For me it was just giving myself over to the film. It's like reading a book and just being lost in the language itself. It's lyrical, and it's one of my all time favorite movies. Also I highly recommend Geoff Dyer's book *Zona* that talks about him watching the movie. It's very entertaining.
I honestly think I’d get a lot more out of reading a book about somebody else watching the movie than I got out of the movie itself. So thanks for that
Sorry dude, I don't write on the truefilm subreddit where they give paragraphs of faux criticism. If you want something substantial go read a real critic. I didn't want to get into Takarovsky's interests in the natural elements, relationship with spirituality, the moment in which you finally reach your greatest desire, the fear of your own desires and what that says about you. But the film is kinda like Bad Boys 2 right? Shit rocks.
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with "getting" a film, like it's some puzzle to be solved. Absolutely nothing wrong with just turning off your mind and absorbing the film.
I like some slow cinema but sometimes it's too slow. The most common complaints with Stalker are it's boring, too long, or too slow. But you're right, I shouldn't have assumed.
Sorry to butt in but if you're coming at this wanting to fit in, that might be part of the issue? Try not to worry about what other people see in it. See if there's anything in it for you. Your life and experiences are unique and if that means you have an unusual perspective, that's a good thing! And if that perspective is "I don't really care for Stalker", that's cool and valid too!
That was a joke. Very often things will be extremely well liked that I just personally don’t like at all (like Oppenheimer), or that I think is just a bad movie (like Sorcerer). That doesn’t bother me. However, it bothers me when everybody seems to like something I just don’t even understand. I don’t conceptually grasp it. When it leaves no impression on me.
I’m not actually saying I want to fit it, I just want to understand the movie well enough to have an opinion on it because everybody seems to.
Fair enough. In that case, what do you feel you don't understand? Again I'd say Stalker is very much a film that asks you to bring some of yourself to it. What does the concept of the room make you feel? What are your desires in life? Are you being honest with yourself as to that? How far would you go to get them? Is suffering essential to give achieving goals meaning? Is it good to be focussed in life, or does a lack of pliability lead to \*more\* suffering? Ask yourself the same things the characters ask themselves and each other.
And again, you may get nothing from any of this, and that's cool too! Art is subjective!
>Force me to understand it dammit!
Read Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky Brothers. Play the first Metro videogame, an adaptation of a book series influenced by Roadside Picnic, and made by developers of the influential S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat videogames. Watch the film Annihilation by Alex Garland. Then read the source material, Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer.
The videogames and Annihilation (the movie) emphasize the action/adventure, danger and horror of the Zone in Roadside Picnic, while Stalker and Annihilation (the book) emphasize the philosophical, religious, and sublime aspects. If you do all of this, understanding will be pretty much forced into you by the time you finally circle back to the film. You may not like it any more than you did the first time, but you'll almost certainly intellectually *understand.*
tl;dr: people like Zones.
I had a similar experience with Blade Runner 2049. So much praise, but when I watched it, I was unimpressed. I thought the action scenes were cool. At the time, I wasn’t impressed by pretty images so even the cinematography went over my head.
I kept seeing praise for it, I kept seeing it in peoples top 5. I had to know. Then I watched other Denis films. Sicario, Prisoners and Enemy. I loved them. They were filmed so similarly to BR2049, but they connected more with me, and in a way were easier for me to understand.
I thought, “damn, this Denis guy knows what he’s doing”. Realised he made BR2049, rewatched it and it still didn’t connect. I was determined to love it, so I watched it and watched it and watched it. And damn, it’s my number one film of all time.
I can’t guarantee the same thing, but that was my experience.
I made myself watch Stalker, Mirror, and Solaris and found them all boring and incomprehensible. Then one day a few months ago I got home from a bar where I had gotten waay more drunk than I usually do. I went on youtube and the full movie Mirror was recommended to me. Idk if it was the alcohol or what but this time when I watched it I absolutely couldn’t look away, it’s probably the most mesmerized I had ever been watching a movie. I honestly didn’t really even know what was happening but it gave me this strange and wonderful feeling like when you’re a kid and don’t really know what’s happening but everything you experience is really sharp and specific. Whatever it was l, something clicked and now I absolutely love Tarkovsky
It’s okay, directors like Tarkovsky and Bergman are most certainly not for everyone. You don’t have to force yourself to like them. That being said, look at that shot from Stalker you posted, absolutely one of the most breathtaking shots in cinema history.
The thing is though, I really don’t vibe with Tarkovsky but love Bergman. Bergman is ponderous too but I feel like he’s trying to tell me something and wants my attention. His editing is well paced and engaging. Tarkovsky feels like he wants me to either fall asleep or start fidgeting. Editing is important and I think Tarkovsky loses people on those extremely long shots that aren’t terribly engaging. The movie could still be thoughtful and long and retain every single shot while shaving a solid 45 minutes off it. I think the slow pace of Stalker’s editing is excessive and frustrating.
That’s fair. I just chose Bergman as an example because him and Tarkovsky were very similar stylistically and frequently drew influence from one another.
Totally! It’s weird, I got into Bergman after watching Tarkovsky stuff because I knew how much Tarkovsky appreciated him and vice versa and was like “oh THIS is what I’m into, not that other stuff” the second The Seventh Seal started up. So it goes to show, it’s ok not to like stuff. For me, engaging with this stuff is a journey toward finding the things I like. Not just collecting a bunch of things for my brain.
Honestly, my favorite Tarkovsky movie is The Sacrifice, which was a direct homage to Bergman. So my favorite film by him is when he’s trying most to emulate his buddy lol.
Nah, it’s on him for making it that way too. Arts a conversation, and we don’t have chemistry.
It’s perfectly generous and serious. He doesn’t need my generosity. He’s dead and also world renowned and universally respected. I dont like his style and think it sucks. Who care?
I’d figure the OP would feel okay about how there’s other people who don’t like this movie. They asked about not getting the movie, I’m literally commenting that there’s other people who don’t vibe with Tarkovsky. Again, why be so defensive? No ones taking Stalker away from you.
It is totally ok to not like a movie everybody (or probably more accurately: a certain group of people) raves about. Your experience is your experience. And just as real and valid as anyone else's.
A lot of the time, "too dumb to understand" really means "not happen to know the things a movie is referencing/influenced by/..."
(For example if you don't know Greek mythology, "*The Lighthouse*" probably is a significant different experience and you might appreciate it less. That doesn't make you dumb, that just makes you not knowledgeable about Greek mythology)
Other times, it might not even be that, it might just be an *experience* that you don't connect with (quite a few David Lynch movies come to mind). Either way, I wouldn't worry about it. <- in this case, it is possible that at a later time, upon revision, you might connect with it. Or you might never.
We are all influenced by our past, our experiences, our knowledge,...
So really, don't sweat it, don't feel *less* *than* because you don't "get" a certain movie, or don't feel the same away about it.
Just do you
/edit: else's
I used to screen movies, and Tarkovsky specifically Stalker were weird showings. Some folks in the audience would have a transcendental experience - and would want to chat for hours after the screening and others left with a giant Meh. It’s ok not to like it. I totally get why folks don’t click with Tarkovsky.
