphany for those so inclined, as the dog which he brought back laps up its symbolic milk from the land of our deepest desires.
Yet some of the other miracles are purely aesthetic, such as how the screen bursts into colour to show the greenery of the world into which they are escaping, overgrown grass hiding burnt out tanks, jeeps and guns. Mist hovers around both physically and psychologically over our central trio, with their eternal demeanour of failed asylum seekers awaiting deportation. They undertake the journey, but in reality, like in many great movies about journeys (think of Apocalypse Now, for instance, as Stalker does have nods to Conrad), it’s the audience who are taken on the greatest journey of them all, one which ends with the greatest miracle of them all, the daughter’s telekinetic display of glass shifting finally acknowledged by the ecstasy of Beethoven’s glorious ninth symphony. It’s a sublime, almost religious moment in a film so full of visual beauty, it’s almost enough to make you weep.
“A human being is not capable of such hatred or love that would extend over the whole of mankind” the writer exclaims in a fit of wishful thinking. Earlier on we are told that “our world is hopelessly boring”, a response that many viewers (including my aforementioned younger self) might agree with. In the end, however, to truly acknowledge Tarkovsky’s genius (and that of his cast, amongst whom Solinitsin is especially superb), one needs to be able to accept that some journeys in life are not to be understood so much as experienced. Every time I see it I recall Tacitus’ immortal words “ubi solitudinem taciunt pacem appellant”, or “they create desolation and call it peace.”






You say you take praise when it’s worthy? Well, I think you may finally have to succumb to the praise you’re about to receive. I think as you move closer and closer to your top film you, yourself, know your essays take on a more passionate tone and perfection in the wording. This essay is proof of that statement. Like your essay on Nicholas Roeg’s DON’T LOOK NOW, the love you have for this film is absolutely apparent in the graceful style and descriptions embedded in the wording of this review. Your love for this film, and the apparent respect you have for this director, is over-flowing and subtle at the same time. Add to that the fact that as a person who has not seen this movie your words and passion for this film has inspired me to feverishly seek it out and arrange a screening. It’s essays like this one, your prior writings on DON’T LOOK NOW, BARRY LYNDON, FAT CITY and SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE, that betray your self-annointed misanthropic character and reveal you as an individual of deep feeling. BRAVO!
Do I feel that this film belongs in the #2 position among the best films of the 1970′s? No, not remotely. But this is Allan’s list, not mine.
Let’s thank the “Peanut Gallery” for that wildly off subject remark. I think we all have come to the conclusion that this is Allan’s list. After damn near FIFTY essays penned by this man we all thought it was obviously apparent he was the author. Don’t feel bad though Sam, you’ll feel better the moment the Doctors remove the bandages.
Dennis: What you seem to forget is that I also have seen every single film on Allan’s list, and have made my own list months ago, which is on the comment thread. Allan is a great writer, as I have stated many times at this site, but his ‘personal choices’ are no more pertinent and rightful than many others who have submitted lists. Again, this is all personal taste, informed by a number of factors. The major difference with Allan, is that he provides reviews to back up his picks. His list is no better, no worse than mine, yours or anyone elses. In any case, the drama is still addictive.
Also, my comment above was addressed to Allan and Allan’s review, NOT to your own comment, which frankly has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was not ‘remotely’ off subject at all.
As I have stated in conversations: I have come to the conclusion that you should never expect the “typical” from Allan. Whether he choses certain positions for particular films to specifically appose the norm or if he chooses their number for shock value purposes, it is neither my place or any other readers right to contest. Do I think Allan could have placed certain films in higher placement or lower status? Sure I do. But, whatever the reasoning behind his motives, all the major classics are here somewhere and hidden gems have surfaced as well. I’m just thankful for a count-down like this as it’s revealed many films I have neither heard of and pushed ahead films I wouldn’t normally have given a second look. I am puzzled by his love for some of these films (I don’t see the attraction for his No. 10 film at all) but I defend Allan’s right to place them anywhere he wants.
Don’t be silly, Dennis, this is exactly the sort of comment I expected. I smiled when I saw it, especially as I know what’s coming tomorrow.
Bear in mind guessing my lists is a religion with Sam and he can’t take it when he’s wrong. He gets miffed like when his favourite film wins no Oscars.
Allan, what would you prefer that I say? That I am in total agreement with every pick you make and in every position you place them in? We each have our own aesthetic, and tastes. It has nothing to do with whether I am wrong or not (I have tomorrow’s #1 already figured out as you know, and I don’t agree with that choice either) but rather just my own polite disagreement. But yes, this is your list, your countdown and splendidly laid out case. I can’t ask for more than that. At least when I don’t agree, I’m polite and respectful, or at least I aim to be.
