I don't mind a slow film, and I like to think I'm not film illiterate. I enjoy Bergman, Kurosawa, Lang, etc. All those old auteurs we learned about in Film Theory classes. But I have a really hard time with Tarkovsky. His films are so ponderous and brooding that I can't wait for them to end. Also, gotta throw this out there, I've read and love Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky - the book this is based on. It's a sci fi classic, and in the book, strangely enough, a lot more stuff actually happens. So I sat there watching this 3 hour movie repeatedly saying to myself, "Hey, I don't usually complain about runtime, but if you're going to adapt a book into a 3 hour movie and then leave out 90% of the book in favor of Russian guys laying in fields staring into the middle distance, talking about philosophy-" I don't know, I'm clearly rambling, but I can respect Tarkovsky's skill for framing and atmosphere, while still finding his movies unnecessarily slow and uneventful. Something to respect but not enjoy.
The film [Stalker] needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.” --- Tarkovsky
That is a real quote. And no he didn't think it was duller. But yes he did want to weed people out. This is a film best watched without any pretentious folks in the house.
Wasn't that what he used for Solyaris (1972) ? It was also more like:"Solyaris starts off slow so that one-track-minded simpletons will walk out early on and leave the rest undisturbed to enjoy the film". Tarkovsky didn't concern himself with the odd person who "walked into the wrong theatre" (at a time multiplex cinemas were still rare and didn't exist at all in the former Soviet Union this is obviously a distorted quote) but wanted the people who didn't understand and weren't going to understand what film they bought tickets to, to walk out early on. He knew the types of cinema going audience. People are people no matter where you go in the world. When I saw "Parasite" there were two couples walking out. All of them teens. They walked out after 15 minutes. Nobody else walked out. My guess would be that these teen couples had read that "Parasite" had won best picture and decided to "check it out" but were so alienated by the lack of superheroes and wisecracking comedians they walked out. They didn't get it and were never going to get it. Tarkovsky (supposedly) actively wanted to "wrong kind of people" to *leave* and not disturb the others. I never seized to amaze me how people fail to scrutinize supposed quotes by famous people and how often they have been severely morphed into something anachronistic or downright bizarre. Whether Tarkovsky made a quote somewhat like that doesn't matter, what matters is how "walking into the wrong theater" was almost exclusively an American "problem" at the time and was pretty much as alien concept as far as Tarkovsky was concerned, as is the fact that Tarkovsky films were released abroad in smaller "foreign cinema" theaters which aren't multiplexes even today.
The scene of the derelect moss covered WW2 tanks which they had to trek past was amazing. Not so fun fact: the film was shot unknowingly in a radioactive contaminated area and within a few years one of the lead actors, and Tarkovsky himself would be dead from cancer. the film was based on the Soviet Sci fi novel "Roadside Picnic".
My favourite moment in any Tarkovsky movie is the end of "Mirror" where the grandmother walks with the two children through the fields, while Bach's music swells, the mother we see as a young woman in the field, while the sunset is slowly progressing and suddenly the music stops, the little boy puts his hands to his mouth and gives this shout of what I interpreted as joy, the joy of promise, of youth of infinite possibilities and then we are left only with the sounds of nature and the camera shyly retreats into the forest behind this idyllic picture until the screen turns to black and the movie ends. Damn it, now I need to see it this instant ...
I never saw much point in this comparison between them, which is done on a regular basis, they have very little in common in any sense, except both being extraordinary artists. I sometimes compare Tarkovsky more wit Zyagintsev, especially his movie "The Return", in my mind a must see for any fan of Russian cinema.
I struggle enormously with this one, and I'm usually completely on board with lengthy, slow-moving atmospheric movies. I love Tarkovsky's own Solaris and The Sacrifice, and I've sat transfixed through the likes of Shinji Aoyama's Eureka. I've tried Stalker twice now, years apart, and it holds a destructive power over my consciousness that I can't resist. Last time I kept dozing off, waking up and skipping back to the last part I remembered, then making it a little further before dropping off again. Thing is I was also dreaming my own version of the film during all the naps, so the entire experience felt like an 8-hour movie that I half created. I'll try again in a few years...
Curiously I've had friends really involved in meditation etc who can't stand Tarkovsky. I find that very interesting. And it points to the fact that he is actually making you work to understand it. And if you don't engage, or worse have a smartphone anywhere near you, it will never work. It's more like nature. To get to the good places away from the crowds you have to put in the time and work at it. For many of us this is the pinnacle of the cinema arts.
I had the same experience ie the dozing off. Only difference is I delved right back in the next day until I got thru it. It's not you. I've read articles and interviews that stated it was tarkovsky's intent to meditate and immerse you into the world of the film. Example: when they're on the rail car there's meditative clang sound mixed with other futuristic sounds designed to make you feel as the passengers entering "the zone". Another is in the zone while they're lying down "napping" or dreaming during the journey. I believe it's a device to show how time is a bit slower in the zone and it puts the viewer in a dreamlike state. Everyone who watches the film will have their own experience. I've watched the film over 30 times and it feels like something different each time. It's not an experience that can be explained. It rewards the patient. I won't ever tell anyone to watch a film or how to watch it but I'd recommend anyone to give the film a full watch and see what experience they take from it. To me it was the most rewarding cinematic experience of my life and I never tire of seeing it.
maybe the way to the zone is through naps... @Lacrimatorium _"like nature. To get to the good places away from the crowds you have to put in the time and work at it"_ kind of like what happens in the movie!
YES! I’ve been waiting so long for a Tarkovsky review from you! And I remember back when you mentioned him in a video, and you said it was difficult for you to put one of his films to words. Well here we are and you made my day!