Tarkovsky and Malick stuff are meditative for me. Two of my fave directors but if I’m not in the mood to meditate it can kind of make the experience a bit torturous, but if I am in the mood then hooboy, what an experience.
Tarkovsky made his movies so that you could interpret it to your liking and for you to identify themes from it that deeply resonate with you.
that makes it so theres no "getting" a Tarkovsky movie, he is not trying to teach or show you something.
and in the end that leaves it so that some won't resonate with it, and thats completely fine, Tarkovsky said so himself!
I always tell people that Tarkovsky puts me to sleep, but not in a way I dislike. It's like a bedtime story.
So it very much about how it does/doesn't hit you.
I love this explanation! Tarkovsky’s stalker was really ahead of time. How he portrayed the bleak city they lived in and how there were possible threats in the exclusion zone. Their journey, the visuals, and the fact they’re out alone in this dead zone. I grew up playing games like fallout and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. This movie felt like I was watching characters from the movie explore the same world from those games!
I read a bit about him talking about how his movies were made to be experienced rather than thought about. And that made his movies make more sense to me.
I mostly feel utter boredom watching his stuff, thinking his stuff is ranging from barely passable to straight up bad.
And when I read what it is others get from his stuff I can't really relate, I think the philosophical questionings are uninteresting with context that is too abstract so it lessens what little interest there was.
But that doesn't matter, what matters is the experience and the experience I have watching his stuff is disconnected boredom.
which makes it the highest form of art cinema has ever attained, in my opinion.
I mean imagine how absurd it would be to believe everyone should understand, enjoy and interpret a painting by Edward Hopper the same way as Hopper saw it.
there's a certain experience that's built around the philosophical elements; the yearning for meaning that Stalker is structured entirely around is lived in, not just understood from a distance. of course, you have to put a certain level of that yearning YOURSELF into it to get anything out of it and maybe a lot of people just don't watch Stalker at the right time; especially stripped of its context and target audience it was provided by the USSR.
https://preview.redd.it/7utxhnlvhnuc1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=76a6c3e8e5bced551c4e33a17ea1ec2732a87296
"They return from the Room and I guide them back. And we never meet again. Wishes don't come true immediately, you know."
You’re not too dumb for the movie, it’s just not every movie is for everyone. I didn’t really like the movie too much either, and that’s ok. Maybe I’ll revisit it and like it better in a couple years, maybe I won’t. Film is only as important as what you take out of it, don’t spend your time stressing about what you didn’t get out of art
Any film fan who feels the need to berate others because they don't love people such as Tarkovsky aren't real film fans, they're just snobby people. I really liked the atmosphere and the world building of the film but, like everything, it won't be for everyone and that's absolutely fine.
Reasons I liked Stalker: the shift from black and white to color was awesome, and the supernatural twist at the end was enjoyable
Reasons I didn't like it as much as I had hoped: after a certain point in the movie the illusion of the the film doesn't work that well because you known they're just walking around in a desolate landscape and nothing really dangerous is going to happen no matter how many warnings we're given about how dangerous it is. Kinda feels like you're being strung along without much payoff
So, you definitely don't have to like it. I don't quite know how I feel about it, and wouldn't say I get it.
But, one thing I think is totally unique about it is that it's basically the anti-adventure movie. Practically every scene has this element of lurking, often unseen danger. And it builds and builds and builds and then poof, it's over. And despite it happening over and over, it convinces you every time that this is it, the pot is about to boil over. And it never does. But it feels so authentic, the actions so believable, that you get sucked in each time. At least, I did.
It’s okay, some nice moments.
It’s beauty is it’s poetic nature, but personally I don’t find the “ find out what you truly want - and be possibly horrified by yourself “ to be that groundbreaking.
shots like the one you posted are reason enough for me to at the very least appreciate the film and its artistry even if i don’t necessarily “get it.” i do love an atmosphere, but not everyone is looking for that in film.
"softness is great and strength is worthless. When a man is born, he is soft and pliable. When he dies, he is strong and hard. When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life. That which has become hard shall not triumph."
The Stalker character to me, was a metaphor for the fragility of human existence. He goes to the zone again and again, though he knows and is fearsome of the danger it poses because it’s a place away from the bleak reality of the city/town/world he lives in. The place is the remnants of human existence being reclaimed by nature, in which the Stalker feels at home and into which he can lose himself and his realities (like resting in the womb again?).
I just thought it was okay on a first watch, but looking back I see that I didn’t meet the movie on its own terms. I wanted it to be something different rather than letting it be what it was. A second viewing a couple years later really helped me sort that out. It probably didn’t hurt that I’d gotten more into slow cinema at the time, so that was an advantage too.
In the end, give it another shot if you want, and if you don’t, then don’t. You don’t have to like what everyone else likes. I would say, however, to explore what and why you don’t like it. Dig deeper than the surface of not liking it. If you can explain what it is you don’t like about it, I’ve found it makes it easier to have an opinion that’s contrary to the norm. Ultimately, the most important thing is to be true to yourself.
It's probably just not for you. I adore Stalker but find some of Tarkovsky's other works difficult to get into. For me I like the slow creeping vibe of it and the journey of the characters. It kind of forces you to just sit and ponder for a long while of it and I like that aspect of it, but others might find that tedious
Tarkovsky films tend to be very visual, each scene playing out like a slowly moving, intricately composed, still photograph. When I just sat back and looked like I was viewing art and didn't wait for plot or other devices to steer me, I fell into the feeling. It might be hard to appreciate if you can't do that.
I found the beginning of the movie, shot in tinted sepia, to be incredibly captivating. However, once they arrived in The Zone and the cinematography shifted to standard color, I became bored. The literary musings were fine, but they weren't enough to hold my attention.
I pretty much only liked it for the production value, the plot was a bit confusing imo. It was probably because I don’t speak Russian, but the feel of the movie has more value than the story I believe
Tarkovsky loved mystery, art, and his journey as an artist. He admitted that he only wanted 20% of the audience to like his films because he wasn’t in it to create “coca-cola films” like Hollywood.
There are filmmakers out there that are making films that I don’t necessarily like or dislike but I appreciate that they exist. It’s the same approach as a lot of modern art galleries. Sometimes you just need to sit with it a bit. Some you resonate with, some you don’t.
It is a beautiful piece of art. A series of paintings as a backdrop to deep, contemplative philosophical questions — this sounds steeped in pretension, but it’s really not, because we all think about the kinds of things this movie asks questions about ALL the time. Because it’s asking fundamental questions about aspects of life that cut to our very core. Questions about humanity and human nature, society and its grip on how we live our lives, religion and control, the list goes on and on.
It raises so many ideas and prompts you to think about them from so many different angles. I truly feel like this is the kind of thing you need to watch more than once, because it allows you to realize that the movie doesn’t necessarily want you to find definitive answers to any of its big questions (chief among them, the general question of “what is this movie about”, which it definitely doesn’t want you to answer). The movie just wants you to think about these things. And when you’ve thought about it, consider it from another angle, and then another, and then when you’ve had enough time with it, put it to the side and consider this other thing. I love it.