He’s quite right, Dennis, he’s got the right to disagree, I do often enough after all. I know he’s never rated Stalker. I always have. He’s a traditional Tarkovsky Andrei Rublev/Mirror acolyte…
Oh, don”t I know that Allan! The night FAR FROM HEAVEN walked away with NOTHING at the Oscars was a pure show. Schmulee could have won himself an Oscar for his performance as a miffed Jewish American Princess not getting her way when Daddy buys her a used Volkswagen rather than the new Mercedes Benz for her sweet sixteen. He was threatening to kick in the television screen, cursed out the Academy with more expletives to make a sailor blush and VOWED it was the LAST time he’d ever watch the telecast. If I had a camera on me I would have won the grand prize on America’s Funniest Home Videos!
I have suspected that there is a reason he loves Female Trouble and the Cha-Cha heels scene. “I wanted the Criterion Special Edition not the 2 Disc Region 2 you pathetic lifeform, I hate you, you’ve ruined Christmas for all time.” STOMPS TREE OVER AND LEAVES THROUGH THE WALL.
Yes, yes! Like Herman Munster crashing through the front door during the opening credits of the show! A classic bull in a china shop!
I am fairly certain I know Allan’s #1 choice.
Would anyone here like to take a guess?
I do really like this pick, as I love this film and also put it in the top 12 or so I believe (at least 15 I am sure).
I think it is a film that can split audiences if it isn’t your thing… so Sam I understand your reservations. After all if I remember correctly you put ‘The Last Picture Show’ at #1 for the 70′s, that and this are pretty different films.
if I had to guess, I’d quickly think of the films that are still out there yet to be named… ‘The Godfather’, ‘The Conversation’, ‘Days of Heaven’….
‘Days of Heaven’ seem’s like an Allan pick…
Certainly it isn’t my number three, ‘Radio On’, or number six,
‘Husbands’ is it? is ‘Eraserhead’ still out there? hmmmmm
Nope, Allen names ‘The Conversation’ #68, and ‘Days of Heaven’ #99. so strike those.
John Cassavetes as a whole is under represented… do I even have the right continent with all these American guesses?
Jamie, funny you mention Radio On – though I probably wouldn’t have seen it otherwise my friend (a great post-punk fan) introduced me to it; I liked it and reviewed it alongside Jubilee last September (both are listed in my recent round-up of posts if you want to check them out). I’m at a loss as to what Allan’s #1 will be and frankly, I like it that way. Better to be surprised…
you better believe i’ll be reading, and commenting on your ‘Radio On’ review very soon. thanks for the heads up. it’s easily one of my favorite all time films. (wim wenders thieving aside)
Interesting, I noticed the influence of Antonioni and on Jarmusch, but didn’t think about the Wenders, though it’s obvious now that you mention it.
Have you seen/what did you think of Jubilee (or perhaps I should leave that thought for my thread!)
Personally, I think the Americans will get shut out completelym unless Allan can enlighten us on why CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON are listed as UK productions and not US productions. Both of the are produced by the AMERICAN WARNER BROS.
Ok, I lied…I’m like the kid who will be disappointed when he finds out where his parents hide the Christmas parents, but goes looking for them anyway. I’ve beens scouring Allan’s “nearlies” list but all the ones I keep guessing – Walkabout? Last Tango in Paris? – are already taken. In fact, unless I’m missing something, most of the obvious or even near-obvious picks have been taken. So #1 will probably be a total out-of-left-fielder like Eros + Massacre was. Or else one we all know but are shocked to find Allan placing so highly. I’m excited to find out…
the first ‘Godfather’ is a huge one still out there. ‘Performance’ is still hanging too I believe.
I am still baffled (and impressed) Allan feels 98 films from the seventies are better then ‘Days of Heaven’.
The Godfather was no 22, Jamie. Performance I will admit hasn’t been yet…
yes I thought ‘Performance’ but I also remember you said ‘Don’t Look Now’ was Roeg’s masterpiece of the seventies, but then maybe you are (correctly) considering that a Cammell/Roeg picture…
my bad about you already naming ‘Godfather’ i remember reading that review even.
Yea, it’s probably SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. LOLOLOL!!!!!!
BENJI?????
Simple, Dennis, they were financed in America, but filmed entirely in the UK with everyone bar Kubrick from the UK. After all, if Clockwork Orange is an American film, then To Be Or Not To Be (Lubitsch) is a British one, as it was financed by Alexander Korda’s London Films uprooted after the blitz. To Be Or Not To Be was American, the financing may have been largely British, but it was an American film. A Clockwork Orange had nothing American in it but the money and director. And if the director is all that matters, would you suggest The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie was Spanish, La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc Danish, Lola Montes and the other French Ophuls films Austrian and Blanche Polish? Or any film made by foreign directors in Hollywood as not American films – Sunrise may be wholly German aesthetically, but it’s an American film. No, the director’s nationality is irrelevant, as indeed can the studio be.
Take a perfect example. In 1937 as a way of keeping Robert Donat on the MGM Payroll MGM set up MGM British, a studio in the UK to keep British talent in MGM films. It was there that Goodbye Mr Chips and The Citadel were made. Sam Wood and King Vidor directed them, but they were British films.
