Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Stalker and Roadside Picnic - Film vs Book - Andrei Tarkovsky's Timeless Masterpiece
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2022
- Stalker (Ста́лкер, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky) is without a doubt one of the greatest films ever made. A thought-provoking meditation on life, humanity, and faith, its timelessness is unbounded. The novel Roadside Picnic (written by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky) provides the inspiration for the film and certain themes present within it. I attempt to connect and compare the two while providing my own take on both masterpieces, most notably touching upon the meaning of the Zone and the characters.
Alexander Kaidanovsky, Anatoly Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko star in the film.
Support my work on Patreon: / cinematothemax
Subscribe: ua-cam.com/channels/Ur1.html...
Follow me on Instagram: / cinematothemax
What are your thoughts on Stalker or Roadside Picnic?
Thank you to my Patrons:
Joey O'Bryan
Joan
Clips used:
My Favorite Scene from Stalker
• My Favorite Scene from...
Stalker (Tarkovsky) - Wife's monologue
• Stalker (Tarkovsky) - ...
Music used
Aurora by Jonny Easton
Link: • Aurora - Relaxing Spac...
Singularity by Jonny Easton
Link: • Relaxing Ambient Music...
That last monologue has always given me goosebumps. One of the best books ever written.
Such a perfect ending, couldn't agree more.
If you believe that Arthur was created by the Vulture's wish for "perfect children", then you can interpret him to be a human created by the zone, not merely mutated like "monkey" but a person of alien design, and as such, his final wish that Red regurgitates to the golden sphere (giving away his own wish to fulfil Arthur's, in a way) is like the zone asking itself what it thinks humanity wants, or what it wants for humanity in accordance with whatever "perfect" means.
That's a great observation! Thank you for watching.
Burbridge and Red are not friends, merely acquaintances
My guy spend 3 days on this (or more) to get 8k views, gotta love that algorithm. Good stuff mane…
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it!
What a great review of the novel and the movie - both true masterpieces. Thank you!
Thank you so much for watching, I really appreciate it!
Using The Tree of Life footage is such an inspired choice.
Interestingly enough, I’d say The Thin Red Line is another great movie that shows the impact of what we consider rational and pragmatic on nature and how alien it is to nature itself.
Thank you so much! I couldn't agree more 🙌
Watching this essay and analysis in two parts - 12:43 - great points so far, and the look and feel of your channel is also great.
Tarkovsky's reworking, with the Strugatskys, adds an extra layer of genius. I feel like the artist archetype character that STALKER added has no direct analog in the novel, but maybe I just haven't thought of it yet.
I wonder if one day Tarkovsky's failed first attempt at the film will ever resurface, was the only copy really destroyed in a random house fire? A lot of the behind the scenes on the movie feels like life imitating art, random and brutal, like the way the shooting locations for the zone may have poisoned the cast and crew, leading tragically to many of them dying (relatively) soon after. Imposible to know for sure, just like the phenomon at the heart of the story.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it!
One percent agreed about the addition.
A wonderful way of putting it, indeed, it will remain a mystery.
It is also suspected that Tarkovsky's cancer may have been caused by the shoot as it was done very close to Chernobyl, but it is conjecture at this point. He did smoke a lot after all.
This is a beautiful video I watched the movie first and left feeling confused and bewildered, but I have this draw to Russian sci-fi/human condition studies. I ended up getting into more stories in the same realm like annihilation or even the stalker games and finally just read roadside picnic the ending won’t stop ringing in my head it’s so profound it’s like an idea I’ve had for years finally brought to words. I don’t know how to explain it but this video was a great way to digest it some more. Your content is much appreciated, even if it’s a small audience now keep doing what you’re doing your voice is profound, thoughtful and you obviously have a lot of talent for this do not give up you will find your platform here you have easily earned a subscribe from me in one video!
I'm so glad you enjoyed getting into all of those works, both the film and the novel are so thought provoking. Thank you so much, your words mean a lot, I really appreciate it!
I love the Tarkovsky film but Roadside Picinic deserves a more true adaptation. Tarkovsky does a very subtle approach to the concept but I would love to see artifacts and anomalies full depicted.
It would be super interesting to see that!
There are a few amc scenes from a few filmed episodes that got cancelled
yes.agreed. that would require some judicial CGI which he would (probably) eschew.
he did the best he could in an old soviet era coal power station. filming in toxic coal ashes..
the weird artifacts were half the fun. the pursuit of them the other half.
Great video it deserves more likes and views :)
Thank you so much; I appreciate that a lot!
@@cinematothemax NP man :)
This video has too much effort put into it relative to the sub count, this man needs some attention. This is true analytical talent and is not to be ignored by a platform so widely considered to seek out talent.
Thank you so much for your kind words, I really appreciate it!
The assumption this platform seeks out talent is a rather provocative one.
Nice reviews of both film and novel. Both are excellent in their own ways. Love to see a comparision between the book and movie versions of the Strugatsky's Hard to be a God.