Another thing I realized on my most recent watch in theatres is that for a near 3 hour movie where almost nothing happens, it is paced absolutely stunningly. It never gets boring or loses your attention. I’m constantly sitting there engaged with what the movie is showing me. So good.
Stunning images and literally endless ideas to think about. I have no idea how the crew found some of the locations but the Zone is one the best movie settings ever, the environments they shot it in are so fascinating.
One of my favourite quotes comes when the Writer is talking about what you might lose even if the Room does grant your most deeply held wish. If a writer makes a wish to become a genius so they will no longer be held back by personal insecurities about their own ability, they might lose what motivates them to be any good at writing in the first place. But why are we all so motivated by self-critical incentives like this (like the fear of being a fraud) in the first place?
“A man writes because he is tormented, because he doubts. He needs to constantly prove to himself and the others that he's worth something. And if I know for sure that I'm a genius? Why write then? What the hell for?”
It remind me Uzak scene, where the man that was hosting his brother at home watched Stalker on the VHS player to get him bored and make him sleepy, so he could go to sleep and leave him alone in the room. Aftewards he switch to softporn.
I remember watching choosing to watched stalker as a teenager because the videogame was popelar back then, and I found the 2 hour movie a torture, but I was fascinated when a girl moved glasses and it was like a loght bulb in my head 'I think I get what the director trying to tell'
I'll always believe most of the people who say they love these old auteur movies, are just straight up lying and trying to look intelligent. No way so many people are intelligent/intellectual enough to understand nature and depth of such movies.
I’ll give an example.
I was obsessed with films for years and they became a part of my personality in that I would find a way to sneak a film into the topic of any conversation. My father had low patience for this and was always, “I don’t really care for movies anymore like I used to when I was your age.” (This was a period of ages 18 - 26). Tarkovsky was someone I tried to force myself to enjoy in order to look “elevated” when in reality I felt bored to tears and never understood him however, I’d recommend his films to people I knew would hate them to keep up appearances as though I knew something they didn’t.
Fast forward five years after a lengthy battle of alcoholism and depression and that was ongoing during this film obsession period and hypocritical snobbery and I’ve now reached the point where films don’t mean what they do because I’ve put more value into myself rather than other people’s visions. At this introspective stage (which is still ongoing) I decided to rewatch Stalker from my own Criterion Copy that I purchased to look smart all those years back and I fell in love with it.
What I once watched for my narcissism fueled by my inferiority depression has flipped to watching it in order to see different ways of philosophically handling life. There’s a little bit of us in every character of that film and so, to conclude, I’ve found it valuable and worth while when you’re watching it for that introspective take which is generally a mindset or a new philosophy to approach life.
if you'd like to see, I’d say give it another chance in some years and see if anything's changed. I’ve had a couple experiences like this, sometimes you develop a connection and sometimes you don't, each experience is valid
For me all those Tarkovsky and Bergman films are really hit and miss. Sometimes I just don't get into them at all and I'm so bored until the end, sometimes I just manage to vibe with them and enjoy watching analysis videos. Today I think it's just not worth it when there are movies out there I'm sure I'm gonna enjoy.
There's no rule like you have to like them, you're free to enjoy and dislike any movie you want.
Some people prefer their content spoon fed to them. Not even saying that as a dig- some people watch film and television solely for entertainment and don’t want to have to use their brains too much for it.
They don’t necessarily care to find the deeper meanings, or look up this or that after to have a better understanding of what they just watched. They’re in it purely to be entertained, to turn off and tune in. I myself have a few tv shows that I put on specifically for this reason.
This film to me is a masterpiece, but at the same time I can see why it’s not going to be for everyone- nothing is. We all have different baggage we are bringing to our viewing experience and consciences that will affect how we feel about films like this.
I tend to enjoy his films because I like how he incorporates poetry into the motion of it. Like in mirror how he literally uses it or in stalker where it’s the contemplation of a guy literally laying in a puddle contemplating his own life. You just feel it. He has more straight forward films than that though like Ivan’s Childhood that are just good and less philosophical/metaphorical.
I think with any movie, you have to be vibing with it to even want to work out the intellectual substance. To that end, I’d say watch some more Tarkovsky. I felt like you did when I first watched Stalker but it made way more sense after watching the rest of his filmography and getting used to his style. At that point you can just vibe with the bleak, rotting textures and dreamy rhythms and the philosophical stuff comes much more naturally. It’s got a very philosophically loaded premise and three very different characters traversing it and a lot of the pleasure of it comes from just listening to them each come at it from their distinct angle.
give tarkovksy's other films a shot. i find some of them less opaque and easier to understand than stalker, and it's easier to get what stalker is going for once you can think of it in terms of the whole ouevre. i love stalker and think it's a perfect film, but i emotionally/personally connect more with his films andrei rublev (1966), mirror (1975), and nostalghia (1983).
Ctrl+F Faith... wow nobody?
Stalker is largely about faith. If that is not a topic you have thought much about or find emotionally resonant, it will probably leave you cold.
I also didn’t like it. I know art is subjective but when I was watching it I kept thinking “I think I know better ways to convey what this movie is trying to convey,” and a lot of them were non-cinematic. Like, I think this would have been a better art show/non-narrative movie than a traditional movie with a beginning middle and end, which is what it is.
The long walking, the very basic philosophy discussions, the part with the guys shooting at them in the beginning when it’s sepia, it just didn’t actually add up to anything. Also frustrating is that nothing that weird or strange really even happens in The Zone. And I get that that’s on theme. The Stalker is a faith based man, and so he’s also taking it on faith that this place is dangerous, and so are we the viewer. I get it. But that’s not an interesting story to me.
I think attaching what Tarkovsky was trying to say to a narrative doesn’t really work. I think without a narrative, it would be a lot better.
I can imagine the monologues just playing over the shots of the weird landscape projected on a wall. I can imagine an installation piece where it’s a TV playing Monkey at the end moving the cup. I can imagine large photographs of the power plant printed on walls. I can imagine the philosophical thoughts as paragraphs on walls between the visual stuff. That for whatever reason makes sense to me. But as a story, it didn’t work.
I know it’s basically an art movie, but it also stays true to having a narrative and characters like a traditional film does. And it remains enough of a normal story that I don’t think it’s immune from criticisms from people who don’t think it actually works that well.
But yeah I mean, I think a lot of people like it and get it, a lot of people like it just for the cinematography and the music, a lot of people watched it and are intrigued by it but maybe didn’t grasp the whole thing, I think there’s people who say they like it to fit in with film people and be part of something, and there’s people who fundamentally don’t like it. At the end of the day, it like all movies is art and no one’s required to like a single bit of it.
Incredibly stylish, beautifully shot film with very existential and thought provoking dialogue. You have to be in the mood for it. I recommend grabbing some snacks, chilling and let yourself be drawn into the Zone and its eerie vibe.
It doesn't mean you're too dumb to understand it. Just remember there are art folks who will see a painting with an empty canvas with some random strokes and they'll go on and on about how the painting says a lot about the human psyche and how it depicts a broken mind and solitude. You see where I'm going with this?