Good interpretation of Stalker. And quite different than my own. I'm not sure it's so much a Rorschach test, as it is that Tarkovsky does what Dostoevsky does, he lets each position speak for itself. This is something Americans in particular have a hard time doing. We tend to think if a writer or filmmaker says something that they agree with the speaker. Neither Dostoevsky, nor Solzhenitsyn, nor Tarkocsky do this. Many people are convinced that Dostoevsky was really an atheist because of his Grand Inquisitor monologue in the Brothers Karamazov. They never notice that he put these words into the mouth of a murderer. Shakespeare would also use this technique. It's not that Tarkovsky doesn't have a dog in this fight, he most certainly does. But he makes it the weakest creature, the Stalker. The key to the film is in the poem that connects strength to hardness to death. It isn't a struggle between two views, it is a struggle between three. The Stalker is the man of faith. And his faith is actually fairly pure. He may seem simplistic, but in fact he is the humblest of them. The writer and the scientist interpret his simplicity as stupidity and as a desire to be somebody in other people's eyes. But those are their words not Tarkovsky's. He doesn't want to go into the room either, because he doesn't feel worthy of it. Which in my understanding, and I believe after reading Sculpting in Time and Tarkovsky's diaries, is also Tarkovsky's view of faith. Faith must be weak yet dogged, Humble yet assertive. And did you notice his prayers are answered? The answer is in his child who is something of a miracle. So rather than saying we can never understand anything I believe this is a great statement of a very humble faith. (Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian.) It's the same message in the last words of The Sacrifice. And Andrei Rublev. We may get kicked and knocked down, we may grow blind and be crippled by life, but we must continue for it is created to be meaningful. Time and matter are crucial. (In this way he is the canonical opposite of the psychedelic filmmaker.) We must look at everything. And we must take time. I highly suggest reading his great book Sculpting in Time. Maggie thanks for wrestling with Tarkovsky. Hope you don't mind my little screed here. It is my all time life changing favorite film. You should try walking through the Alaskan wilderness as if you were in a Tarkovsky film.
@@anthonymartensen3164 I never said that it couldn't. It's not a bad film. It's just not in the same league. It's like comparing Shakespeare to the MCU. There are pluses to the MCU but they can't be compared for their depth or quality. Though themes and images can be compared. When I was younger I was listening to a classical piece interpreted by Emerson Lake and Palmer. A guy said it's alright but the original is better. I said pretty much what you are saying. When I got older I realized he was right. Yet ELP helped me later appreciate classical music, which is what I'd say about Annihilation. It's like a rock band playing Beethoven. It can be done. It might not be bad. But eventually you find out why the original is unsurpassed, if you keep exploring music. Likewise with Tarkovsky. The more time you spend with cinema and learn its history eventually you most likely come to appreciate Tarkovsky who is on the level of Shakespeare. Maggie has put in the time. Which is why she gets it. Put it more time. You will certainly learn more.
@@anthonymartensen3164 don't let the personal taste of others invalidate your experience. actually, they should only expand your viewpoint. I always check out reviews from people with the opposite opinion, they can be the most enlightening.
i figured 'Rorschach test' referred to how the movie invites you as a viewer to consider how the Zone would interpret your most significant desires, however insidious or destructive. The candle scene in Nostalghia seems to extend that vision of faith as well, which results in that final elegant vision of home/heaven.
I was fascinated with it for the 1st 1/2 or so, but couldn't help noticing the Danger that Stalker kept warning his clients about never appeared. The "Meat Grinder" didn't grind anything but my patience (I liked "Solaris", btw). This is a movie I waited over 30 years to see & I was disappointed. I'll still check out his other films when they turn up.
Literally just watched this yesterday for the first time. So when i seen the title of your video i got super excited. Funny how things happen like that what a trip! Love your videos btw keep up the great work.
@@2Anth0ny9 had a splitting headache and watched with my mom. She couldn't resist the lure of Facebook's eternal scroll so naturally I teased that _the zone_ would give her infinite battery.
// 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. // This monologue of the stalker is actually an excrept from Tao Te Ching from Laozi. Such description of 'softness' and 'hardness' reminds me of how Bruce Lee illustrates the and flexibility and fluidity of water (in fact Lee is also influenced by Taoism).
Tarkovsky films never age because they already seem like ancient works of art - yet they are timeless, and can exist as visions of a distant future, pure essence of ecstatic human spirit! Great review of one cinema's true visionaries!
Sculpting in Time (book by Andrei Tarkovsky) is also worth of your time if you are interested in film theory. I am especially fascinated by how he illustrates the use of long shot to affect audience's perception of time and how poetry acts as a way of understanding of our surrounding. And most importantly, he used many of his favourite films/directors as examples (which is a great treat for cinephils to expand their watchlist) e.g. Seven Samurai by Kurosawa, La Notte by Antonioni, Virgin Spring, Persona and Cries ans Whispers by Bergman, Bresson, Nazarin by Buñuel, Mizoguchi, Dreyer, etc.
Tarkovsky is my favourite director and this is my second favourite (after "Mirror") and I cherish the Artemiev music. Did you know that the movie almost broke him as he had to reshoot almost the entire movie after the original filmstock was accidentally (?) destroyed.
This has nothing to do with the video, but I watched enough of your content to pick up on certain terminology and phases you use very often like psychedelic, skeletal, and "it (does/doesn't) come together." It's not a bad thing, I just find it funny.
Psychadelia is a relatively new term for something that seems to eternally appear in art. It's more succinct than bland ol "surrealism" for describing a genuine phenomena of the late 20th century, with roots in the avant garde and late romanticism. Should be discussed in cinema more!
Always assumed that a movie needed to tell a story, rather than asking a question...this movie forces the viewer to reevaluate their perceptions of cinema, in a way that offers more value to the experience.
Great review . Big fan of your channel I think your one of the best arthouse cinema reviewers on UA-cam! Would love to see you do more tarkovksy reviews and also one for 8 1/2 and and Robert Bresson films
One of my favorite sequences directed by Tarkovsky is from Nostalgia with the main character carrying the candle back and forth at the bottom of the drained pool for a 10 minutes long take without letting the flame go out.
I can't count the number of times I've watched that scene. It is a work of art in itself. And as pure an example of the raw power of cinema as art, - so simple, no dialogue. But God, to get that candle across even if it kills me and the use of Verdi's requiem music. Spine tingling.
Your distinction between Kubrick and Tarkovsky is I think the best I've ever heard: Kubrick for cerebral, Tarkovsky for emotion. It's not something I'd thought of previously, but is something I think is very real and apt. You've absolutely pinned two of my favourite directors. Lovely review. I have definitely subscribed, because I want to see/hear your thoughts on other films. Thank you so very much.
A complex review of a complex movie, just fantastic, thanks! I watch Stalker at least once every year, not just for the atmosphere but as a safety net too. After realizing near the end that our innermost desires are too frightening to be realized, you get relief in the last scene with Stalker's daughter whose physical disability is compansated, and this is when you understand that there is hope after all. I find it interesting how many people who like this movie just romanticise it for the Chernobyl-esque zone atmosphere. Another reflection: I find quite many parallels with Solaris, also on a surface (the texture, the music - Bach prelude just gives the shiver every time), but also how it explores a person's pain from unfulfilled desires. "Life has been as a shield, And has offered protection. I have been most fortunate, But it isn't enough." (Arseny Tarkovsky)
I always interpreted the final scene a meeting of the physical world with the spiritual world. The girl sits at the table, we hear that sound again, which could be heard earlier on in the movie of a train rushing by accompanied by flourishes of music that sounded like old Soviet revolutionary songs, and then see the glas on the table move by itself. Is it a physical phenomenon, moved by the vibration of the train passing or is it the power emanating from the girl's mind? Also linked to this and very important I think that the world outside the zone is in black and with (with a bit of garish colour filter thrown in) and in the zone it's all in colour. At the end of the movie, after Stalker's return we see him walking with his daughter outside the zone and it is shot in colour. It could be the projection of hope, maybe a hope for the eventual victory of the metaphysical over the physical?
