Talk:Stalker (1979 film)

Novels and films

From the article: "The film is loosely based on the novel Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky who later wrote a novel Stalker, loosely based on the movie."

It is not quite true. The novel "Stalker" never existed (but it could be another title for the "Roadside Picnic"). Strugatskys wrote the screenplay "Stalker" based (although very loosely) on their novel "Roadside Picnic". Tarkovsky made this screenplay into a film. Strugatskys never wrote novels based on any films. Dart evader 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet I have read it. Altough it's perhaps better described as a long short story as it's quite short (96 pages). It was published by Lundwall Fakta & fantasi in 1987. Translated by Kjell Rehnström and Sam Lundwall. ISBN 91-86222-27-9 // Liftarn

But have you read the "Roadside Picnic"? I guess these are just two different publishing titles for one novel. Dart evader 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, (in Swedish under the title "Picknick vid vägkanten"). They are two very different novels. It's not difficult to tell them apart just by holding them. "Picknick vid vägkanten" is 176 pages long and was published in 1978, also translated by Kjell Rehnström, but without Sam Lundwall. ISBN 91-7228-181-2 Oh, and the original title for the Stalker novel is stated as Masina zelanij. I googled for it and all I found was [1] ISBN 5-87106-065-x 380 pages, printed in 1993. // Liftarn

So it is "Masina zelanij"? I understand now. "Masina zelanij" (The machine of desires) was not based on the Tarkovsky's film. It was the first Strugatsky brothers' attempt to make a screenplay out of the "Roadside Picnic". There are two versions of "The machine of desires". Both versions were written like a usual prose, so it is quite possible to read them as a short novels. The very first version had a nuclear explosion in the end, and characters were named Victor, Anton and 'the Professor'. The second version of "The machine of desires" was more similar to what we have seen in the movie. The third version, titled "Stalker", was the screenplay itself. Dart evader 17:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct. I remember now. It was a draft for the screenplay so it was indeed written befor the movie. // Liftarn

Homage fix

It is said, that Bjork sings a poem from Stalker in her last album. I think, you should mention, that the author of poem is Fyodor Tyutchev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.18.71 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not by me, I should add. Just mentioning it so no one else, like me, has to go look to see if it was done. Anarchangel (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What does Сталкер mean?

The article says:

The English title is a misleading translation of a Russian word lacking the sinister connotations of the English word "stalker".

I changed 'translation' to 'transliteration' as nothing is being translated. Is it a Russian word as well as being the name of the character? - Moogsi 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no such word in Russian before Strugatskys wrote the novel "Roadside Picnick". In the novel the 'stalkers' were men who smuggled alien artifacts from the Zone, taking serious risks to their lives and health. It is not clear why Strugatskys borrowed exactly that English word, 'stalker', to designate members of the invented illegal trade. Dart evader 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah right, I assumed it was already a Russian word before, and it was coincidental (if you are as unfamiliar with Russian as I am, you might think that from reading the article). 'Stalk' can mean just 'to track stealthily', as a method of hunting, which isn't necessarily sinister, although the other meanings have some degree of menace, like the article says. Moogsi 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So it isn't actually a Russian word ? Then our article needs to be amended. (An IMDb discussions indicates that the Stugastskies got it from Kipling's Stalky + Co.) -- Beardo 16:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an English word all right. I've changed the article accordingly.--Rallette 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: the current article says that the word "should not be understood in the contemporary, sinister sense, but rather in the older sense of a tracker of game." According to OED, the oldest sense is "one who stalks game illegally, a poacher", so the sinister sense is there all along. Matthew Miller (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking beyond the bare-bone meaning of a "guide" or "pathfinder" that the film's Stalker acts as for the other characters, here's a humble OR attempt to find the word's true meaning in how it's used by the Strugatskys in the original novel or by Tarkovsky within the context of his mystical, spiritual film: The deeper meaning of the word could be something of a "traveler between two worlds", or even a "mystic" or "shaman" who "guides" people on spiritual journeys, after all the whole zone appears to be a highly spiritual place in how Tarkovsky portrays it. Remember that Tarkovsky was a very religious man who was drawn towards the old Russian Orthodox faith and its mystical spirituality, which is also where he derived his mystical concept of "frozen time" from which he so ingeniously brought to the screen especially in Solaris, Mirror, and Stalker. --37.81.145.218 (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph of the introduction:

″The meaning of the word "stalk" was derived from its use by the Strugatsky brothers in their novel Roadside Picnic, which alluded to Rudyard Kipling's character "Stalky" in his Stalky & Co. stories. In Roadside Picnic, "Stalker" was a common nickname for men engaged in the illegal enterprise of prospecting for and smuggling alien artifacts out of the "Zone". The common English definition of the term "stalking" was also cited by Andrei Tarkovsky.[6]″