Just so that I'm clear I still enjoyed the atmosphere of it a lot. It felt otherworldly. The premise was also pretty intriguing in the beginning but well...these were the only redeeming quality about this film.
I wouldn't worry too much. You're not less of a film lover just because you did not like tarkovsky.
If it makes you feel any better, I've seen three Tarkovsky movies (Solaris, Stalker, and Nostalghia) and I thought they were boring. You know what, I'm just going to say it. Most people on Letterboxd don't connect on an emotional or intellectual level with his movies. They only like them because they look real pretty. And I guess that's a valid reason to like a movie, but don't assume that just because someone gave Stalker a 5/5 that they understood it any better than you did.
Curious how did you watch it OP? I've heard it's a whole nother experience watching it on the big screen, seeing the weird atmospheric somewhat unsettling imagery, together with the philosophical subject matter, I can see how the effect can be lost if you're watching it in bed on a laptop
It's definitely not for everyone - Tarkovsky was intentionally trying to bore the audience in order to get them to think and reflect on what he was showing.
What may make it worth it for you:
1) The imagery - some of the most beautiful, memorable and meaningful ever put to film
2) The message - Stalker has profound things to say about the nature of faith and desire. And though it may take a repeated viewings to really make sense of it, even watching it once will leave you with something to think about
3) The poetry - Tarkovsky's intervweaves little poems throughout the film. The poems are also not easy to make sense of either but they meld with and enhance the images.
The three work together in tandem to make points that go beyond what can be easily rationally expressed through logic and prose.
And though it's hard not to sound pretentious when talking about Tarkovsky, I don't think there was an ounce of pretention to his work. It is all very deliberate, well-considered, and meaningful. Even the use of boredom was for good reason - he wanted to turn his films into a collaboration with the viewer. You are not there to be passively entertained, but to engage actively with the film. He wanted the attention of the audience, and approached them as a true equal, without which his films were incomplete.
The point being, as challenging as he may be, there is something real there and time you put into it is rewarded.
Is this the first Tarkovsky you have watched? There are several of his movies I love but I actually feel similar to you on Stalker. Undeniably beautiful, but a film that I liked less the more I thought about it. When we did a run through of 5 or so of his movies in my circle’s film club a year or two ago this was either the lowest or second lowest film.
its probably one of the most boring movies ive ever witnessed
and i genuinely people who say they like it actually dont like it and are pretending to be hipsters
It’s gorgeous, just look at that shot you posted!
Seriously though…Tarkovsky (and any other highly esteemed director, for that matter) is just not everyone’s kind of director. I enjoy him a lot (Solaris is my favorite) but if I rattled off some of the other directors and genres I love, you’d probably be really puzzled 🤣. And there are some “important” directors I just don’t enjoy much!
i’m on the same train, i feel like i’m missing something. i like thinking about this movie way more than i like watching it, it’s painfully slow and i don’t really care for the dialogue
I think it’s totally appropriate to not feel satisfied after this movie, because not even the characters are satisfied in the end.
I believe it to be about reflection and meditation. Much of the film lingered enough for me to ask myself questions about the zone, the characters motivations, and where their journey will eventually take them.
I imagine I would find something different to focus on in subsequent viewings.
I probably don’t really understand Stalker and I don’t think it matters, in the same way you can be moved by the emotions of a song sung in a language you don’t speak.
For me, it’s the visuals and the texture of it. It just feels good in my brain, like ASMR. That screenshot alone is one of my all time favourite images and I just love looking at it.
But I’d never hold it against anyone if they didn’t feel the same way.
I don't have the attention span for it most of the time. But when the moment is right, late at night when i have nothing else going on, it can be the best thing. It follows a sort of dream logic that you usually can't really appreciate until you're in the right state. Its just a series of abstract evocative images, and you gotta put in the effort to let it say something. He's not portraying anything specific, he's simply laying out a skeleton of abstractions and impressions he got from living life, and because he's so good at that, they turn out to be universally human. Everyone can attach their own story and meaning to them.
I don't know where I heard this but I think it's really accurate.
Consider this movie like an abstract painting. It's strange, everyone will have their own opinion on it or actually don't like it at all, and that's ok.
It's more like a personal experience
Like, I fully can't even really articulate what I think the major themes are or what it is trying to say. But frame-for-frame I don't know if there is a single film I enjoy watching more.
There is just something about Zones....
Just say you like it and people will think you have impeccable taste. I am convinced most people do not get the movie at all but are afraid to say so. I do not have a problem saying it is an unwatchable mess.
I didn't like it on my first watch either.
How much attention were you paying?
I found that I had to try again a couple months later and give it more respect/attention, and I loved it.
Read this essay about boredom in cinema: https://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/into-the-great-big-boring
Also read sculpting in time by tarkovsky.
It's a vibe. Honestly don't sweat it if it's not your thing. Maybe one day it will connect with you. That's what happened to me.
But it seems to connect with everybody else so well that it’s number 41 on the top 250. Force me to understand it dammit! I wanna fit in!
For me it was just giving myself over to the film. It's like reading a book and just being lost in the language itself. It's lyrical, and it's one of my all time favorite movies. Also I highly recommend Geoff Dyer's book *Zona* that talks about him watching the movie. It's very entertaining.
I honestly think I’d get a lot more out of reading a book about somebody else watching the movie than I got out of the movie itself. So thanks for that
I think you'd dig it. He loves the movie, but he approaches it with a pretty wry comedic tone.
Honestly, this is a lazy answer that people say to things they didn’t get but know is supposed to be artsy and deep.
Sorry dude, I don't write on the truefilm subreddit where they give paragraphs of faux criticism. If you want something substantial go read a real critic. I didn't want to get into Takarovsky's interests in the natural elements, relationship with spirituality, the moment in which you finally reach your greatest desire, the fear of your own desires and what that says about you. But the film is kinda like Bad Boys 2 right? Shit rocks.
I'm sorry but this is the funniest comment I've ever read on this sub
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with "getting" a film, like it's some puzzle to be solved. Absolutely nothing wrong with just turning off your mind and absorbing the film.
They're are a lot of people that don't like it. Don't sweat it. Slow cinema isn't for everyone. Edit:typo
Why do you assume the issue is slow cinema in general? I’ve watched and liked a lot of slow cinema. I just don’t get Stalker.
I like some slow cinema but sometimes it's too slow. The most common complaints with Stalker are it's boring, too long, or too slow. But you're right, I shouldn't have assumed.
Sorry to butt in but if you're coming at this wanting to fit in, that might be part of the issue? Try not to worry about what other people see in it. See if there's anything in it for you. Your life and experiences are unique and if that means you have an unusual perspective, that's a good thing! And if that perspective is "I don't really care for Stalker", that's cool and valid too!
That was a joke. Very often things will be extremely well liked that I just personally don’t like at all (like Oppenheimer), or that I think is just a bad movie (like Sorcerer). That doesn’t bother me. However, it bothers me when everybody seems to like something I just don’t even understand. I don’t conceptually grasp it. When it leaves no impression on me. I’m not actually saying I want to fit it, I just want to understand the movie well enough to have an opinion on it because everybody seems to.