Agreed, thank you very much! That's a great idea, I'll add it to the project list.
I just finished the audiobook...and idk if it was the narration but I didn't like parts. When I listen to reviews like this it helps me understand what went on.
Sorry to hear that you didn't like parts of it! Thank you so much for watching.
I have to agree and thank you for saying the book can be underwhelming at first. I thought I was the only one. It's starting to come alive now on my 3rd read trough. Seen the film many times and played the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series. Maybe book first would have been better?
Great video.
Glad to hear that! The film and the book are quite different so I don't think there's a wrong order to approach them in. I've never played the series before! Thank you so much.
Loved the video! This is such a great analysis.
I'm curious why you chose to use Tree of Life for a lot of the shots. Any particular reason.
Thank you very much, I really appreciate it! I couldn't use a certain amount of footage from Stalker due to copyright and I had recently made an edit on The Tree of Life. I thought it fit the themes of faith present with the meaning of both works, and it's one of my favorite films too!
Thanks for the video, just watch the movie for the first time
Thank you for watching, I hope you liked the film!
Great video man! I watched the movie immediately after finishing the book and I must say I think it was a mistake as I didn’t care much for the movie compared to the book , like you said they can be at times so far apart , even with red seemingly being neutered for the movie . I will give it a few months and rewatch the movie again.
Thank you so much! They are both incredibly unique in their own right so I wouldn't worry about it at all; I hope you like it more on your rewatch.
Hi. Would it be possible to get your text on this UA-cam movie ? I mean, written, so I could think slowly about what was said.
You should be able to access the transcript to the video by clicking the three dots to the right of the title on your computer. Hope this helps, thank you for watching!
2024 seems like these days basic human science is also like this picnic metaphor for a growing subset of humans 😂
Damn, it's unfair that the video has low views
Thank you so much 🙌
What is the film shown at 1:50?
To Catch a Thief (1955) Thank you for watching!
This was the first Tarkovsky Film I've ever seen and I understand many people almost fetishize Tarkovsky's long takes. I really enjoyed Stalker but I'm not a fan of how Tarkovsky let's scenes drone on forever but overall this movie is brilliant. With a runtime of 2hr 42min it's almost comical how long he let's a scene sit on 2 guys walking across a field. If Tarkovsky let an editor trim about an hour of this film off of when nothing is happening I would raise it's score from a 7 to an 8. It's still great but could have been an all time great film with a little editing. I also appreciate that making this film may have cost Tarkovsky and others involved in creating it their lives.
John Waynes the Conqueror was filmed downwind from Nuclear Testing grounds and may have also killed many involved in that films production at least in "The Stalker" case the sacrifice was for a masterpiece to be crafted. In John Waynes "The Conqueror" was an embarrassment to Hollywood". How do you cast John Wane as Genghis Khan a Mongol? That's even worse than when Hollywood casted John Wayne as a Roman Soldier. RIP To those fallen from "Stalker" and "The Conqueror".
Thank you for watching and for your thoughts! I totally understand why the slow pace can be quite off-putting, hopefully you enjoy the rest of his films even more. It's so unfortunate what happened in both productions and hopefully the industry is finally past putting the lives of cast and crew in danger.
Is the script you're reading during at least the first half of this video from the book or what
Quotations from the book are used only when the subtitles appear on screen.
I don't think the movie is about emotion versus analysis, but more faith versus technology.
Tarkovsky has stated repeatedly that what he considered the main crisis of the the 20th century was that the speed of technological advancement was not paired with a spiritual advancement and hence resulted in a crisis of faith.
The magical ending of the movie with the daughter sitting at the table with a glass that starts ringing through vibrations that could be caused by a train approaching from which we hear revolutionary music and as it passes we see the girl looking at the glass and then moving by itself. Is it science that caused it or a spiritual force?
It is not answered, we have to find our own answer.
The materialist scientiest scoffs at faith and merely sees it as a dangerous uncontrollable product of the mind that escapes rational thought and therefor has no value. Indeed the room as the epitomy of faith made manifest is the ultimate threat to this worldview and therefore needs to be destroyed.
The writer refuses to go in as, referencing the story of Porcupine, no one can truly know their deepest desires and therefore there is no point in going into the room, so in the end no one goes in as the scientist realizes that the room presents no threat as it never realizes what the people going in think they want.
It is the ultimate denouement and when they return from the zone, Stalker is desperate, all hope lost of anyone actually persuing their happiness through the room in the zone, but the last scene with the daughter at least, indeed not shot in colour for nothing (the only scenes in colour are shot in the zone, so apparently the zone is at work here) leaves the possibility of hope, a spark.
Thank you very much for your comment; I completely understand your perspective. I view reason as a precursor to scientific advancement itself, especially in the case of the Zone, with emotion often arising as a barrier that stifles these advancements. (Drawing from your point about the scientist) In reality, emotion/analysis and faith/technology are intertwined; their division is what generates struggle.
