Stalker

I will begin my review with my interpretation of Stalker, based solely on the film (minor spoilers). The Zone is the world that exists within the deepest confines of our mind. It is a vast, tangible expanse that is not made of matter, energy, or any aspect of the physical universe. One cannot prove to themselves that it is real; rather its existence is an earnest dogma that cannot be shaken. Without it, one's most primordial self, The Stalker, would be revealed a fraud - useless in a time when we have evolved beyond our base instincts. The Writer and The Professor have been shaped by culture. Art and science are essential facets of our external reality, and as we grow we learn not to rely on our base instincts to inform our decisions, but to seek truth. Truth can be found in art - in meaning, beauty and emotion, or in science - in logic, process and experimentation. In either case, truth poses a threat to the Zone's existence, so we bar it off and guard it from the rest of our consciences. This only works for so long, though, as when The Writer and The Professor have exhausted the rest of the world looking for answers, they come to the last place they can come; the Zone. What follows is STALKER, where our faith in the Zone is put to the test. While the film primarily grapples with the conflict between the Writer, the Professor, and the titular Stalker, as they retreat deep inside the Zone, it also reminds us that the world outside our mind should not simply be ignored. As if teasing the audience, it reveals the Stalker's wife and daughter to be far more interesting than expected at the very end of the movie, right after having spent the entire run time ignoring them. Perhaps this is a warning of what can be missed when staking one's entire existence on faith of the immaterial. Regarding the actual film, it's production is stellar. Set design is evocative, and cinematography is done in a style I adore. Scenes are not cut whenever it is convenient; instead, each shot is treated with weight, and used until its full effect has been absolutely realised. Sometimes, a shot pans, and an entirely separate stage is revealed, where it can linger to show new action for another 20-30 seconds. I find this delightful, and it kept me involved while watching the film, always wondering what secrets each shot may hold. Cinematography is almost universally praised regarding this film, but I found it playing second fiddle to the sound design - an aspect of cinema I feel is often woefully under explored. Every sound in this film has intentionality, and sounds are often layered to create wonderful cacophonies with new meanings evolving from their interplay. Ideas from the beginning of the film are captured in sound, and when these sounds return at the end, the effect is more powerful than any visual resemblance could achieve. I just glazed STALKER immensely for four paragraphs, and rightfully so, but it is not without major flaws as a cinematic experience in my eyes. Primarily, the plot, or rather the lack of one. I consider plot, character, and setting to be what defines a narrative, and it is very clear that the 160 minute run time of this film is almost exclusively devoted to developing the latter two. I didn't find myself bored with the film - I was invested enough in the world I was exploring to keep watching, but I ultimately feel the story is far to simple to deserve this films run time, especially with the generous amount of artsy shots. This lack of story is what makes personal interpretation so important. STALKER is salvaged, in my eyes, because its rich setting and characters allow me to project my own ideas into the film. This works for me, but only on a highly subjective level - it feels like my own contributions and interpretations are what make the film's story meaningful, not what was provided by the text itself. There is an important distinction between this and a film like Mulholland Drive, both of which require the audience to work before they can form an understanding - in Mulholland Drive, there is a deeper story to be uncovered, it is just not immediately obvious. In STALKER, it feels like meaning has to be created, there is not objectivity in the text to support it. As I write this, I recognise the irony; the Professor is trying to destroy the Zone for defying the rules when the Stalker just wants to enjoy it for what it is. The point I'm making, though, is that I understand disliking this movie, and honestly I don't think I'd recommend it to most people. It was a solid 3.5 stars for me all the way until about 15 minutes left when it finally clicked. TLDR: I'm being super pretentious for this whole review but look at the movie poster it looks a bit like Speed trying not to laugh imo haha