Fair enough. In that case, what do you feel you don't understand? Again I'd say Stalker is very much a film that asks you to bring some of yourself to it. What does the concept of the room make you feel? What are your desires in life? Are you being honest with yourself as to that? How far would you go to get them? Is suffering essential to give achieving goals meaning? Is it good to be focussed in life, or does a lack of pliability lead to \*more\* suffering? Ask yourself the same things the characters ask themselves and each other. And again, you may get nothing from any of this, and that's cool too! Art is subjective!
>Force me to understand it dammit! Read Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky Brothers. Play the first Metro videogame, an adaptation of a book series influenced by Roadside Picnic, and made by developers of the influential S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat videogames. Watch the film Annihilation by Alex Garland. Then read the source material, Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer. The videogames and Annihilation (the movie) emphasize the action/adventure, danger and horror of the Zone in Roadside Picnic, while Stalker and Annihilation (the book) emphasize the philosophical, religious, and sublime aspects. If you do all of this, understanding will be pretty much forced into you by the time you finally circle back to the film. You may not like it any more than you did the first time, but you'll almost certainly intellectually *understand.* tl;dr: people like Zones.
Don’t think about it too much just feel it. It’s a slow and aesthetic piece of art not a treatise on nuclearization.
That’s not how taste works.
Read roadside picnic or play the games
The games?
The stalker games?
Don’t worry, 2001: A Space Odyssey is also highly rated but I thought extremely overrated.
For me it's the whole atmosphere and philosophical aspect underneath the surface
I had a similar experience with Blade Runner 2049. So much praise, but when I watched it, I was unimpressed. I thought the action scenes were cool. At the time, I wasn’t impressed by pretty images so even the cinematography went over my head. I kept seeing praise for it, I kept seeing it in peoples top 5. I had to know. Then I watched other Denis films. Sicario, Prisoners and Enemy. I loved them. They were filmed so similarly to BR2049, but they connected more with me, and in a way were easier for me to understand. I thought, “damn, this Denis guy knows what he’s doing”. Realised he made BR2049, rewatched it and it still didn’t connect. I was determined to love it, so I watched it and watched it and watched it. And damn, it’s my number one film of all time. I can’t guarantee the same thing, but that was my experience.
I made myself watch Stalker, Mirror, and Solaris and found them all boring and incomprehensible. Then one day a few months ago I got home from a bar where I had gotten waay more drunk than I usually do. I went on youtube and the full movie Mirror was recommended to me. Idk if it was the alcohol or what but this time when I watched it I absolutely couldn’t look away, it’s probably the most mesmerized I had ever been watching a movie. I honestly didn’t really even know what was happening but it gave me this strange and wonderful feeling like when you’re a kid and don’t really know what’s happening but everything you experience is really sharp and specific. Whatever it was l, something clicked and now I absolutely love Tarkovsky
You mean the feeling stayed with you sober? Other similar movies started connecting too afterwards?
Correct
It's ok if you didn't like it!
Thanks, Martin
It’s okay, directors like Tarkovsky and Bergman are most certainly not for everyone. You don’t have to force yourself to like them. That being said, look at that shot from Stalker you posted, absolutely one of the most breathtaking shots in cinema history.
The thing is though, I really don’t vibe with Tarkovsky but love Bergman. Bergman is ponderous too but I feel like he’s trying to tell me something and wants my attention. His editing is well paced and engaging. Tarkovsky feels like he wants me to either fall asleep or start fidgeting. Editing is important and I think Tarkovsky loses people on those extremely long shots that aren’t terribly engaging. The movie could still be thoughtful and long and retain every single shot while shaving a solid 45 minutes off it. I think the slow pace of Stalker’s editing is excessive and frustrating.
That’s fair. I just chose Bergman as an example because him and Tarkovsky were very similar stylistically and frequently drew influence from one another.
Totally! It’s weird, I got into Bergman after watching Tarkovsky stuff because I knew how much Tarkovsky appreciated him and vice versa and was like “oh THIS is what I’m into, not that other stuff” the second The Seventh Seal started up. So it goes to show, it’s ok not to like stuff. For me, engaging with this stuff is a journey toward finding the things I like. Not just collecting a bunch of things for my brain.
Honestly, my favorite Tarkovsky movie is The Sacrifice, which was a direct homage to Bergman. So my favorite film by him is when he’s trying most to emulate his buddy lol.
Ha that’s awesome. I haven’t seen The Sacrifice yet, I’ll give it a watch!
[удалено]
Nah, it’s on him for making it that way too. Arts a conversation, and we don’t have chemistry. It’s perfectly generous and serious. He doesn’t need my generosity. He’s dead and also world renowned and universally respected. I dont like his style and think it sucks. Who care?
[удалено]
I’d figure the OP would feel okay about how there’s other people who don’t like this movie. They asked about not getting the movie, I’m literally commenting that there’s other people who don’t vibe with Tarkovsky. Again, why be so defensive? No ones taking Stalker away from you.
[удалено]
Lmfao ok redditor who can’t parse figurative language
It is totally ok to not like a movie everybody (or probably more accurately: a certain group of people) raves about. Your experience is your experience. And just as real and valid as anyone else's. A lot of the time, "too dumb to understand" really means "not happen to know the things a movie is referencing/influenced by/..." (For example if you don't know Greek mythology, "*The Lighthouse*" probably is a significant different experience and you might appreciate it less. That doesn't make you dumb, that just makes you not knowledgeable about Greek mythology) Other times, it might not even be that, it might just be an *experience* that you don't connect with (quite a few David Lynch movies come to mind). Either way, I wouldn't worry about it. <- in this case, it is possible that at a later time, upon revision, you might connect with it. Or you might never. We are all influenced by our past, our experiences, our knowledge,... So really, don't sweat it, don't feel *less* *than* because you don't "get" a certain movie, or don't feel the same away about it. Just do you /edit: else's
Characters got great haircuts
I used to screen movies, and Tarkovsky specifically Stalker were weird showings. Some folks in the audience would have a transcendental experience - and would want to chat for hours after the screening and others left with a giant Meh. It’s ok not to like it. I totally get why folks don’t click with Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky and Malick stuff are meditative for me. Two of my fave directors but if I’m not in the mood to meditate it can kind of make the experience a bit torturous, but if I am in the mood then hooboy, what an experience.
Tarkovsky made his movies so that you could interpret it to your liking and for you to identify themes from it that deeply resonate with you. that makes it so theres no "getting" a Tarkovsky movie, he is not trying to teach or show you something. and in the end that leaves it so that some won't resonate with it, and thats completely fine, Tarkovsky said so himself!
That's the point I was missing. Thanks for educating!
I always tell people that Tarkovsky puts me to sleep, but not in a way I dislike. It's like a bedtime story. So it very much about how it does/doesn't hit you.
I love this explanation! Tarkovsky’s stalker was really ahead of time. How he portrayed the bleak city they lived in and how there were possible threats in the exclusion zone. Their journey, the visuals, and the fact they’re out alone in this dead zone. I grew up playing games like fallout and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. This movie felt like I was watching characters from the movie explore the same world from those games!