This is why I watch your videos. Never seen the movie. Going to watch it now. Great movie review! You really described this film incredibly well. Then adding a personal dream with Jim & Bob passing a joint. Talking about life. Thanks
Stalker is an unique experience and not a movie. Only Zerkalo, Turin Horse and Fallen Angels come close to this philosophical feeling. thx for the review!
It's a movie it's not entertainment it's art it's a film it's a movie I appreciate the effort, but this is a movie. The medium is that of a film a.k.a. a movie that is all. No condescension here I'm just telling you it's a movie.
A friend of mine (who is a psychology major), persuaded me to watch this with her and I think she just wanted to see my reaction lol. She was really surprised that I loved it
Tarkovski is my favourite director the sacrifice is my favourite film. There's so much poetry philosophy beauty and magic in the slow natural beauty of the imagery and the dreamlike sequences, there's something deeply spiritual in tarkovski films inexplicable deep and for a film profound almost art in cinema, i love the open ended unclear message in his films, im an artist too, i think tarkovski appeals to artists because of the art he manages to create in his slow rich dreamlike beautiful cinema, its the opposite of Hollywood and probably too slow for most people who are used to special effects and sensational films, but it's a beautiful way to spend a couple of hours if you want to immerse yourself in something different. I also love Mirror , Nostalgia, and Stalker. But the sacrifice is my favourite, thank you for covering him
Writing is by brothers Strugatsky, heavely based on their novel "Roadside Picnic" which is the big thing on it's own, really recomend to read it - one of the best science-fiction novels out there.
I had that with my first Tarkovsky, which was "Mirror" in some vary small arthouse cinema somewhere in Amsterdam, where the movie was literally projected on a bed sheet and there was only a smal group of table where you were still allowed to smoke and drink beer and I was in total shock after the movie and completely changed my idea of what cinema could be. I will never forget that, the way art can actually transform the way you look at the world. I wanted to learn to read Russian poetry immediately after that (the movie includes in certain scenes of Tarkovsky's real life father reading one of his own amazingly beautiful poems, he was very famous in Russia).
I believe tarkovsky films seep into your pysche, they have an oneric feel, the charecters are ideas wraped in flesh ( he got thst from his Dostoevsky) but the cinema photography makes it so easy to become entranced and he wants to communicate ideas feelings which language fails to adequately hold and convey . The room has the capability of reaching deeper into someones identity more they know about themselves so that seems to contribute the overall neorsis and angst if the room itself
Very good approach, review, REFLECTION and MEDITATION as uplift to selfawareness. That's also what Andrei Tarkovsky is installing in our hearts and mind with his filmoeuvre. Mission accomplish! Well done.
Every time Tarkovsky is reviewed, people ALWAYS compare to Kubrick. But when Kubrick is reviewed he is compared to no one. I've attended screenings of Stalker, Mirror and Nostalghia. I've have the Solaris Criterion DVD. I appreciate his art but I also have to say his films are like staring at clouds. You can make them represent anything you want to because the story barely exists. This forces the viewer to project. Simply because there is nothing else. He is master cinematographer. But not a story teller. He makes films solely for himself and isn't terribly interested to take the audience along. The visuals are beautiful.
Tarkovsky only made 7 movies and they are all rated 8 or over on IMDB versus Kubrick who has some real bummers as well. I believe Tarkovsky is just more intellectual.
I just watched Stalker for the first time. It was a spectacular film. I will admit, some of it did go over my head, but the film's ethereal feel and imagery really won me over.
That's half the fight Hamza, all the cerebral analysis in my opinion is secondary, even though, as in any Tarkovsky movie, there's plenty to be had. Just open yourself up to the experience, the rest will come gradually in subsequent viewings, and to me watching this movie multiple times, certainly is no waste of time. It's a hypnotic movie that draws you in and I can probably talk a very very very long time about this movie, longer than its feature length, it's probably more worth while to just watch it.
@@voiceover2191 Oh yeah, I do plan on revisiting this film eventually. I do agree with what you say about opening yourself to the experience. For example, some really love analyzing David Lynch film, and that's perfectly fine. However, I feel I get more out of a more poetic film, if I approach it like a dream.
@@hamzarouri8454 Couldn't agree more, Lynch and Tarkovsky keep switching places, depending on my mood on any particular day, for being my favourite director, so I agree with Lynch this to be even more the case. The only movie of Lynch I found myself struggling with as Inland Empire, it just didn't pull me in, which of course is not a requirement, but made it harder to like. Ah man, these two men, so different but any time I see a work of theirs I'm just gone, in it and I always keep an eye out for any showings of any of their movies and will try to catch it.
I really like this film. I have only seen 4 of Tarkovsky's films, & this is one of my favourites (although I love them all). Nolan is a good technician, but his films are pretty simplistic to be honest. I agree with you that he is gimmicky. Its not that his films are bad, but they're not as deep as people say they are.
Tarkovski is a master of cinema. And a master of human psyche. His cinema is by no means the only or true wat how to do it. Anyways, Stalker really had an impact on me. From middle schoold to mid-age, I've seen it four times, two times in cinema and i will do it again. Basically it's a story about hope as an ultimate human condition.
I must shamelessly plug another bleak Russian film based on a novel by the Strugatsky brothers: "Hard To Be A God" (2013). This is an immersive film par excellence. You feel the utter misery of the world you're in.
wow just stumbled across this channel and this is exactly the food my brain needed, thankyou. kinda leap from tarkovsky but would love to recommend angela schanelec's "i was at home, but" and "the dreamed path" if you haven't checked them out already!
I dont really know why, but something in his films give me a nauseating feeling. But I totally get people being fascinated by his style, it just doesn't work for me.
