What Tarkovsky's 'STALKER' Taught Me About Movies 

After a film is over, still its atmosphere will linger.... True.

It is a perfect cosmic horror movie, which in my opinion directly influenced the Annihilation.

This is one of the best slow burning, and suspense building films. It Def is a movie you can't look away from because the tension makes you feel like if you blink you'll miss something

Tarkovsky's films are like entering a temple of art where you are drawn in to contemplate life's mysteries. They surround you with all the elements of artistic creativity and slow you down so you can let your mind and soul experience another world. But this world is always rooted in human life, it's yearnings, loneliness, spiritual desire, memories, dreams. I have loved his films since I first saw The Mirror and seen them all many times except for his last The Sacrifice. Eduard Artemyev's electronic score in this film is to me one of the most haunting I've ever heard. I chanced upon a Cd of it one time and really enjoy hearing it and remembering the scenes that match up with the music and soundscape.

I just finished watching Stalker and I had to look into it explained further. You absolutely nailed that and I still feel an experience even after watching it as you said, such an amazing film and can't wait to explore the rest of Tarkovsky's work! Thanks a lot for this video

Reverie, (reh-ver-ee). A state of being pleasantly lost in a muse. Sort of a musical term too suggesting a dream-like, fantasy inspired state.

The actress is NOT Larisa Tarkovskays. It is Margarita Terehova. She still is alive.

my favorite thing about the film, is how the characters themselves never enter the room ... but we do. the camera pans back into it as they're staring at it, and then the colors change & the rain begins to fall. it's such an incredible scene.

Does his daughter have 'special abilities', or is it the vibrations of the train going by? That is the question. You ought to read 'Zona': A book about a film about a journey to a room' by Geoff Dyer (if you haven't already). It's a wonderful personal perspective about the power of this film, a film that I too, adore. Thanks for your insightful assessment.

When I watched this movie yesterday, I felt like I was living in it. There are only a handful of movies I’ve watched that have sucked me in like that.

Dude, you stole every word out of my mouth and mind!

My first Tarkovsky film was Nostalghia. I sought it out because a clip from it is used in the game, "The Witness." I was compelled by what I saw (the scene where he walks the candle back and forth through the empty bath) and felt that I might understand the reason for its use in the game better by watching it. It sort of did help somewhat but the film itself was mesmerizing. I decided to then consider seeing more of his films with my latest being Stalker which I only saw about a week ago. I can't get it out of my head either and I even had a strange dream about it too where I was on my own journey to the room. His films don't follow American templates and why should or would they? People that criticize his films for lacking things typical of American movies perhaps do not consider this.

Man! I was trying to understand this movie since I watched it, it'd been months but I was not even near of understanding it. But today your video helped me a lot and that tarkovsky quote is the thing that singularly made me understand what tarkovsky wanted to say. An advice from me, those who want to understand Tarkovsky must read Dostoevsky. Why? Because: "Dostoevsky could be understood as the whole point of what I want to do in Cinema" ~ Tarkovsky himself. Especially if you want to understand Stalker, you should read Notes From Underground. That man is also a faith lacking Nihilist.

This is the best video about Stalker that I watched

First watched this movie when I was 14 or 15, in early 90s. Since then I watched it from time to time a dozen of times, maybe even more. I generally enjoyed the atmosphere and scenes, did not spend to much to name what it is telling. Then I thought about many things from time to time when I thought about the film.

My favorite movie. Great analysis.

Stumbling upon him for the first time, I would’ve wanted Tarkovsky to handle the making of my script.

when they speak about the wrath of the lamb, that makes me think of a new world untouched by humanity. The industrial world is dirty in black and white, and the noise of trains is contrasted with the quite and serene sounds of the Room. I’ve heard others say Monkey represents the second coming, and I agree with them.

I watched Stalker for the first time ever the day after my most recent ketamine therapy session. I’ve done psychedelic therapy for the last two years and it has completely transformed my perspective on just about everything. So when I went into this movie, I felt the expanse of it beyond just the film itself. It was deeply profound. I savored every moment of every shot, felt every word in my bones. The final scene however, I did not vibe with. I did not find it much different than the implications Kubrick had with the ending of 2001, but that’s esoteric filmmaking for you. It’s often the same message being repackaged differently. Trace it down to the root, might not like what you find.