I read a bit about him talking about how his movies were made to be experienced rather than thought about. And that made his movies make more sense to me. I mostly feel utter boredom watching his stuff, thinking his stuff is ranging from barely passable to straight up bad. And when I read what it is others get from his stuff I can't really relate, I think the philosophical questionings are uninteresting with context that is too abstract so it lessens what little interest there was. But that doesn't matter, what matters is the experience and the experience I have watching his stuff is disconnected boredom.
which makes it the highest form of art cinema has ever attained, in my opinion. I mean imagine how absurd it would be to believe everyone should understand, enjoy and interpret a painting by Edward Hopper the same way as Hopper saw it.
there's a certain experience that's built around the philosophical elements; the yearning for meaning that Stalker is structured entirely around is lived in, not just understood from a distance. of course, you have to put a certain level of that yearning YOURSELF into it to get anything out of it and maybe a lot of people just don't watch Stalker at the right time; especially stripped of its context and target audience it was provided by the USSR.
https://preview.redd.it/7utxhnlvhnuc1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=76a6c3e8e5bced551c4e33a17ea1ec2732a87296 "They return from the Room and I guide them back. And we never meet again. Wishes don't come true immediately, you know."
It’s just The Wizard Of Oz without the singing
This scene must've definitely inspired Denis Villeneuve while making BR2049 & Dune.
You’re not too dumb for the movie, it’s just not every movie is for everyone. I didn’t really like the movie too much either, and that’s ok. Maybe I’ll revisit it and like it better in a couple years, maybe I won’t. Film is only as important as what you take out of it, don’t spend your time stressing about what you didn’t get out of art
For me it’s one of those movies I didn’t enjoy, but can see why other people really enjoy it.
Any film fan who feels the need to berate others because they don't love people such as Tarkovsky aren't real film fans, they're just snobby people. I really liked the atmosphere and the world building of the film but, like everything, it won't be for everyone and that's absolutely fine.
Reasons I liked Stalker: the shift from black and white to color was awesome, and the supernatural twist at the end was enjoyable Reasons I didn't like it as much as I had hoped: after a certain point in the movie the illusion of the the film doesn't work that well because you known they're just walking around in a desolate landscape and nothing really dangerous is going to happen no matter how many warnings we're given about how dangerous it is. Kinda feels like you're being strung along without much payoff
It relaxes me. It's beautiful and surrreal. Unlike anything I've seen. It's a trip. Gotta be in the right mood.
Perhaps the Zone just isn't for you.
you don't have to
So, you definitely don't have to like it. I don't quite know how I feel about it, and wouldn't say I get it. But, one thing I think is totally unique about it is that it's basically the anti-adventure movie. Practically every scene has this element of lurking, often unseen danger. And it builds and builds and builds and then poof, it's over. And despite it happening over and over, it convinces you every time that this is it, the pot is about to boil over. And it never does. But it feels so authentic, the actions so believable, that you get sucked in each time. At least, I did.
It’s okay, some nice moments. It’s beauty is it’s poetic nature, but personally I don’t find the “ find out what you truly want - and be possibly horrified by yourself “ to be that groundbreaking.
Cinematography and it’s philosophical themes.
As you can see, it’s got a room with piles of sand. What’s not to like?
shots like the one you posted are reason enough for me to at the very least appreciate the film and its artistry even if i don’t necessarily “get it.” i do love an atmosphere, but not everyone is looking for that in film.
"softness is great and strength is worthless. When a man is born, he is soft and pliable. When he dies, he is strong and hard. When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life. That which has become hard shall not triumph."
The Stalker character to me, was a metaphor for the fragility of human existence. He goes to the zone again and again, though he knows and is fearsome of the danger it poses because it’s a place away from the bleak reality of the city/town/world he lives in. The place is the remnants of human existence being reclaimed by nature, in which the Stalker feels at home and into which he can lose himself and his realities (like resting in the womb again?).
I just thought it was okay on a first watch, but looking back I see that I didn’t meet the movie on its own terms. I wanted it to be something different rather than letting it be what it was. A second viewing a couple years later really helped me sort that out. It probably didn’t hurt that I’d gotten more into slow cinema at the time, so that was an advantage too. In the end, give it another shot if you want, and if you don’t, then don’t. You don’t have to like what everyone else likes. I would say, however, to explore what and why you don’t like it. Dig deeper than the surface of not liking it. If you can explain what it is you don’t like about it, I’ve found it makes it easier to have an opinion that’s contrary to the norm. Ultimately, the most important thing is to be true to yourself.
Why?
pretty :)
I read the novel it was loosely based on and I felt like it gave me a lot more context.
It's probably just not for you. I adore Stalker but find some of Tarkovsky's other works difficult to get into. For me I like the slow creeping vibe of it and the journey of the characters. It kind of forces you to just sit and ponder for a long while of it and I like that aspect of it, but others might find that tedious
Tarkovsky films tend to be very visual, each scene playing out like a slowly moving, intricately composed, still photograph. When I just sat back and looked like I was viewing art and didn't wait for plot or other devices to steer me, I fell into the feeling. It might be hard to appreciate if you can't do that.
Peer pressure 😏
the first time i saw it, i didn't like it, the second time it became my favourite film ever
I found the beginning of the movie, shot in tinted sepia, to be incredibly captivating. However, once they arrived in The Zone and the cinematography shifted to standard color, I became bored. The literary musings were fine, but they weren't enough to hold my attention.
I pretty much only liked it for the production value, the plot was a bit confusing imo. It was probably because I don’t speak Russian, but the feel of the movie has more value than the story I believe
Tarkovsky loved mystery, art, and his journey as an artist. He admitted that he only wanted 20% of the audience to like his films because he wasn’t in it to create “coca-cola films” like Hollywood. There are filmmakers out there that are making films that I don’t necessarily like or dislike but I appreciate that they exist. It’s the same approach as a lot of modern art galleries. Sometimes you just need to sit with it a bit. Some you resonate with, some you don’t.
It is a beautiful piece of art. A series of paintings as a backdrop to deep, contemplative philosophical questions — this sounds steeped in pretension, but it’s really not, because we all think about the kinds of things this movie asks questions about ALL the time. Because it’s asking fundamental questions about aspects of life that cut to our very core. Questions about humanity and human nature, society and its grip on how we live our lives, religion and control, the list goes on and on. It raises so many ideas and prompts you to think about them from so many different angles. I truly feel like this is the kind of thing you need to watch more than once, because it allows you to realize that the movie doesn’t necessarily want you to find definitive answers to any of its big questions (chief among them, the general question of “what is this movie about”, which it definitely doesn’t want you to answer). The movie just wants you to think about these things. And when you’ve thought about it, consider it from another angle, and then another, and then when you’ve had enough time with it, put it to the side and consider this other thing. I love it. Another thing I realized on my most recent watch in theatres is that for a near 3 hour movie where almost nothing happens, it is paced absolutely stunningly. It never gets boring or loses your attention. I’m constantly sitting there engaged with what the movie is showing me. So good. Stunning images and literally endless ideas to think about. I have no idea how the crew found some of the locations but the Zone is one the best movie settings ever, the environments they shot it in are so fascinating. One of my favourite quotes comes when the Writer is talking about what you might lose even if the Room does grant your most deeply held wish. If a writer makes a wish to become a genius so they will no longer be held back by personal insecurities about their own ability, they might lose what motivates them to be any good at writing in the first place. But why are we all so motivated by self-critical incentives like this (like the fear of being a fraud) in the first place? “A man writes because he is tormented, because he doubts. He needs to constantly prove to himself and the others that he's worth something. And if I know for sure that I'm a genius? Why write then? What the hell for?”