I found the whole film to be a religious allegory. Seekers find the zone, the kingdom of heaven, but just use it as another stepping stone to get what they think they want and take it back with them to the hell they have created for themselves. Meanwhile, the stalkers, the priests, navigate the kingdom of heaven with superstition and ordain themselves its keeper, deeming who can pass and who cannot. The stalker we see in the film is pure at heart though; I think he gets closer to the truth than anyone when he expresses his deepest desire to live in the zone with his family. For him the kingdom of heaven is an end in and of itself; more than anything I think that's why he keeps going back - even at the risk of his life and freedom. The purpose he has crafted for himself is just a means to justify his existence in the yellow-tinted industrial hell zone he occupies, where everyone must have a tangible and immediately perceptible function in order to be allowed to survive.
I own it but never got around to watching it. I'll have to check it out now. Personally, I found Solaris visually artful, but almost unpalatable regarding how boring it is, and I enjoy Koyannisqatsi.
Based on your comment I listen to Her review 2 years later, and I think she's saying that the Content and the Logic of the movie are somewhat irrelevant. The most important part of the movie is the feeling and mood and how it affects you emotionally --- But I hope you agree that the movie's nearly impossible to approach from a logical linear point of view -- @@brunoactis1104
"Rooted in the ground, like big trees ...." An apt description, though I can't help but disagree on some of your points. Aesthetic is where the similarities between Tarkovsky and Kubrick end. "Stalker" came at a time when the USSR was more aggressive in its foreign policy (Afghanistan is a case in point) and Tarkovsky was establishing himself as an antithesis to that. I know nothing about the production troubles of "Stalker" (compared to the state meddling around "Andrei Rublev") suffice to say Tarkovsky's work in general is more miraculous in its internal life. This was at a time when Kubrick chose to be on the same page as the system that supported him: "The Shining" was from a popular book reflective of American values and (because it's horror) American fears. There isn't that same detachment from the norm. Hopefully I'm making sense. The point of this long spiel was to give Tarkovsky a more fitting American counterpart: Terrence Malick. Descriptors like "internal" and "poetic", "rooted" and "flowing". I can never give enough praise to "Days of Heaven". Its plot is very different from "Stalker" (the searches for what's desired in particular are handled in contrasting ways) but it comes close the way Tarkovsky does to reflecting the most natural state of being.
Guys, I'm from Russia and I hate this movie. Yes, during his appearance, he made an exciting sensation, impressed everyone with his talented camerawork, soundtrack, script and his philosophy... And then my country turned into this film, in which the down-handed thinkers fucked up everything because of their non-resistance to violence and evil. They gave up and Russia turned into the very Zone from this movie. Into the Zone with its ruins and deadly traps, as well as barbed wire and machine gunners around the perimeter. Not to a bright place where you can escape from the black and white world, but to this gloomy, dirty and hopeless world. It is not for nothing that a prison is also called a" Zone " in Russia! Tarkovsky's genius is only in showing the Russians the future of their country in ten years. He is a genius of destruction, leading his audience to the block of sad fatalism.
First time watch was a bit boring, second viewing, after going through a lot of garbage in life, resonated with me heavily, plus having seen it in theatres. Whereas the first viewing was really long, the second viewing flew by incredibly fast and it actually surprised me, my attention hung to every single line of dialogue and frame. A great inspiration, a great mind is Tarkosky’s, motivates me to do movies, as all great movies should do: inspire, motivate, elevate. What a wonderful time. ✨✨✨
I'm going to play the role of low-information shitposter and say... yeah I've never been interested in the slowness of Tarkovsky - and after seeing stuff like Annihilation I feel like I'm not missing out.
I don't mind a slow film, and I like to think I'm not film illiterate. I enjoy Bergman, Kurosawa, Lang, etc. All those old auteurs we learned about in Film Theory classes. But I have a really hard time with Tarkovsky. His films are so ponderous and brooding that I can't wait for them to end. Also, gotta throw this out there, I've read and love Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky - the book this is based on. It's a sci fi classic, and in the book, strangely enough, a lot more stuff actually happens. So I sat there watching this 3 hour movie repeatedly saying to myself, "Hey, I don't usually complain about runtime, but if you're going to adapt a book into a 3 hour movie and then leave out 90% of the book in favor of Russian guys laying in fields staring into the middle distance, talking about philosophy-" I don't know, I'm clearly rambling, but I can respect Tarkovsky's skill for framing and atmosphere, while still finding his movies unnecessarily slow and uneventful. Something to respect but not enjoy.
The film [Stalker] needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.”
--- Tarkovsky
I can't believe that's a sincere comment
God did I laugh when I read that quote🤣
Was it even dull at the beginning? I thought it was interesting all the way through.
That is a real quote. And no he didn't think it was duller. But yes he did want to weed people out. This is a film best watched without any pretentious folks in the house.
Wasn't that what he used for Solyaris (1972) ?
It was also more like:"Solyaris starts off slow so that one-track-minded simpletons will walk out early on and leave the rest undisturbed to enjoy the film". Tarkovsky didn't concern himself with the odd person who "walked into the wrong theatre" (at a time multiplex cinemas were still rare and didn't exist at all in the former Soviet Union this is obviously a distorted quote) but wanted the people who didn't understand and weren't going to understand what film they bought tickets to, to walk out early on.
He knew the types of cinema going audience. People are people no matter where you go in the world. When I saw "Parasite" there were two couples walking out. All of them teens. They walked out after 15 minutes. Nobody else walked out. My guess would be that these teen couples had read that "Parasite" had won best picture and decided to "check it out" but were so alienated by the lack of superheroes and wisecracking comedians they walked out. They didn't get it and were never going to get it. Tarkovsky (supposedly) actively wanted to "wrong kind of people" to *leave* and not disturb the others.
I never seized to amaze me how people fail to scrutinize supposed quotes by famous people and how often they have been severely morphed into something anachronistic or downright bizarre. Whether Tarkovsky made a quote somewhat like that doesn't matter, what matters is how "walking into the wrong theater" was almost exclusively an American "problem" at the time and was pretty much as alien concept as far as Tarkovsky was concerned, as is the fact that Tarkovsky films were released abroad in smaller "foreign cinema" theaters which aren't multiplexes even today.
The scene of the derelect moss covered WW2 tanks which they had to trek past was amazing. Not so fun fact: the film was shot unknowingly in a radioactive contaminated area and within a few years one of the lead actors, and Tarkovsky himself would be dead from cancer.
the film was based on the Soviet Sci fi novel "Roadside Picnic".
My favourite moment in any Tarkovsky movie is the end of "Mirror" where the grandmother walks with the two children through the fields, while Bach's music swells, the mother we see as a young woman in the field, while the sunset is slowly progressing and suddenly the music stops, the little boy puts his hands to his mouth and gives this shout of what I interpreted as joy, the joy of promise, of youth of infinite possibilities and then we are left only with the sounds of nature and the camera shyly retreats into the forest behind this idyllic picture until the screen turns to black and the movie ends.
