Tuesday, 25 November 2008

• STALKER

  Stalker (as well as being a great game) was a film by the great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. It deviated hugely from the novel Roadside Picnic on which it was based, but nonetheless managed to deal with many of the same themes. As a film it was very different to most of what we see today. Functionally it only have four characters, mostly it only had three. This allowed it to explore the interactions between very different people, who all had their own motivations for what they were doing. And it set it in the landscape: many of the scenes had protracted still or almost still shots of the characters in their environment.
  It removes much of the intricate world-building of the original novel, except for the wish-granter, which serves the same purpose as the Zone itself: it brings the characters out. Everything about the setting maximises the conflict – the danger, unknown to all but one of them, their differing reasons for being in the Zone, and their inability to escape each other. As much as the characters often have long, probably unrealistic monologues, in the stillness of the Zone it seems to make sense. Not only can the viewer see into the character’s mind, but one character’s views affect the others, satisfying the need for characters to change over the course of the story. In fact, the character progression has two parts: the slow revelation of the character’s mind, as they reveal themselves to the other characters, and the alteration of their beliefs as the other characters do the same.
  

  It’s a powerful film. There’s little joy in it, and for good reason: according to Stalker, the Wish Granter only works for desperate people. In the end, it’s unclear whether anyone’s wish is fulfilled, but it does seem clear that none of them got what they really wanted. At the risk of spoiling the film, Professor fails to destroy the Room, Writer questions what he really wants, and Stalker, on revealing his real motivation in being a stalker, is ridiculed. If anything, Stalker has the least development as a character, since, rather than seeing his character change, we merely see deeper and deeper into his mind. However, this is still powerful. It’s not that who he is changes, but that all the various layers of his being are stripped away as he becomes more desperate and is challenged by his companions. A journey of self-discovery then, not truly of change. In a way, Stalker represents a specific point of view. It’s one that I share, which might be why I am affected so much by his pathetic character. He knows that there’s no place for him in the rest o the world but, like Red in Roadside Picnic, he “never sold out”. While the other characters accuse him of thinking he’s better than them, it’s never wholly clear what he thinks of himself, only that the journey has changed his mood for the worse. His is the child’s feeling of freedom, crushed by the reality of the world, and he puts himself at risk, and his family at a disadvantage, to retain this feeling. In the end, his wife shows the alternative: to take what joy we can from life. The irony is, of course, that the situation they’re in doesn’t allow either philosophy to be particularly successful.
  

  Writer fulfils a different role. He comes to the Zone with a good idea of what he wants, as does Professor. Like Professor, he questions what he wants, but unlike Professor, it is not a decision not to do something. We’re never shown whether he goes into the room, but we know that his real desire is not the one he professes at the start. For him, the zone is a way of refining his beliefs. On the other hand, Writer is not portrayed very sympathetically. He is an antagonist for the other two characters, and his somewhat nihilistic speeches are a catalyst for change in him. In the end, of course, all the characters are catalysts for the others – this is the brilliance of the story. You put three men together in this situation, and watch as they pick each other apart. But writer is the antagonist because, firstly, Stalker is presented as the protagonist, and secondly because his aims are harder to empathise with. Few of us are famous authors, but also, in the context of the film his aims seem the least altruistic. This isn’t really true, it’s revealed that Stalker is a stalker for his own sake, but it is enough to make a distinction in our minds. But Writer isn’t just an antagonist: he considers the room’s true form like Stalker does, and eventually brings up the subject of one’s innermost desires: the room doesn’t give you what you wish for, it gives you what you really want, deep down. And he realises that this can destroy someone. In a sense, Writer points out the role of the Id. This resonates with something Stalker says: the Room only accepts those who are truly desperate – perhaps then all they have left are these deep parts of themselves. And again, of course, this is true of the film: as the character near the Room, they are stripped down (Professor not so much).
  

  Professor is even more of a conundrum. We see much of his attitude, little of his beliefs. He clearly knows more than he shows, but in the end, he is defined by his decision not to destroy the room. And no reason is given for this decision. Certainly, it comes after speeches from the other characters, and after he details his reasons for wanting to destroy the room, but the decision not to is a mystery. This is very powerful indeed, and I hope I can one day achieve this in my writing. You see, by leaving Professor’s motivation open like this, we can put our own thoughts into him. The professor, like any good teacher, does not just demonstrate; he facilitates learning.
  

  It’s an introspective film, and it forces the viewer to think. I’ve been thinking about it a lot, because I’m trying to write a story with four characters in a similar situation. I’ll probably write more about what makes Stalker what it is later: pick at what you need to set up to get the kind of power it has. For now, be seeing you.

  • 9:24 AM
  • 8 Views
  • 0 eProps
  • 0 Comments