I won't edit this myself as I may simply be reading it incorrectly but I feel as though this paragraph is claiming that the word stalk has one of or a mix of these sources to thank for its definition, that the word had no meaning/definition before these. This notion is then foiled by the final sentence which has Tarkovsky stating "Stalker is from the word stalk - to creep". As a result it's a rather befuddling paragraph. If it was the intent to say "In the novel 'stalking' is the name given to the illegal enterprise of prospecting for and smuggling alien artifacts out of the "Zone"" then it can be done just so which then contrasts with the prior paragraph's definition of what the film's definition of what a 'Stalker' is. Grundfuttockk (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a Story section

Most film articles have a length section about what happens in the movie. Stalker could do with one of these too. Unconscious 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl plant

IMDb claims that the Chernobyl power plant is shown in the film (I presume they mean the power plant seen in the last shot, in the background) but this is certainly not so? Judging from photos, the Chernobyl plant looks rather different from the one seen in the last shot of the film. 82.181.17.213 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The film was taken close to Tallinn (Estonia). The views of Chernobyl power plant are very unlikely.

The structure is a chemical plant, not a power station. Incidentally, several people who worked on the movie reported getting sick from the fumes of chemical plant.

The plant dominating that frame is not nuclear but it is a thermal power plant, likely coal-fired. Edited accordingly. XavierAP (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

What is the copyright status of this movie? I understand that it is different when dealing with things from the Soviet Union.

The distribution rights, including copying/screening of dvd's, soundtrack and so on, are owned by Ruscico, the Russian Cinema Council. It isn't public domain in any sense.Strausszek (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what is the current copyright status of the novel "Roadside Picnic"? A link in the article (Production-Writing, §3) currently links to an online pdf-file version of it. Boris Strugatsky seems to be currently alive (according to respective wiki article), which would imply that the novel isn't in public domain. 83.161.241.251 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Game

Anyone wanna add anything about the STALKER game that just came out? It is loosely based on this movie.

only that the game has only minor connections to the book "Roadside Picnic" and the movie. The game director revealed that only the names are similar (stalker and the zone) and the plot and elements in the game are totally unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.77.165.36 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I would say the elements are not unique, the anomalys are the same, and the mutations, the cause and other things are different. OktoberSunset (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, have you even played the game? Of course the game is based on the film, and the connections are more than 'minor'. 81.129.120.69 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

However apparent that may seem, we'd need a source to add a mention to the game. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Zone

Would it be worth creating a sub-section dealing with the concept of "The Zone"? 87.112.89.74 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost

Lost features the exact same concept of the room that contains what you wish for, is a hommage to Stalker? -unknown

I too see many similarities when watching lost. -NeF (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, from my limited reading about this, that the inspiration for the room in Lost came from Flann O'Brien's novel The Third Policeman. Was O'Brien's work ever published in the Soviet Union?

89.204.228.127 (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I have moved the statements lacking inline citations here until sources can be found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• (Tagged since July 2008) As he did with Solaris, Tarkovsky took great liberties in adapting the screenplay to emphasize the philosophical and metaphysical angles that concerned him the most. While the film retains some of the science fiction trappings of the novel, it is most concerned with themes of personal faith that are important to Tarkovsky; there are many themes that allude to existentialism particularly Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky who was referred to in the earlier film Solaris.
• (Tagged since February 2008) It has been pointed out by many film experts and psychologists (such as Slavoj Zizek) that the Zone is not solely within the room, and that although many of the characters see dreams fulfilled in the Zone such as the Professor's belittling of a colleague, they still display dissatisfaction. The Zone cannot fulfill them or their desires, perhaps because the characters are too bound by their own structures and patterns of behavior making the Zone only able to fulfill basic needs.
• (Tagged since July 2008) There is also speculation that the Soviet authorities deliberately mishandled the development; Tarkovsky's films were relatively popular in the USSR and he was allowed to continue making them, but he was officially frowned upon by the Soviet authorities, not because of his political stances (he rarely talked about politics), but because his films dealt with issues of spirituality and the quest for God.
• He was constantly rewriting the script during the actual shooting and during the dubbing and editing (the film was post-dubbed, as many Soviet films were).
• (Tagged since July 2008) Vladimir Sharun recalls:

We were shooting near Tallinn in the area around the small river Pirita with a half-functioning hydroelectric station. Up the river was a chemical plant and it poured out poisonous liquids downstream. There is even this shot in Stalker: snow falling in the summer and white foam floating down the river. In fact it was some horrible poison. Many women in our crew got allergic reactions on their faces. Tarkovsky died from cancer of the right bronchial tube. And Tolya Solonitsyn too. That it was all connected to the location shooting for Stalker became clear to me when Larisa Tarkovskaya died from the same illness in Paris.

The first of those is obvious if you watch the film and cpompare it with the book. Wayside Picnic is a good read, but it doesn't focus on the landscape of the Zone or bring the symbolism of man (and technology) vs nature, subconscious vs conscious into the picture. Many reviews could be used to corroborate this, part of the trouble here is that sometimes only reviews written in English and available online are accepted as 'good sources' on WP. The link between Solaris and Stalker is rather obvious too, the trouble is how to phrase it so that it isn't seen as "original research".