Damn it, now I need to see it this instant ...
Kubrick is a master of mechanical perfection, Tarkovsky is the master of natural imperfections.
I never saw much point in this comparison between them, which is done on a regular basis, they have very little in common in any sense, except both being extraordinary artists. I sometimes compare Tarkovsky more wit Zyagintsev, especially his movie "The Return", in my mind a must see for any fan of Russian cinema.
Such a great insight
I struggle enormously with this one, and I'm usually completely on board with lengthy, slow-moving atmospheric movies. I love Tarkovsky's own Solaris and The Sacrifice, and I've sat transfixed through the likes of Shinji Aoyama's Eureka. I've tried Stalker twice now, years apart, and it holds a destructive power over my consciousness that I can't resist. Last time I kept dozing off, waking up and skipping back to the last part I remembered, then making it a little further before dropping off again. Thing is I was also dreaming my own version of the film during all the naps, so the entire experience felt like an 8-hour movie that I half created. I'll try again in a few years...
Curiously I've had friends really involved in meditation etc who can't stand Tarkovsky. I find that very interesting. And it points to the fact that he is actually making you work to understand it. And if you don't engage, or worse have a smartphone anywhere near you, it will never work. It's more like nature. To get to the good places away from the crowds you have to put in the time and work at it. For many of us this is the pinnacle of the cinema arts.
I had the same experience ie the dozing off. Only difference is I delved right back in the next day until I got thru it. It's not you. I've read articles and interviews that stated it was tarkovsky's intent to meditate and immerse you into the world of the film. Example: when they're on the rail car there's meditative clang sound mixed with other futuristic sounds designed to make you feel as the passengers entering "the zone". Another is in the zone while they're lying down "napping" or dreaming during the journey. I believe it's a device to show how time is a bit slower in the zone and it puts the viewer in a dreamlike state. Everyone who watches the film will have their own experience. I've watched the film over 30 times and it feels like something different each time. It's not an experience that can be explained. It rewards the patient. I won't ever tell anyone to watch a film or how to watch it but I'd recommend anyone to give the film a full watch and see what experience they take from it. To me it was the most rewarding cinematic experience of my life and I never tire of seeing it.
maybe the way to the zone is through naps...
@Lacrimatorium _"like nature. To get to the good places away from the crowds you have to put in the time and work at it"_
kind of like what happens in the movie!
@@funlesbian Exactly... And thanks for subscribing to my secret channel that I haven't announced anywhere yet.
Sounds like a pretty amazing cinema experience to me
Please do the other Tarkovsky movies. Would love to see your take on them.
YES! I’ve been waiting so long for a Tarkovsky review from you! And I remember back when you mentioned him in a video, and you said it was difficult for you to put one of his films to words. Well here we are and you made my day!
We have waited so long for this. A Tarkovsky movie review ♥️♥️
Good interpretation of Stalker.
And quite different than my own. I'm not sure it's so much a Rorschach test, as it is that Tarkovsky does what Dostoevsky does, he lets each position speak for itself. This is something Americans in particular have a hard time doing. We tend to think if a writer or filmmaker says something that they agree with the speaker. Neither Dostoevsky, nor Solzhenitsyn, nor Tarkocsky do this. Many people are convinced that Dostoevsky was really an atheist because of his Grand Inquisitor monologue in the Brothers Karamazov. They never notice that he put these words into the mouth of a murderer. Shakespeare would also use this technique.
It's not that Tarkovsky doesn't have a dog in this fight, he most certainly does. But he makes it the weakest creature, the Stalker. The key to the film is in the poem that connects strength to hardness to death. It isn't a struggle between two views, it is a struggle between three. The Stalker is the man of faith. And his faith is actually fairly pure. He may seem simplistic, but in fact he is the humblest of them. The writer and the scientist interpret his simplicity as stupidity and as a desire to be somebody in other people's eyes. But those are their words not Tarkovsky's.
He doesn't want to go into the room either, because he doesn't feel worthy of it. Which in my understanding, and I believe after reading Sculpting in Time and Tarkovsky's diaries, is also Tarkovsky's view of faith. Faith must be weak yet dogged, Humble yet assertive. And did you notice his prayers are answered? The answer is in his child who is something of a miracle.
So rather than saying we can never understand anything I believe this is a great statement of a very humble faith. (Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian.) It's the same message in the last words of The Sacrifice. And Andrei Rublev. We may get kicked and knocked down, we may grow blind and be crippled by life, but we must continue for it is created to be meaningful. Time and matter are crucial. (In this way he is the canonical opposite of the psychedelic filmmaker.) We must look at everything. And we must take time. I highly suggest reading his great book Sculpting in Time. Maggie thanks for wrestling with Tarkovsky.
Hope you don't mind my little screed here. It is my all time life changing favorite film. You should try walking through the Alaskan wilderness as if you were in a Tarkovsky film.
If Stalker was life changing for you can Annihilation not be life changing for me?
@@anthonymartensen3164 I never said that it couldn't. It's not a bad film. It's just not in the same league. It's like comparing Shakespeare to the MCU. There are pluses to the MCU but they can't be compared for their depth or quality. Though themes and images can be compared. When I was younger I was listening to a classical piece interpreted by Emerson Lake and Palmer. A guy said it's alright but the original is better. I said pretty much what you are saying. When I got older I realized he was right. Yet ELP helped me later appreciate classical music, which is what I'd say about Annihilation. It's like a rock band playing Beethoven. It can be done. It might not be bad. But eventually you find out why the original is unsurpassed, if you keep exploring music. Likewise with Tarkovsky. The more time you spend with cinema and learn its history eventually you most likely come to appreciate Tarkovsky who is on the level of Shakespeare. Maggie has put in the time. Which is why she gets it. Put it more time. You will certainly learn more.
@@anthonymartensen3164 don't let the personal taste of others invalidate your experience. actually, they should only expand your viewpoint. I always check out reviews from people with the opposite opinion, they can be the most enlightening.
@@funlesbian it's hard not to be attracted to things that validate my own biases. But you're right, it's good to expand.
i figured 'Rorschach test' referred to how the movie invites you as a viewer to consider how the Zone would interpret your most significant desires, however insidious or destructive. The candle scene in Nostalghia seems to extend that vision of faith as well, which results in that final elegant vision of home/heaven.
I was fascinated with it for the 1st 1/2 or so, but couldn't help noticing the Danger that Stalker kept warning his clients about never appeared. The "Meat Grinder" didn't grind anything but my patience (I liked "Solaris", btw). This is a movie I waited over 30 years to see & I was disappointed. I'll still check out his other films when they turn up.