@@cinematothemax I always wondered about the significance of the train, happens more than once in the movie and always looked what the music was tgat accompanied its approach, never could find listing of the music. I always considered it a reference to the materialistic world view of communism thundering along, shaping the force of history in Soviet society, but I could be wrong of course.
To me Stalker is a thematic twin to Solaris.
I loved the book and the STALKER games, but I could not get into this movie. I'm all for a slow, philosophical story, but at no point in the movie did I feel the danger or significance of the zone. In movies its show not tell, and all this film showed me was some fields and decrepit buildings. It didn't even show the monkeys condition.
I totally understand your perspective! The book and film are entirely different experiences, with the latter containing more emphasis on the significance of the place, the world, and the characters themselves. Tarkovsky definitely set out on creating an emotional experience driven by faith and the philosophy of spirituality, so I think that's why he omitted so much from the book (like you mentioned about the monkey).
@@cinematothemax I know I'll probably get hate for my comment, and I can appreciate the film as it is, but I definitely went in expecting it to be more faithful to the book. To me, the zone is such a precarious place due to its very sporadic and extreme nature. It may look normal at first glance, but a careful eye would notice small differences such as a truck that's untouched by time while everything around it is wasting away. I hope someday we can get a mini series that follows the book closely.
That makes perfect sense. I'd be very interested in seeing a longer series just centered around the politics and nature of the zone.
Well thank you for verifying that the movie and the book are utterly dissimilar. My question would be why does Tarkovsky have to butcher material ? He did the same thing to Solaris. If you hadn't read the book you wouldn't even know it was the same material.
Where did the dog come from? What's up with the daughter having telekinetic powers at the end? As far as I'm concerned you just reviewed two works of art that only have two words in similarity.
Thank you for watching the video. I remember reading that Lem thought Tarkovsky's rendition of Solaris was completely different - it's an interesting approach but I understand that it can be alienating to hardcore fans of the book. As for the dog and the daughter, I think they're representatives of anomalies created by human desires gone awry.
@@cinematothemax yes, but inventions of the director. nowhere found in the book.
at least he changed the title of this one.
i don't want to seem unappreciative of his work but i was fairly disgusted waiting for the completely non sequitur driving sequence to end in Solaris. i loved that book and he turned it into an anti science screed in film. the recent adaptation was a bit better but they turned it into being all about the wife appearing.
there was so much more.
anyway, it's an interesting analysis of adapting literature to film. cheers!
I found the movie to be lazy when compared with the book. The book does a lot with a surprisingly low page count. It has great prose, incredible character voices, and evocative world building, allowing you to imagine this otherwordly setting in both detail and superficially. There is no waste in the book. Everything has purpose, everything is in the book because it needs to be there.
The movie is defined by its wasteful presentation. The old saying of "show don't tell" is expanded here to "show nothing, tell nothing". Without framing and attention to either the human condition or the fleeting nature of human life, the movie loses any grasp of form or purpose. It meanders dreamily through landscapes that are ultimately made out of nothing, ponders questions that are not without answers, but without poignant answers, and the starkness of presentation becomes a starkness against the masterpiece it's loosely based on.
The book has more profoundness in its title than the movie has in any part of its nearly 3 hours runtime.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I totally understand your perspective.
Thats because the movie is not really a movie more of an experience
Want to watch the originak stalker? Watch the day the earth stood still. Read the book the sphere. The monkeys paw and bedazzled. All made well before the 70's. All american.
How do you even find those things similar? The Day the Earth Stood Still has nothing to do with Stalker. Are you sure you making your arguments in good faith?
Good work
Imagine Americans getting excited seeing a Russian film adaptation made out of books that literally absolutely stole American sci Fi ideas and stories.
there's literally nothing American in Strugatsky brothers novels, western sci-fi of the time was focused on space operas, AI and stuff that you would expect to see in a Star Trek episode. Stugatsky brothers started from whimsical scientific optimism and satire and moved towards a moody weird fiction with the focus on human condition later in their careers. Their biggest insperation was Stanisław Lem, a Polish sci-fi writer.
These are both horrible books and movies and the video game stalker sadly enough made both these incoherent ramblings, interesting. The stalker movie was so stupid and slow moving it was a waste of time watching it. Play the video game and get the entire story of both books essentially. But wayyyyyyyyyy better. I give them credit for essentially stealing old American 1940's and 50's and especially 60's sci Fi movie ideas. Must have been cool for Russians to finally get a taste of sci Fi at the year of basically the 1980's.. but for Americans we already had this with the curse of the mummy and all those horror sci Fi movies. We've already seen all this and heard it all before. This was literally basically mixing old American 50's sci Fi with Russian gulags. Literally absolutely stolen from American archives.
Stalker games barely have a plot and the only thing that ties them to the book and the film is the setting.
I was hoping for an actual comparison not some bs philosophy