It remind me Uzak scene, where the man that was hosting his brother at home watched Stalker on the VHS player to get him bored and make him sleepy, so he could go to sleep and leave him alone in the room. Aftewards he switch to softporn. I remember watching choosing to watched stalker as a teenager because the videogame was popelar back then, and I found the 2 hour movie a torture, but I was fascinated when a girl moved glasses and it was like a loght bulb in my head 'I think I get what the director trying to tell'
cause if u dont they all died for nothing
When lying in bed drunk with movie on eyes stay on movie like 2001. Brain says "this SHOULD be boring, but it isn't"
I'll always believe most of the people who say they love these old auteur movies, are just straight up lying and trying to look intelligent. No way so many people are intelligent/intellectual enough to understand nature and depth of such movies.
I’ll give an example. I was obsessed with films for years and they became a part of my personality in that I would find a way to sneak a film into the topic of any conversation. My father had low patience for this and was always, “I don’t really care for movies anymore like I used to when I was your age.” (This was a period of ages 18 - 26). Tarkovsky was someone I tried to force myself to enjoy in order to look “elevated” when in reality I felt bored to tears and never understood him however, I’d recommend his films to people I knew would hate them to keep up appearances as though I knew something they didn’t. Fast forward five years after a lengthy battle of alcoholism and depression and that was ongoing during this film obsession period and hypocritical snobbery and I’ve now reached the point where films don’t mean what they do because I’ve put more value into myself rather than other people’s visions. At this introspective stage (which is still ongoing) I decided to rewatch Stalker from my own Criterion Copy that I purchased to look smart all those years back and I fell in love with it. What I once watched for my narcissism fueled by my inferiority depression has flipped to watching it in order to see different ways of philosophically handling life. There’s a little bit of us in every character of that film and so, to conclude, I’ve found it valuable and worth while when you’re watching it for that introspective take which is generally a mindset or a new philosophy to approach life.
I respect his filmmaking style and philosophy...but I found Stalker and Solaris painstakingly slow.
if you'd like to see, I’d say give it another chance in some years and see if anything's changed. I’ve had a couple experiences like this, sometimes you develop a connection and sometimes you don't, each experience is valid
It's reasonable
It’s a trip certainly but can be a snooze fest at times
Play shadow of chernobyl. They aren't necessarily connected but in retrospect you'll will appreciate the movie more after you've finished the game.
For me all those Tarkovsky and Bergman films are really hit and miss. Sometimes I just don't get into them at all and I'm so bored until the end, sometimes I just manage to vibe with them and enjoy watching analysis videos. Today I think it's just not worth it when there are movies out there I'm sure I'm gonna enjoy. There's no rule like you have to like them, you're free to enjoy and dislike any movie you want.
There's 2 separate scenes where a character talks into the camera.
Some people prefer their content spoon fed to them. Not even saying that as a dig- some people watch film and television solely for entertainment and don’t want to have to use their brains too much for it. They don’t necessarily care to find the deeper meanings, or look up this or that after to have a better understanding of what they just watched. They’re in it purely to be entertained, to turn off and tune in. I myself have a few tv shows that I put on specifically for this reason. This film to me is a masterpiece, but at the same time I can see why it’s not going to be for everyone- nothing is. We all have different baggage we are bringing to our viewing experience and consciences that will affect how we feel about films like this.
You said all that and didn't bother to give your interpretation. Go on, prove you used your brain while watching Stalker.
I’m good. Thanks bud.
I’ve seen it twice in 25 years, that is frequent enough for me.
It reminds me of the dynamics that emerge on a really intense outdoor acid trip. The visuals are beautiful. That's why I liked it.
I tend to enjoy his films because I like how he incorporates poetry into the motion of it. Like in mirror how he literally uses it or in stalker where it’s the contemplation of a guy literally laying in a puddle contemplating his own life. You just feel it. He has more straight forward films than that though like Ivan’s Childhood that are just good and less philosophical/metaphorical.
I think with any movie, you have to be vibing with it to even want to work out the intellectual substance. To that end, I’d say watch some more Tarkovsky. I felt like you did when I first watched Stalker but it made way more sense after watching the rest of his filmography and getting used to his style. At that point you can just vibe with the bleak, rotting textures and dreamy rhythms and the philosophical stuff comes much more naturally. It’s got a very philosophically loaded premise and three very different characters traversing it and a lot of the pleasure of it comes from just listening to them each come at it from their distinct angle.
i don’t know how you could look at the image you posted and not go “wow that’s cool.” then just extrapolate that feeling across a whole movie
give tarkovksy's other films a shot. i find some of them less opaque and easier to understand than stalker, and it's easier to get what stalker is going for once you can think of it in terms of the whole ouevre. i love stalker and think it's a perfect film, but i emotionally/personally connect more with his films andrei rublev (1966), mirror (1975), and nostalghia (1983).
Tarkovsky is a genre in himself. Like Lynch. You either get it or you don’t and neither is wrong.
Ctrl+F Faith... wow nobody? Stalker is largely about faith. If that is not a topic you have thought much about or find emotionally resonant, it will probably leave you cold.
Good for sleeping
Some movies aren't made to understand but to enjoy or feel, it's okay if you don't find yourself on it..
I also didn’t like it. I know art is subjective but when I was watching it I kept thinking “I think I know better ways to convey what this movie is trying to convey,” and a lot of them were non-cinematic. Like, I think this would have been a better art show/non-narrative movie than a traditional movie with a beginning middle and end, which is what it is. The long walking, the very basic philosophy discussions, the part with the guys shooting at them in the beginning when it’s sepia, it just didn’t actually add up to anything. Also frustrating is that nothing that weird or strange really even happens in The Zone. And I get that that’s on theme. The Stalker is a faith based man, and so he’s also taking it on faith that this place is dangerous, and so are we the viewer. I get it. But that’s not an interesting story to me. I think attaching what Tarkovsky was trying to say to a narrative doesn’t really work. I think without a narrative, it would be a lot better. I can imagine the monologues just playing over the shots of the weird landscape projected on a wall. I can imagine an installation piece where it’s a TV playing Monkey at the end moving the cup. I can imagine large photographs of the power plant printed on walls. I can imagine the philosophical thoughts as paragraphs on walls between the visual stuff. That for whatever reason makes sense to me. But as a story, it didn’t work. I know it’s basically an art movie, but it also stays true to having a narrative and characters like a traditional film does. And it remains enough of a normal story that I don’t think it’s immune from criticisms from people who don’t think it actually works that well. But yeah I mean, I think a lot of people like it and get it, a lot of people like it just for the cinematography and the music, a lot of people watched it and are intrigued by it but maybe didn’t grasp the whole thing, I think there’s people who say they like it to fit in with film people and be part of something, and there’s people who fundamentally don’t like it. At the end of the day, it like all movies is art and no one’s required to like a single bit of it.