Literally just watched this yesterday for the first time. So when i seen the title of your video i got super excited. Funny how things happen like that what a trip! Love your videos btw keep up the great work.
I just watched it about a week ago too actually
@@funlesbian don't steal my thunder lol jk. What did you think?
@@2Anth0ny9 had a splitting headache and watched with my mom. She couldn't resist the lure of Facebook's eternal scroll so naturally I teased that _the zone_ would give her infinite battery.
"Andrey Tarkovsky. A Cinema Prayer" (2019) - very good documentary about the greatest poet of cinema.
So glad you finally reviewed one of Tarkovskij's film. To me he represents everything I love about Cinema. Just life on the big screen
STALKER is actually quite funny considering its tone and subject and director. The debates between the trio have a lot of witty banter.
// 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. //
This monologue of the stalker is actually an excrept from Tao Te Ching from Laozi. Such description of 'softness' and 'hardness' reminds me of how Bruce Lee illustrates the and flexibility and fluidity of water (in fact Lee is also influenced by Taoism).
Tarkovsky films never age because they already seem like ancient works of art - yet they are timeless, and can exist as visions of a distant future, pure essence of ecstatic human spirit! Great review of one cinema's true visionaries!
Sculpting in Time (book by Andrei Tarkovsky) is also worth of your time if you are interested in film theory. I am especially fascinated by how he illustrates the use of long shot to affect audience's perception of time and how poetry acts as a way of understanding of our surrounding. And most importantly, he used many of his favourite films/directors as examples (which is a great treat for cinephils to expand their watchlist) e.g. Seven Samurai by Kurosawa, La Notte by Antonioni, Virgin Spring, Persona and Cries ans Whispers by Bergman, Bresson, Nazarin by Buñuel, Mizoguchi, Dreyer, etc.
Tarkovsky is my favourite director and this is my second favourite (after "Mirror") and I cherish the Artemiev music. Did you know that the movie almost broke him as he had to reshoot almost the entire movie after the original filmstock was accidentally (?) destroyed.
This has nothing to do with the video, but I watched enough of your content to pick up on certain terminology and phases you use very often like psychedelic, skeletal, and "it (does/doesn't) come together." It's not a bad thing, I just find it funny.
XD Haha Yah. That's what happens when you do hundreds of reviews.
Psychadelia is a relatively new term for something that seems to eternally appear in art. It's more succinct than bland ol "surrealism" for describing a genuine phenomena of the late 20th century, with roots in the avant garde and late romanticism. Should be discussed in cinema more!
Always assumed that a movie needed to tell a story, rather than asking a question...this movie forces the viewer to reevaluate their perceptions of cinema, in a way that offers more value to the experience.
Great review . Big fan of your channel I think your one of the best arthouse cinema reviewers on UA-cam! Would love to see you do more tarkovksy reviews and also one for 8 1/2 and and Robert Bresson films
One of my favorite sequences directed by Tarkovsky is from Nostalgia with the main character carrying the candle back and forth at the bottom of the drained pool for a 10 minutes long take without letting the flame go out.
Yes, the idea was, that if he could reach the other side without the candle going out, the world would be saved.
I can't count the number of times I've watched that scene. It is a work of art in itself. And as pure an example of the raw power of cinema as art, - so simple, no dialogue. But God, to get that candle across even if it kills me and the use of Verdi's requiem music. Spine tingling.
Stalker is such a fantastic movie, the amount of beauty found within so much urban decay is mind blowing. One of my favourite movies.
It's one of the most beautiful movies I've seen but also one of the slowest i had to watch in installments
Your distinction between Kubrick and Tarkovsky is I think the best I've ever heard: Kubrick for cerebral, Tarkovsky for emotion. It's not something I'd thought of previously, but is something I think is very real and apt. You've absolutely pinned two of my favourite directors. Lovely review. I have definitely subscribed, because I want to see/hear your thoughts on other films. Thank you so very much.
A complex review of a complex movie, just fantastic, thanks! I watch Stalker at least once every year, not just for the atmosphere but as a safety net too. After realizing near the end that our innermost desires are too frightening to be realized, you get relief in the last scene with Stalker's daughter whose physical disability is compansated, and this is when you understand that there is hope after all. I find it interesting how many people who like this movie just romanticise it for the Chernobyl-esque zone atmosphere. Another reflection: I find quite many parallels with Solaris, also on a surface (the texture, the music - Bach prelude just gives the shiver every time), but also how it explores a person's pain from unfulfilled desires.
"Life has been as a shield,
And has offered protection.
I have been most fortunate,
But it isn't enough." (Arseny Tarkovsky)
I always interpreted the final scene a meeting of the physical world with the spiritual world. The girl sits at the table, we hear that sound again, which could be heard earlier on in the movie of a train rushing by accompanied by flourishes of music that sounded like old Soviet revolutionary songs, and then see the glas on the table move by itself. Is it a physical phenomenon, moved by the vibration of the train passing or is it the power emanating from the girl's mind? Also linked to this and very important I think that the world outside the zone is in black and with (with a bit of garish colour filter thrown in) and in the zone it's all in colour. At the end of the movie, after Stalker's return we see him walking with his daughter outside the zone and it is shot in colour.
It could be the projection of hope, maybe a hope for the eventual victory of the metaphysical over the physical?
This is why I watch your videos. Never seen the movie. Going to watch it now. Great movie review! You really described this film incredibly well. Then adding a personal dream with Jim & Bob passing a joint. Talking about life. Thanks
I imagine Bob was Apollo and Jim Dionysus in the dream. I often find myself in conversations about movies in my dreams lately!
Watching Stalker felt like watching a Samuel Beckett play.
I am glad that you are reviewing this movie !!!
That shirt. I love it :0
Stalker is an unique experience and not a movie. Only Zerkalo, Turin Horse and Fallen Angels come close to this philosophical feeling. thx for the review!
It's a movie it's not entertainment it's art it's a film it's a movie I appreciate the effort, but this is a movie. The medium is that of a film a.k.a. a movie that is all.
No condescension here I'm just telling you it's a movie.