The Mirror changed my perspective on what a film can be.

Whoa, love it. 💕

I read the filming locations were contaminated with toxic chemical runoff from factories, meaning they were not radioactive.

Thank you ...... A sublime film!

A deep intelligence and insight of yourself and life is essential to understand Tarkovsky. I suggest that to understand Tarkovsky, you should read and listen J. Krishnamurti. He also advices to stop thinking and just Observe whatever is happening. Not trying to justify it, not trying to decide whether it is right or wrong, not trying to make a sense of it but to just Observe it. Because Observation is real understanding and thought is just a distraction.

so i understand that the professor didn't end up bombing the zone because he realized the room doesn't fulfill explicit desires but rather what u want deep inside. but what if someone's true deep desire really is something destructive and evil? i still am confused about why he chose not to bomb the room. doesn't the room still have the capacity to lead to villainous and nefarious outcomes?

This was the way i interpreted the film the first time i watched it. I think when it comes to faith/spirituality, stalker, the character, represents our own spiritual journey. In the scene towards the end, when he pleads his case to his wife as he is on the bed, he says that people are just intellectuals, never using their imagination, or something along those lines. There are also a lot of references to the bible, something i highly recommend everyone to do, even if youre not a person of any religious affiliation. Just read it like pure poetry. The passage he references when the two men who are on the road to emmaus dont realize that jesus is with them. But at some point when he begins to break bread after he reads them moses and all the prophets, that's when they realize who jesus is. I think what Tarkobsky is saying is that these "esoteric" knowledges that we seek are innate to us. The room represents our very own true cosmic nature. Our subconscious. Our spirits. The writer and the professor represents the part of our nature that tries to keep us from this driving force that gives us hope, meaning, faith. Whatever you want to call it. Spirituality. God. Art. Imagination. In the end, the child is seen moving objects with her mind because a child is constantly in that state. The child was mutated/transformed by the "zone". Thats what Tarkovsky hopes we find. For us to be transformed by that zone. Or God, himself. I am sure that i am missing a lot but that's the basic gist of it.

This film reminded me of The Seventh Seal

Тарковский Tarcovsy genies!!

Tarkovsky himself said : Let people believe in theirselves. But we have also to avoid bad-mysticism. I am god (good and bad, imperfect but perfectible, through finite-terralife-learning), you are god, he.she is god. A world full of gods, according to Heraclitos. We need Ratio-Pantheism (all Cosmians, including Terrians, are gods, small and big, from atoms to stars), for Protectivity of Terra-Family-Ship. Decent, moderate Panarchy and Pangratuity, not surtoxiravaging vote and money. We have to stop official-gangsterism. In hebrew, to pray, approx. itafil, is synonym with to think, to meditate. It is an internal and external action. The other sense of to pray, to sollicit, is more, but not exclusively external. Think (pray) with yourself, with the others, sollicit yourself, or the others. Bad-religion is poison. And physical is the basis of mental. There is no mental without physical (except for exceptional metaphors). We need to harmonize physical and mental inside the triad Cosmos-Alter-Ego/Cosmos-Other-Self. A unipluriversal Cosmos to respect and pacify. “The greatest privilege of a human life is to become a midwife to the awakening of the Soul [Mind with Feeling, Conscience, Life Itself etc.] in another person.” Plato, www.azquotes.com/quote/824146

Excellent film, very nice analysis. Thx. Film is loosely based on this novel: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic (PS Never pronunce "especially" EX-specially - or "espresso, EX-presso! 😉)

Thank you for this review. I don't understand this, however: "All died several years after the film's release." (?) (9:45)

the u!! after!!!

when we see such movies, especially today - we realize - that american movies have no patience, little character and time, when compared to non-american movies ...

It's a pitty you can't read the book, it is o good. and btw you pronounce Tarkovsky's name right.

When I state my favourite film directors, Tarkovsky is always mentioned. Kubrick? Well, sometimes. I love Tarkovsky while I have conflicted feelings about Kubrick. It is not the godlessness that bothers me. It is the emotionlessness and cynicism of his works. As much as I love thought-provoking-ness, I also think the purpose of arts and entertainment is to make us feel humans. I can definitely be cynical at times.... and I hate it. I wish I can get rid of the cynicism in me.

