Film Review: Stalker (1979)

(source: tmdb.org)

1970s represented the zenith of the world cinema, and same can be said even for Soviet cinema, whose authors enjoyed significantly less creative freedom than those in other parts of the world. Probably the best known of them, or arguably the most widely known author in the history of Russian and Soviet cinema, is Andrey Tarkovski. This reputation was in many ways created by Stalker, his 1979 science fiction film that is nowadays best known and the most influential entry in his filmography, although for reasons that, ironically, had little to do with the director himself.

The film is very loosely based on Roadside Picnic, 1972 novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. The plot is set in unnamed (supposedly English-speaking) country twenty years after the fall of meteorite, a mysterious event that made people start disappearing, altered laws of gravity and brought all kinds of strange unexplained phenomena. The area affected, known as the Zone, is evacuated and cordoned by police with shoot-to-kill orders against anyone trying to enter. This, however, didn’t prevent various people from venturing into the Zone with the help of experienced guides known as “Stalkers”, often in search of mysterious semi-mythical Room which is able to grant wishes to visitors. The protagonist (played by Alexander Kaidanovsky) is a veteran “Stalker” who has spent some times in jail for his activities and whose daughter became crippled mutant apparently due to his exposure to the Zone. He nevertheless agrees to guide two people to the Zone – the Writer (played by Anatoliy Solonitsyn) who wants to find inspiration for his next work and the Professor (played by Nikolai Grinko) who wants to solve scientific mysteries of the Zone and thus get a Nobel Prize.

Anyone watching Stalker, while not being familiar with the author’s work beforehand, must be warned that Tarkovsky is an acquired taste. He proudly wore “arthouse cinema author” reputation on his sleeve and anyone expecting conventional, attractive or easily digestible film is going to be either disappointed or see this film as deeply unpleasant experience. The most noticeable element is film’s unusual length, which almost seems to be reflection of Soviet preference for quantity over quality. The entire film is made in the series of long shots, which might give opportunity for audience to notice many details, but in most of them nothing of importance happens, and in some Tarkovsky even indulges in having characters sleep for a long time. The other important element of this film’s style is lack of conventional soundtrack and use of natural ambience sounds to create atmosphere. That atmosphere is also created by Alexander Knyazhinsky’s cinematography which alternates between conventional colours in the Zone and sepia tones in the normal world, very much like the technique used in 1939 Classic Hollywood version of The Wizard of Oz.

What audience sees is hardly attractive. Film begins in Stalker’s dirty, run-down apartment, continues in decaying industrial city with dirty and muddy streets and only briefly brings some beauty when the Stalker and his clients come to the Zone and are see nature taking over. But soon afterwards the path to Room leads to the increasingly claustrophobic abandoned industrial facilities, with the atmosphere of decay and utter dread very much like in the classic works of post-apocalyptic genre. Even the protagonists look or are deliberately made to look unattractive, as old, balding or world-weary men. Things aren’t helped much by the dialogue that sometimes descends into long and pretentious philosophical debates. It is only thanks to their enormous talents of three actors that the viewers might find them sympathetic and justified in their respective quests. Tarkovsky shows great talent in hiding relatively low budget; there is almost no special effects in the film and all the dangers and mystery of the Zone is conveyed through characters’ reactions. Tarkovsky even makes film work despite somewhat un-cathartic ending.

Stalker, at the end, didn’t earn its place in cinema history because of Tarkovsky’s talents, critics (which were mixed) or box-office (which was everything but spectacular). It became important because of the real life events in Chernobyl seven years later, a disaster that created the real life Zone and, later, led to creation of real life “Stalkers”. Life thus imitated art and Stalker gained a disturbingly prophetic meaning. Many afterwards saw this film as subtle but effective condemnation of Soviet Communism as a repressive system that puts confines on individuals and makes anything that touches into apocalyptic industrial wasteland. Some in the film saw a strong environmentalist message, even stronger in light of the film being made in abandoned industrial facility in Soviet Estonia and set being affected by industrial pollution that would allegedly bring terminal cancer to Tarkovsky, Solonitsyn and many other members of the crew. Whatever the truth may be, Stalker can be open to so many interpretations and allow its audience (at least those patient enough to sit throught) to make their own conclusions. This is what great art usually does and this is why Stalker, despite being far from perfect, is one of the most interesting films in Soviet and world cinema history.

RATING: 7/10 (++)