A friend of mine (who is a psychology major), persuaded me to watch this with her and I think she just wanted to see my reaction lol. She was really surprised that I loved it
Tarkovski is my favourite director the sacrifice is my favourite film. There's so much poetry philosophy beauty and magic in the slow natural beauty of the imagery and the dreamlike sequences, there's something deeply spiritual in tarkovski films inexplicable deep and for a film profound almost art in cinema, i love the open ended unclear message in his films, im an artist too, i think tarkovski appeals to artists because of the art he manages to create in his slow rich dreamlike beautiful cinema, its the opposite of Hollywood and probably too slow for most people who are used to special effects and sensational films, but it's a beautiful way to spend a couple of hours if you want to immerse yourself in something different. I also love Mirror , Nostalgia, and Stalker. But the sacrifice is my favourite, thank you for covering him
Writing is by brothers Strugatsky, heavely based on their novel "Roadside Picnic" which is the big thing on it's own, really recomend to read it - one of the best science-fiction novels out there.
The way you word your reviews is amazing. One of the best i seen on this platform. Also you seem to enjoy good movies :) . Have a great one.
So happy you reviewed this one, it’s in my top three all-time favorite films. Please review more Tarkovsky!
I love the theology that's deeply rooted, and also heavily veiled, in his movies. Very powerful and moving once it hits you (often days later)
This movie drew me into another dimension. I literally sat for like 20mins after staring at the screen waking up from a dream or a trip. Just wow😄
I had that with my first Tarkovsky, which was "Mirror" in some vary small arthouse cinema somewhere in Amsterdam, where the movie was literally projected on a bed sheet and there was only a smal group of table where you were still allowed to smoke and drink beer and I was in total shock after the movie and completely changed my idea of what cinema could be. I will never forget that, the way art can actually transform the way you look at the world. I wanted to learn to read Russian poetry immediately after that (the movie includes in certain scenes of Tarkovsky's real life father reading one of his own amazingly beautiful poems, he was very famous in Russia).
@@voiceover2191 Love it :)
I believe tarkovsky films seep into your pysche, they have an oneric feel, the charecters are ideas wraped in flesh ( he got thst from his Dostoevsky) but the cinema photography makes it so easy to become entranced and he wants to communicate ideas feelings which language fails to adequately hold and convey . The room has the capability of reaching deeper into someones identity more they know about themselves so that seems to contribute the overall neorsis and angst if the room itself
Very good approach, review, REFLECTION and MEDITATION as uplift to selfawareness.
That's also what Andrei Tarkovsky is installing in our hearts and mind with his filmoeuvre.
Mission accomplish! Well done.
Every time Tarkovsky is reviewed, people ALWAYS compare to Kubrick. But when Kubrick is reviewed he is compared to no one. I've attended screenings of Stalker, Mirror and Nostalghia. I've have the Solaris Criterion DVD. I appreciate his art but I also have to say his films are like staring at clouds. You can make them represent anything you want to because the story barely exists. This forces the viewer to project. Simply because there is nothing else. He is master cinematographer. But not a story teller. He makes films solely for himself and isn't terribly interested to take the audience along. The visuals are beautiful.
Tarkovsky only made 7 movies and they are all rated 8 or over on IMDB versus Kubrick who has some real bummers as well. I believe Tarkovsky is just more intellectual.
Love your observations, great video.
I just watched Stalker for the first time. It was a spectacular film. I will admit, some of it did go over my head, but the film's ethereal feel and imagery really won me over.
That's half the fight Hamza, all the cerebral analysis in my opinion is secondary, even though, as in any Tarkovsky movie, there's plenty to be had. Just open yourself up to the experience, the rest will come gradually in subsequent viewings, and to me watching this movie multiple times, certainly is no waste of time. It's a hypnotic movie that draws you in and I can probably talk a very very very long time about this movie, longer than its feature length, it's probably more worth while to just watch it.
@@voiceover2191 Oh yeah, I do plan on revisiting this film eventually. I do agree with what you say about opening yourself to the experience. For example, some really love analyzing David Lynch film, and that's perfectly fine. However, I feel I get more out of a more poetic film, if I approach it like a dream.
@@hamzarouri8454 Couldn't agree more, Lynch and Tarkovsky keep switching places, depending on my mood on any particular day, for being my favourite director, so I agree with Lynch this to be even more the case. The only movie of Lynch I found myself struggling with as Inland Empire, it just didn't pull me in, which of course is not a requirement, but made it harder to like. Ah man, these two men, so different but any time I see a work of theirs I'm just gone, in it and I always keep an eye out for any showings of any of their movies and will try to catch it.
I really like this film. I have only seen 4 of Tarkovsky's films, & this is one of my favourites (although I love them all). Nolan is a good technician, but his films are pretty simplistic to be honest. I agree with you that he is gimmicky. Its not that his films are bad, but they're not as deep as people say they are.
I agree, "it can change the way you see film." Really great review!
There's so much fascinating bts stuff with this movie
Break out the champagne everybody
I presume the next review will be of a 6-hour movie with the projector turned off.
Tarkovsky is a filmmaker who's films I really want to get into.
The Sacrifice might be a good place to start!!
Tarkovski is a master of cinema. And a master of human psyche. His cinema is by no means the only or true wat how to do it. Anyways, Stalker really had an impact on me. From middle schoold to mid-age, I've seen it four times, two times in cinema and i will do it again. Basically it's a story about hope as an ultimate human condition.
@4:05 SO!!!! The "Zone" is THE MIND! But what's the Stalkers dog supposed to be... I was going to not watch this toxic film again, but I might... IMHO
One of my top 10 films. I enjoyed your review..
I must shamelessly plug another bleak Russian film based on a novel by the Strugatsky brothers: "Hard To Be A God" (2013). This is an immersive film par excellence. You feel the utter misery of the world you're in.
on my list. looks very interesting. Also a deceptively sci-fi concept that utilizes rustic environments as opposed to pristine clean futurism i gather
That one is by far the best movie I hated watching
A fantastic film. Felt like I was experiencing the dampness, the cold, the smells, the brutality.
glad to see an Andrei Tarkovsky movie
wow just stumbled across this channel and this is exactly the food my brain needed, thankyou. kinda leap from tarkovsky but would love to recommend angela schanelec's "i was at home, but" and "the dreamed path" if you haven't checked them out already!
I heard Tarkosvky's cancer was caused by the filming of Stalker and the toxic environmental locations they filmed in.
Wow what a coincidence I also watched this movie like 3 hrs ago
*gets offended at comparison to Chris Nolan*
- 30 seconds later -
*feeling affirmed by declaring Tarkovsky’s supremacy*
Watched this on acid for the first time. 11/10
Dont know why but the guys lying down in the wet grass and water fully clothed bothered me.....and i dont know why
aaaahhhh a girl of culture, I heard of them, they are pretty rare in our world.
lol Right?
Stalker is awesome, but holy hell is it confusing. Even after watching it multiple times, I STILL have NO idea what the hell is going on.
Good review. I would like to see your take on 'Andrei Rublev', I think that is his best work and possibly the greatest ever film.