Really nice video:) Thanks.

sheeit sitting here like fuck the movie was the dog poisoned too damn

Seen 6-7 reviews of "Stalker", that's the first one that gets it right. Which is quite strange, considering the fundamental idea is so simple. Unless you're stuffed to the brim with all sorts of ideologies and political propaganda. Which is the case for most people nowadays, I guess. Once you're trapped it's kinda tough to find your way out of this maze, life is too short for that. If you're born into Matrix you'll most likely die in the Matrix. And then there's those few lucky ones, looking at this strange carnival from the outside. Strange world, very strange. Btw, there's no radioactive poisoning in the area where Tarkovsky shoot the film. I've been in this area, I'm afraid it's just one of those urban legends. Quite a lot of chemical pollution though. So it's sort of roughly in the ballpark, or at least close. Unfortunately, up close the reality often tends to turn out somewhat less sexy/mysterious than it looks like from the distance.

Check your pronunciation of the word "reverie". You pronounced it like "revere".

Showed me how garbage modern film is Unbelievable how great the movie is

Did it teach you that most films are unbelievably bad?

Lurk Moar

What is that music that starts at 8:47?

Dude, seriously?? Tarkovsky a Christian?? I thought there is a difference between being a spiritual and a religious person!! 😳😳

I agree, Kubrick makes beautiful works, but to me they lack depth and emotion like you said. They are cold and distant almost like staring at a painting through a computer screen. As well as mechanical, everything feels very robotic. Everything has to be perfectly aligned, he seems to be worried more about aesthetic then substance.. While like you said they have similar styles, Tarkovsky uses similar techniques but he isn't as worried about perfection, unless it perfectly captures the emotion he is trying to convey. Tarkovsky's films always leave me with this small glimmer of hope in what seems to be a bleak and futile world. While Kubrick's films just reinforce those feelings of futility. Both great filmmakers, but Tarkovsky takes the W for me. His films have made me ponder far longer and in greater depth into our struggle with the human condition then any of Kubrick's films. Stalker blew my mind on first viewing. I had never seen anything quite like it, and I watch a lot of old and foreign films. There are few other filmmakers who create atmosphere like Tarkovsky in my opinion, for example Bergman, Antonioni, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Malick, and Fellini. Great video though man. Keep it up.

04:05 You are wrong... this movie doesn't keep the audience on guard... From the moment these guys reach The Zone, you know nothing's going to happen... Anyone with 1% of common sense knows that Tarkovski was too lazy to make anything interesting happen in The Zone... Why do that? It's easier to show us water and rusty pipes and crap... Bunch of cowards didn't even dare to enter The Zone... just as Tarkovski didn't have the guts to give us, the audience, something interesting happening...

It taught me this movie sucked

I can't describe how this movie made me feel, its like waking up from a long lucid dream and still keeping your eyes closed so you don't forget it. If that even makes sense lol

The comparison between Kubrick and Tarkovsky through religion is spot on. Definitely gave me the clarity that I was searching for about the movie.

I like this analysis because I can’t say I liked Stalker, but I far from hate it. It has sat in my mind every day from when I watched it a week ago. It’s a interesting film that make me feel like I was along with the writer and the professor, the long drawn out shots that let me think for myself the opinions of the zone and what the others were feeling. Good video love it

This movie completely bedazzled me. I literally sat for like 5mins after staring at the screen feeling like wtf just happened, but in a good way😄

I first watched Stalker or some part of it as a child, probably aged 8 or 9, when it was on TV. I did not know the title of the film and had no clue what it was about. But I've never forgotten how it made me feel, even to this day. I tried to rewatch it as an adult but couldn't, as I remembered nothing. Just the atmosphere, which I guess is ungooglable. I finally found it at the age of 35, just stumbling upon some screenshots while browsing the web. Have watched it several times since. So, for me personally, Stalker is at whole other level of "haunting"

I read it in some reddit post that the scene where the writer stalker and professor were sitting on the ground refusing to enter the room is where the camera is and where Tarkovsky places us. We were, the audience were in the room and looking at the three of them. So what was your wish?

