With a broad taste in films, I am open to regularly trying titles from other countries to broaden my knowledge and possibly make new discoveries of something I want more from. Of course there are certain films that are generally seen as classics, capable of having impact on its viewers. Films that have stood the test of time and have not been forgotten. If you make a comparison with art, then they are the paintings and sculputers that everyone knows such as the Mona Lisa (Leonardo Da Vinci), the starry night (Vincent van Gogh) or the creation of Adam (Michelangelo).
Last week, Stalker, by Andrei Tarkovsky, played in the cinema. An acclaimed science fiction arthouse film. It is about a character, who is called the “Stalker”, who guides people through the “Zone”. In this area, which may have been visited by aliens, normal laws of nature no longer apply and one wrong step can mean the end of your life. The goal is to reach a room in that area in which you can make your deepest wishes come true. Obviously a fascinating starting point, but the film itself did not fascinate me enough and was so slow that I fell asleep twice (the show was in the middle of the day). Now there are plenty of other slow films that I have seen, where this was not the case and which I was able to enjoy, but what was the cause here?
Now this was not the first film I saw from Tarkovsky. Previously I also watched Solaris, of which I was not a fan at the time, but I did not want to ignore a director on the basis of one film and challenge myself again. Stalker on the big screen, without distraction seemed the best way. Tarkovsky is known for his slow and long takes and certain themes such as nature and memory. That is also the case here. With only 142 shots in 163 minutes, as a viewer you can feel how the camera keeps looking at a scene in which relatively little happens, sometimes for minutes. For example this happens during the journey from the normal world to the zone. In most films you often do not see that journey, but you are suddenly in a different location. If a Fast & Furious or a Mission Impossible would spend just a few minutes between each country they visit, those films would be a lot longer. Here you can feel how long that journey takes and the monotonous sound of metal wheels on a rail was the reason that I fell asleep part of that journey (and I wasn’t the only one I heard afterwards). The purpose of this is clear, as a viewer you must feel that it is a tiring journey and that you are really somewhere else when that journey is over. But once in the zone too little changes in tempo. This is a science fiction film where the science fiction part is only suggested. Nowhere do you actually see the danger that exists. The only moment you see that something strange is going on is when the men suddenly return to a place where they had already been.
Furthermore, the film has a certain tension between the characters and it contains a number of shots that you will not soon forget, but as a whole this was simply not a film that did anything for me but make me fall asleep. I actually wondered why this is seen as a classic movie. Just as you may wonder why certain paintings become so popular. Is the Mona Lisa really so much nicer or better than other portraits or did that painting have the right story and popularity to ensure that visitors in the Louvre still squeeze around it without actually thinking about everything else that can be found there. Is that blindly following the “hype” that managed to evoke something? That was the feeling I had with Stalker. Why is this film so popular? Of course it may be that I just don’t feel a connection with this method of filmmaking, but if I didn’t know or could search the history of the film, would I call this a classic? The answer is of course negative. I also think that the general public would not make it to the end and would call this a boring, vague film. Is it then a movie classic? It is entirely up to your own definition of what the properties are. Nevertheless, it is good to have seen the film, so that I can form my own opinion about it, even though it is not at all consistent with the general consensus of film lovers.
Which movie classics do nothing for you and what are your feelings about that?
I agree slow pacing can be sleep inducing. Stalker is endlessly open to interpretation, I think that’s why stands the test of time. I read Tarkovsky’s book Sculpting in Time where he explains what he was going for in Stalker and other films. Probably cheating but a rewarding read.
Well, I don’t think I’ll be reading that as I know his movies are simply not for me, but if someone else can enjoy them, great š
Tarkovsky’s films are definitely not for everyone, they’re slow for sure but I do think Stalker and Soloris are two of his best films.
For me, the film that basically put me to sleep was Once Upon A Time In America. Leone’s last time is considered a classic by many but when I first saw it, took me a while to finish it. His long takes just aren’t as interesting. I definitely prefer his western films.
It’s been way too long since I’ve seen Once Upon A Time in America, but I do remember it being very long. Probably should search for my DVD of it and give it another go.
All of Tarkovsky’s films aren’t easy to watch. They have long shots and he has a language in the editing that is against everything that is typical of modern-day cinema. If his films don’t work for you, that’s OK. They’re not for everyone.
Exactly!
It’s interesting you had this experience with Stalker. Many years ago when I first saw 2001 I just felt it was so steril and uninviting as far as “classic films” go, although Kubrick is always formalistically impressive. In comparison, watching something like “Solaris,” even with the pacing, felt so much more personal. I connected with it. I guess it goes back to how film, like painting or anything else, is subjective.
It is very subjective. I remember watching 2001 and basically fast forwarding through it because nothing seemed to happen. It’s one I’m planning to revisit now that I’m older although I’ll probably have the same feeling.
Thanks for this post. I always thought I was alone in not getting on with Tarkovsky’s films.
His film “The Mirror” is one of the most highly praised among cineastes and arthouse snobs yet I found it a jumbled, confusing – albeit well acted and nicely shot – mess, unable to see where the “Greatest film ever made” sentiments came from. I also found “Solaris” a bit of a slog to sit through to, which has put me off trying his other films.
I know tastes vary but given the universal praise Tarkovsky gets, I wonder what it is I’m not getting…. š
Yes, I have the same thing…but just look at pop music…you probably have the same feeling with some songs/bands not being able to understand why they are popular. I have the same thing and I simply concluded that it’s something I simply can’t connect with.
Well, I’m an old git so your music analogy for me relates to anything created over the last 20 years! š š