Finally getting a Tarkovsky review. Nice.
I dont really know why, but something in his films give me a nauseating feeling. But I totally get people being fascinated by his style, it just doesn't work for me.
It's not the style, it's the meaning.
maybe it's the toxic environment they were literally wading through. Many involved infamously died of cancer attributed to the filming of this movie
Just finished watching The Sacrifice and this is the first UA-cam video I see... Coincidence?
I found the whole film to be a religious allegory. Seekers find the zone, the kingdom of heaven, but just use it as another stepping stone to get what they think they want and take it back with them to the hell they have created for themselves. Meanwhile, the stalkers, the priests, navigate the kingdom of heaven with superstition and ordain themselves its keeper, deeming who can pass and who cannot. The stalker we see in the film is pure at heart though; I think he gets closer to the truth than anyone when he expresses his deepest desire to live in the zone with his family. For him the kingdom of heaven is an end in and of itself; more than anything I think that's why he keeps going back - even at the risk of his life and freedom. The purpose he has crafted for himself is just a means to justify his existence in the yellow-tinted industrial hell zone he occupies, where everyone must have a tangible and immediately perceptible function in order to be allowed to survive.
Imho this is very clearly what the movie is about. But, not gonna lie I *don't* think that that is that profound of a message.
A Tarkovsky review! Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Been waiting for this one for awhile
I definitely recommend reading the book. "Roadside Picnic"
Best reviewer evaaa ✨🙌
Are you having a power outage in the area?🤔
I own it but never got around to watching it. I'll have to check it out now. Personally, I found Solaris visually artful, but almost unpalatable regarding how boring it is, and I enjoy Koyannisqatsi.
Sorry, I found your review so abstract that the content seemed irrelevant. Also, Stalker is nearly impossible to appreciate without reading the book.
Wtf are you talking about? It's better without reading the book.
Based on your comment I listen to Her review 2 years later, and I think she's saying that the Content and the Logic of the movie are somewhat irrelevant. The most important part of the movie is the feeling and mood and how it affects you emotionally --- But I hope you agree that the movie's nearly impossible to approach from a logical linear point of view -- @@brunoactis1104
YASS!!! THE DVD ARRIVED TODAY HOW LUCKY AM I
that stoner dream with bob dylan and jim morrison is amazing lol! i wish i could have that dream
"Rooted in the ground, like big trees ...." An apt description, though I can't help but disagree on some of your points. Aesthetic is where the similarities between Tarkovsky and Kubrick end. "Stalker" came at a time when the USSR was more aggressive in its foreign policy (Afghanistan is a case in point) and Tarkovsky was establishing himself as an antithesis to that. I know nothing about the production troubles of "Stalker" (compared to the state meddling around "Andrei Rublev") suffice to say Tarkovsky's work in general is more miraculous in its internal life.
This was at a time when Kubrick chose to be on the same page as the system that supported him: "The Shining" was from a popular book reflective of American values and (because it's horror) American fears. There isn't that same detachment from the norm. Hopefully I'm making sense.
The point of this long spiel was to give Tarkovsky a more fitting American counterpart: Terrence Malick. Descriptors like "internal" and "poetic", "rooted" and "flowing". I can never give enough praise to "Days of Heaven". Its plot is very different from "Stalker" (the searches for what's desired in particular are handled in contrasting ways) but it comes close the way Tarkovsky does to reflecting the most natural state of being.
Just saw : Turin Horse
T's other films, never, ever prepared me for watching a polar opposite ponderous view of "'hell"'.. :-)
Nolan doesn't belong in the same sentence as Tarkovsky. Not in the same breath.
One makes modern movies and the other doesn't.
To be fair, it was an oddly specific comparison, not a general one
great review!
Do andrei rublev, my very favorite tarkovsky
Guys, I'm from Russia and I hate this movie. Yes, during his appearance, he made an exciting sensation, impressed everyone with his talented camerawork, soundtrack, script and his philosophy... And then my country turned into this film, in which the down-handed thinkers fucked up everything because of their non-resistance to violence and evil. They gave up and Russia turned into the very Zone from this movie. Into the Zone with its ruins and deadly traps, as well as barbed wire and machine gunners around the perimeter. Not to a bright place where you can escape from the black and white world, but to this gloomy, dirty and hopeless world. It is not for nothing that a prison is also called a" Zone " in Russia!
Tarkovsky's genius is only in showing the Russians the future of their country in ten years. He is a genius of destruction, leading his audience to the block of sad fatalism.
Tarkovsky just doesn't do it for me. Perhaps I'm not mature enough for it
I think one has to have suffered a bit to get his films.
@@lacrimatorium haven't we all? Haha
@@anthonymartensen3164 Probably not in the same way. If you can laugh about suffering you probably don't really understand what it is.
@@lacrimatorium that's kind of subjective? There are different levels of suffering
@@lacrimatorium I would say every human being experieces suffering in some form. Obviously everyone's life is different
3:52 What an amazing dream you had!
Great review. Freaking great movie. Especially on shrooms !
A great review. Just about how I feel.
First time watch was a bit boring, second viewing, after going through a lot of garbage in life, resonated with me heavily, plus having seen it in theatres. Whereas the first viewing was really long, the second viewing flew by incredibly fast and it actually surprised me, my attention hung to every single line of dialogue and frame. A great inspiration, a great mind is Tarkosky’s, motivates me to do movies, as all great movies should do: inspire, motivate, elevate. What a wonderful time. ✨✨✨
I watched this after being spoiled by Annihilation (2017) and was underwhelmed.
I'm going to play the role of low-information shitposter and say... yeah I've never been interested in the slowness of Tarkovsky - and after seeing stuff like Annihilation I feel like I'm not missing out.
@@ArthurAugustyn that is like saying that you ate mcdonald's and feel like you're not missing out on prime italian filet
@@MJGianesello or maybe some people are more inclined to sensibilities of certain cinema and have a hard time getting into other kinds.
I had exactly the opposite experience.
@@lacrimatorium you watched Stalker after?
Have you seen "The Ugly swans" ( ua-cam.com/video/OpVAFXle0BQ/v-deo.html ) its a great movie with a little bit of a same vibe...
All Tarkovsky are 5* to me.
Stalker is timeless
Wanna see a Star Wars fan trigger, have them watch a Tarkovsky film, LOL
Come and See. the Stalker. Sublime.
LOVE STALKER!
tony soprano shirt
Thanks for insight. :-)
Great review and I totally agree. However I'd like to add one small thing. It's shit.
cool shirt
^_^ Great movie, one of my faves