And finally, look in the major film guides (Radio Times, Time Out, Halliwell) and all list as GB or UK for Clockwork and Barry Lyndon.
Let’s just put everyone out of their misery – it’s The Opening of Misty Beethoven!
Thank you for the clarity and the speedy response. I was under the impression that whoever the director or the bank was dictated origin. Thanks for clearing that muddy pond up for me. Most appreciated!
It’s still a muddy pond, Dennis, but those are the bext examples to go for. The IMDb is normally right, and you go with the first country listed. They list UK / US for Clockwork and just UK for Barry Lyndon.
Gotcha Allan!
Hmmmm….Allan….the….suspense….is…..killing…..me…..what will be your number one?
You should create your own awards…the Fishies…or something like that. I do a really lame “Davies Awards” every year. It seems the blogg-y thing to do. And unlike most of the dreck out there in the blogosphere your awards would be backed up with these almost always splendidly erudite essays — though I happen to despise STALKER…especially the Beethoven Ninth bit in the end….ughhhhh. I think you showed me, though, that perhaps when it comes to films such as this, I might be temporarily re-lapsing into a 19 year old’s mind (ahhh life was good and great movies sucked back then before I knew any better) and should re-visit them sometime in the distant future.
Jamie, while it’s true that THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, for a host of reasons is my #1 film of the 70′s, I do love Tarkovsky, but not particularly STALKER. I am a big fan of ANDREI RUBLEV and THE MIRROR. I am 99% certain I know Allan’s top film. In fact I screened it at my home for Dennis last night, so he would be equiped to comment. If my call is right, I will say that yes, it is a great film, and a wholly unique choice for Allan, but I myself would not include it in the top 10. (and indeed haven’t named in my Top 25).
Yes David, Allan has a gift with words, and even though I will no doubt get assualted for issuing any praise for him publicly, I do recognize that his decade countdowns are the heart and soul of this site, as well they should be. He has no self-confidence nor esteem, but he’s easily one of the net’s best writers, and his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema is incomparable.
Whatever happened to the midnight (Stateside) deadline? The choices used to pop up at 12:00 AM precisely each night/day. But now it’s nearly 1 and I have to go to bed, still (sadly) unenlightened…better be there in the morning.
I used to schedule them, but for the last 3 I put them up myself, MM, because otherwise Sam cheats and looks and tells Dennis and then it goes everywhere. It’s going up in 5…
Who does Dennis tell, if he is given any info?
Stalker was my very first encounter with Tarkovsky … I was 19 as well. I had never ever seen anything like it and was completely stunned by the depth (both of the images and the subject matter) and beauty, particularly with that completely glorious and unexpected ending that sends chills down my spine even as I think of it now. It made a Tarkovsky fanboy out of me and I consider him one of my favorite filmmakers, in the ranks with Kieslowski and Bergman. Thanks for the great review, Mr. Fish.
Has anyone read Tarkovsky’s book Sculpting in Time? Highly recommended.
Hello Phillip!!! I know you are a big fan. I prefer ANDREI RUBLEV and THE MIRROR, but I am thrilled to hear of how this one affected you in your teens! I haven’t read that Tarkovsky book though. I hope Allan responds here.
Yes, I’ve read Sculpting in Time. Very good indeed (though I have it French so I may have missed the subtleties).
Just saw this recently, as it was on my shortlist of films to see before composing a “150 favorite/greatest films list”. I was impressed, but also feel the need to see it again. As I try to create my own canon, I’m increasingly reminded that it’s not only necessary to catch up with certain films, but also to mull over them a bit, making time for a re-viewing somewhere down the road (something I haven’t been doing much of lately as I keep seeking out new – to me – works). #3 of the 70s, which I initially did not think very good, is also on that list.
Stalker was my first Tarkovsky film and because it was so different it I found it both mesmerising and alienating. Tarkovsky creates an atmosphere all of his own. I remember the car journey in SOLARIS almost putting me in a trance.
Stalker is a good film but I don’t think it is quite as good as MIRROR or indeed IVAN’S CHILDHOOD – it’s more pretentious, more belaboured.
I liked Ivan’s Childhood – how could I not; its visuals are intoxicating – but didn’t rate as highly as Tarkovsky on first viewing. I’d like to see it again.
At this point, Mirror might be my favorite Tarkovsky. It does something that should be done more in film, I think, and an approach especially dear to me (something I explored myself before I had seen this movie): utilizing various media, different formats, different approaches, found footage, home movies, etc. in a mixed-up-jigsaw-puzzle style to relay social critique, storytelling, autobiography, and pure dreamlike feelings in one heady melange.
Stalker is somewhat pretentious, though that’s a quality I liked this time around. One problem with contemporary film is that it seems more frightened of the evil curse of “pretentiousness” than in the past. Hence we get a lot of works which are well-rounded, sophisticated in a sense, but lack that daring boldness which the great filmmakers of the past were not afraid to achieve.
“rate it as highly as Tarkovsky’s others on first viewing”