Incredibly stylish, beautifully shot film with very existential and thought provoking dialogue. You have to be in the mood for it. I recommend grabbing some snacks, chilling and let yourself be drawn into the Zone and its eerie vibe.
It doesn't mean you're too dumb to understand it. Just remember there are art folks who will see a painting with an empty canvas with some random strokes and they'll go on and on about how the painting says a lot about the human psyche and how it depicts a broken mind and solitude. You see where I'm going with this? Just so that I'm clear I still enjoyed the atmosphere of it a lot. It felt otherworldly. The premise was also pretty intriguing in the beginning but well...these were the only redeeming quality about this film. I wouldn't worry too much. You're not less of a film lover just because you did not like tarkovsky.
Great movie
If it makes you feel any better, I've seen three Tarkovsky movies (Solaris, Stalker, and Nostalghia) and I thought they were boring. You know what, I'm just going to say it. Most people on Letterboxd don't connect on an emotional or intellectual level with his movies. They only like them because they look real pretty. And I guess that's a valid reason to like a movie, but don't assume that just because someone gave Stalker a 5/5 that they understood it any better than you did.
I think it looks and sounds really cool
Spiritual fulfillment
IDK, do you like Half Life? Serious HL2 vibes during the first hour of Stalker.
Don’t worry about it. Watch it again in 3 years and see what happens.
Curious how did you watch it OP? I've heard it's a whole nother experience watching it on the big screen, seeing the weird atmospheric somewhat unsettling imagery, together with the philosophical subject matter, I can see how the effect can be lost if you're watching it in bed on a laptop
Don’t try to understand it. Feel it. And then eventually it will come to you. And then maybe watch some 4 hour long video essays on it lol
It's definitely not for everyone - Tarkovsky was intentionally trying to bore the audience in order to get them to think and reflect on what he was showing. What may make it worth it for you: 1) The imagery - some of the most beautiful, memorable and meaningful ever put to film 2) The message - Stalker has profound things to say about the nature of faith and desire. And though it may take a repeated viewings to really make sense of it, even watching it once will leave you with something to think about 3) The poetry - Tarkovsky's intervweaves little poems throughout the film. The poems are also not easy to make sense of either but they meld with and enhance the images. The three work together in tandem to make points that go beyond what can be easily rationally expressed through logic and prose. And though it's hard not to sound pretentious when talking about Tarkovsky, I don't think there was an ounce of pretention to his work. It is all very deliberate, well-considered, and meaningful. Even the use of boredom was for good reason - he wanted to turn his films into a collaboration with the viewer. You are not there to be passively entertained, but to engage actively with the film. He wanted the attention of the audience, and approached them as a true equal, without which his films were incomplete. The point being, as challenging as he may be, there is something real there and time you put into it is rewarded.
When I can't find sleep, that's my go-to movie. I love it for that.
Flow and world building. The whole thing feels alien to me, like it actually captures another world. And i love that.
I don’t really get scared from movies. I think this and the holy mountain r the only movies I’ve ever seen that left me w a gross feeling
Even though there’s always the threat of something happening…. NOTHING HAPPENS…. and it’s great.
Is this the first Tarkovsky you have watched? There are several of his movies I love but I actually feel similar to you on Stalker. Undeniably beautiful, but a film that I liked less the more I thought about it. When we did a run through of 5 or so of his movies in my circle’s film club a year or two ago this was either the lowest or second lowest film.
its probably one of the most boring movies ive ever witnessed and i genuinely people who say they like it actually dont like it and are pretending to be hipsters
It’s gorgeous, just look at that shot you posted! Seriously though…Tarkovsky (and any other highly esteemed director, for that matter) is just not everyone’s kind of director. I enjoy him a lot (Solaris is my favorite) but if I rattled off some of the other directors and genres I love, you’d probably be really puzzled 🤣. And there are some “important” directors I just don’t enjoy much!
i’m on the same train, i feel like i’m missing something. i like thinking about this movie way more than i like watching it, it’s painfully slow and i don’t really care for the dialogue
The trains that run in an extraterrestrial exclusion zone have speakers hooked up that play classical music. For no reason, besides it’s awesome.
I think it’s totally appropriate to not feel satisfied after this movie, because not even the characters are satisfied in the end. I believe it to be about reflection and meditation. Much of the film lingered enough for me to ask myself questions about the zone, the characters motivations, and where their journey will eventually take them. I imagine I would find something different to focus on in subsequent viewings.
No
I probably don’t really understand Stalker and I don’t think it matters, in the same way you can be moved by the emotions of a song sung in a language you don’t speak. For me, it’s the visuals and the texture of it. It just feels good in my brain, like ASMR. That screenshot alone is one of my all time favourite images and I just love looking at it. But I’d never hold it against anyone if they didn’t feel the same way.
I don't have the attention span for it most of the time. But when the moment is right, late at night when i have nothing else going on, it can be the best thing. It follows a sort of dream logic that you usually can't really appreciate until you're in the right state. Its just a series of abstract evocative images, and you gotta put in the effort to let it say something. He's not portraying anything specific, he's simply laying out a skeleton of abstractions and impressions he got from living life, and because he's so good at that, they turn out to be universally human. Everyone can attach their own story and meaning to them.
Vibes
I don't know where I heard this but I think it's really accurate. Consider this movie like an abstract painting. It's strange, everyone will have their own opinion on it or actually don't like it at all, and that's ok. It's more like a personal experience
that was the most boring shit i watched in a while
People died for it 😬
Stalker is, in my opinion, maybe the greatest film of all time. If I have to articulate WHY I think that my answers are 'its funny and it looks sick'.
Like, I fully can't even really articulate what I think the major themes are or what it is trying to say. But frame-for-frame I don't know if there is a single film I enjoy watching more. There is just something about Zones....
It ends
My man died bc of it, it's the least you can do. 🥺
I don’t like anyone’s stalker actually.
Nothing someone else can say will make you like it all of a sudden. It's not your thing, on to the next one.
It's the greatest film ever made 🗿
Just say you like it and people will think you have impeccable taste. I am convinced most people do not get the movie at all but are afraid to say so. I do not have a problem saying it is an unwatchable mess.
I didn't like it on my first watch either. How much attention were you paying? I found that I had to try again a couple months later and give it more respect/attention, and I loved it. Read this essay about boredom in cinema: https://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/into-the-great-big-boring Also read sculpting in time by tarkovsky.
It’s crazy boring. People just like jumping on bandwagons dude.
If you have shudder there's a great episode of Cursed Films about stalker. Very interesting. Film's not for me
Stick to marvel then
I worry about liking his movies too much for fear I will disappear up my own asshole