After experiencing Andrei Tarkovsky's film "Stalker" for the first time I couldn't stop thinking about it's atmosphere and it's real world parallels to Chernobyl. For an entire week this film inspired me and gave me so many new ideas for screenplays that I would find myself writing notes down while I was at work .

Tarkovsky said that he hated 2001 because it’s a such a beautiful movie, that was supposed to be a compliment. He didn’t hated it, how can anyone hate that movie ??

I must've been 18 when I watched "Stalker" for the last time, gotta watch it again... every cell in my body already went through the 7 year cycle of renewal - I'm a different person now, even before I press the "Comment" button.

10:02 a clarification: the actress is Margarita Terekhova

Although there were times I disagreed with Roger Ebert, his words on Tarkovsky's approach to "Stalker" was pretty spot on to my own experience from watching the movie. I make a point of rewatching "Stalker" at least twice a year. Regarding Kubrick, I can see why Tarkovsky didn't like "2001" because it supported evolution. Where as Tarkovsky, as a Christian, would be offended by such an idea. Regardless, Tarkovsky is a brilliant filmmaker. I recently rewatched "Stalker", and I've since started queueing up Tarkovsky's other films. I'm watching "The Mirror" next. Thanks for your video. It was very well done.

Films are art which don't have religion. So this why we are all accepted.

I love this video and how passionate you are. My only comment is that you should learn to pronounce “Tarkovsky” and “Solaris.” Tarkovsky is now Polish, so it’s not “tar-COW-sky.” It’s more “tar-kOV-ski.”

RE-VER-IE, not RE-VERE. Those are two different words with two completely different meanings. STALKER is a low-budget film that does exactly the opposite of what everyone so easily thinks is cinematic law. It tells, through endless dialogue, instead of showing. Now, that dictum is bogus, because JAWS, which so many "show don't tell" acolytes REVERE does exactly this in everyone's favorite scene, Quint telling about the sinking of the Indianapolis. Spielberg lets Rober Shaw TELL the scene, because they couldn't have afforded to SHOW the scene. Given the cinematic technology available in 1978, even in Soviet Russia, there's so much more that could have been done to convey the notions in STALKER. Even the weakest Nicholas Roeg film is a great place to start. STALKER is not so much a boring film as it's an overly stretched out film that talks too much and shows very little.

Awesome video it deserves way more appreciation

I wouldn't even enjoy his movies so much, if it wasn't for the absolute, mind-blowing genius of his skill. How tf do his movies look like they look? Tarkovsky is probably the most talented director that ever existed. Unmatched vision and talent.

Tarkovsky looks like Jason Bateman with a mustache.

Actually that’s exactly why Stanislaw Lem, the author of Solaris, hated Tarkovsky’s version so much: Lem’s novel is about The Forever Unknown, that will stay this way, however hard we try. We have no tools to understand it and believing in it drives you crazy, you will only sink deeper in your own fears, crazy ideas and imperfections, but you will never connect, you will never understand. The idea wasn’t religious at all, actually just the opposite - there’s no way of understanding The Unknown, and calling it “God” is simplifying it. Same with Roadside Picnic, it’s a sci-fi story with barely any religious themes in it, they’re rather metaphysical. But Tarkovsky made both movies about The Unknown that is MAYBE God. But he doesn’t specify, thankfully. It’s just there for you to interpret.

Спасибо!!!

Ehm, it's "stream of consciousness", not "conscience"

you said all : it is a movie to feel , direct made to the soul. I didn’t understand many things until i stop, read the synopsis or rewind. However i watched it like hearing music, and that’s already great. One can simply watch again.

Great video thank you.

Да что иакое мир после................нет не чео не чего не осталась.... Профессор он хотел уничетожить зону ради мести....

I've only watched the film once but was interested enough to research deeper before I watch it again. In regards to kubrick I wonder if he isn't actually overrated? Much as I love 2001 it feels like the ending was cobbled together and much of its appeal is only from the music and the jupiter mission section. The ending of this film makes you want to go back and start the journey again.

Great vid, but it's "rEveree" not "reveer" since it's a quote, I felt obliged..

In total agreement....Tarkovsky Rules! Solaris, Mirror and Stalker are absolute incomparable Masterpieces!

Not sure how sound can create tension in someone who's already completely overcome by boredom. The pacing completely overwrote anything else I might have been feeling.

I totally agree, i love Kubrick for 2001 and Shining but Tarkovsky Movies are more magic... Just like David Lynch did it with his movies.

Stalker (1979): In fact, the 3 people's journey in the movie goes back to the origins of human history but with religious color, every step they take in the Zone is a period of history. Zone suddenly appeared 20 years ago - 20 centuries. On each path, even back to the past, you should pay attention to the front and back position of each character. However, first we need to make it clear that the Stalker character named "The Hedgehog" is "who"? It is a people, the nation of this people collapsed in the middle ages (meat millers), then they exiled, they became rich, they supported a united empire and then later This empire turned to chase and kill them, this was nothing more than tying the noose on its own. Going back on the journey, it is not difficult to recognize the first paragraph where the old tanks are the symbols of the two world wars, now "science" comes first, "philosophy" follows, and finally " religion". The "enlightenment" period: philosophy and religion fought - Stalker threw the iron bar at Writer. The "renaissance" period: 3 characters gathered together, but Writer went to the "room" and returned, when he was ridiculed by the Professor as "Mr Shakespeare" - the writer representing the time. Renaissance period. The transition from medieval to renaissance: when Stalker and Writer go together and return to the Professor, marked by Dante's work of God Khuc (hell, purgatory, heaven) - where The intersection of philosophy and religion, details in the film may show that.... go to my website chi-blog(.)com, you will have answers about Andrei Tarkovsky movies

Great review. Do you know what happened to your ambient background music? It would appear and disappear continuously throughout the video.

Just a very uncomfortable film. Subject matter is gross , but is real.

i wanna c ur face where has it been :’(

great video, thanks.

Sad to hear the tradegy.

fuckin right

Love tarkovsky.. and Kubrick.. but David lynch... Eh no not so much.

Thanks for this very interesting and well-researched essay ! Why did they have to re-shoot the film three times?

Tarkovsky is not for the meek or faint-hearted. In his silent, seemingly meandering visions on film, he captures the imagination of his viewers from the first second of his scenic voyage. There is no other filmmaker, none . . . who grabs the viewer from the first second and forces him or her to wonder . . .! Oftentimes, it is just sheer confusion at what is happening on the screen, but more often it is the sheer visual beauty of what he has filmed. (I almost think Tarkovsky should be a silent film-maker!) Sound, however, is a tapestry of meaning in his films and he is a genius in how he uses sound to capture the imagination of the viewer. I feel that when his characters start to talk, the film ebbs and the salient import of what he is trying to establish is compromised. Yes, he is a religious film-maker, but when his characters get philosophical (religious), his Russian Orthodox moralistic attitudes rear their ugly head and obscure the poetry of his film. Poetry is about wonder and uncertainty. Religion is about certainty and implying that life is about making moralistic decisions. Meanwhile the landscape of Tarkovsky's films is about poetry, about philosophy and moralistic certainties that most religions foster just distracts from the beauty of Tarkovsky's films. In Russia, there is no individualism. Everything must be explained to the "powers that be". Everything must be defended. Tarkovsky lost his life because of the stupidity of a government who despised its people. It is a shame that he couldn't make films showing the reality of being a Russian whose government basically destroyed the "poetry" of life. Maybe this is what he is showing about "the Zone" and if I see the movie again, I will get his message. Unfortunately, Tarkovsky need to be clear about the evils of his government and how it was the antithesis of poetry and philosophy! He needed to be loud and clear about what his government was doing to his people and ultimately to him and his wife.

Du solltest über einen solchen Film nicht sprechen, das ist eine poetische Welt die sich Menschen aus den kulturlosen Staaten nicht erschliesst. Jedes Wort ist zu viel: Verschwendung.

No, the movie was disappointing. I don’t think much can be learnt from this to be honest. It’s a good metaphor about religion but not a cinema master piece

Viewing this movie is like watching paint dry.

The sound and the soundtrack are the only good things about this movie...

The word is pronounced "REV-er-ee".