The statement that the cancer which killed Tarkovsky and other people around the film came from the shoot at the disused plant is made by one of the people interviewed on the Ruscico dvd too - the production designer I think. It is unprovable of course, but not unlikely.Strausszek (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Taytor found a source for the above quote, so I readded it to the article with the source. The point was struck through above. If anyone needs assistance readding the other statements above if sources are found, let me know and I'll be happy to assist in readding them to the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How to comment politely, that this is sourced statment, but does not mean that there is all true? I mean, what this person says, the quotation above about cancer, and poisonous waters? If it were true, nothing could live near this Jägala river. I used to live there, in neighbouring village just other side of river, and so unfortunately it is original research, if I say, that water in this river was smelly as excrement, true, and got you nasty red rash if you tried to bath in - but we kids did it nevertheless; it was ok if you rinsed with clean water after - and no one got any cancer. It was just paper plant (Kehra pulp mill) upriver, who let their nasty stuff into river, and it killed most fish, but was not really much more poisonous than, say, load of excrement. So, they who got cancer, got it someplace other. I'm sorry, of course. So, I think this quotation about filming crew getting cancer from location might be maybe removed not because of being unsourced, but because of being too much exaggeration for solid wikipedia article? Even though this person might believe it himself. It seems he got it all mixed up - chemical plant was in other location, nearer Tallinn, Maardu, but it did not affect river. BirgittaMTh (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cherry 2000?

An anon added a bit about Cherry 2000. Is there a source that says that this film is a response to Stalker? I agree the plot seems somewhat similar, but it could be a coincidence. Staecker (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a "response" - a Hollywood bastardization ! - anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.56 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion rationale?

I wonder what the rationale for deleting the images of Tarkovsky was? 4 of them, it seems, File:stalker2.jpg to File:stalker5.jpg., all photos of Tarkovsky and the other actors during the production. Anarchangel (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, they were poorly sourced with no reason to believe that they were free. Staecker (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception in East Germany

I remember there was quite a controversy in the GDR whether or not to show the film. This was based on picturing this dangerous and barren land in color while showing the soviet everyday life in monochrome, and also about the perceived exaggeration of how desperate rural soviet life really was. As a result it was shown only in repertory cinema. Anyone who has sources on that? --Pgallert (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncited and suspect line about "Symbolism"

There is a line that I find troubling in the plot summary;"film switches to color—symbolic of the freedom the Stalker experiences in the Zone—what compels him to return despite the pleas of his wife" First of all there is nothing cited to say that this is any kind of offical reading of the film, infact it also is contary to what Tarkovsky him self says "I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered". I'm going to change it, if anyone disagrees please let me know.FSAB (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Car

The all-terrain car they drive to the Zone looked to me as some Land Rover. Was it a Soviet vehicle? --Error (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I had originally thought that the Stalker's vehicle was probably a UAZ-469, but it looks like you are correct. If this page is to be believed, the Stalker was driving a Land Rover 88" Series II (probably a 1958). Just how a '50s era Land Rover found it's way to a film shoot in the Estonian SSR in the late '70s is an exercise I leave to the reader...Chukhung (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, according to this article's German talkpage, the writer arrives in a French 1958 Renault Floride aka Renault Caravelle. --2003:71:4E33:E588:71AF:E80F:8714:23DD (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Canada

I read something about the action being located in Canada (maybe in the novel?). Hence the use of English stalker and Professor Wallace. Are there visible marks of Sovietness? As I said before, the car looked to me as a Land Rover, and I didn't recognize the police uniforms. I couldn't find any Cyrillic and the license plates were too far to see. --Error (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No Soviet, definitely. Russian article about the movie says that it is set in imaginary time and location. Russian article about the novel Roadside Picnic the movie is based on quotes B. Strugatsky who says ↑ OFF-LINE интервью с Борисом Стругацким. Октябрь 2003: «По замыслу авторов это, скорее всего, Канада. Или какая-нибудь Австралия. Словом — британская в прошлом колония». Shortly: some english-speaking country, maybe Canada or some Australia; smth what used to be British colony. Letters UN where seen on wall entering the Zone in movie, I think. (And for long time after shooting the scenes in the location in Tallinn.) As the movie is not very tightly based on the novel, I think, we might leave it as is? No need to add location from the novel to plot of the movie. - ? Or do you think it would be nice; as nothing in the movie really contradicts location given in the novel, or, rather, by Strugatsky? BirgittaMTh (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It is almost two years since I watched the movie and I don't remember much. So if somebody wants to add information to the article and has something to back it, I will not object. --Error (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Science Fiction

How is this science fiction? -- spiralofhope 11:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The sci-fi genre is made clearer in the original novel where it's stated clearly that the Zone is a result of highly advanced alien interference. Tarkovsky, however, chose to cloud the Zone's origins in mystery. The sci-fi remnants in the film are mainly in the dialogues and ideas about the Zone and its dangers which mostly allude to the fact that the laws of physics are rather haywire in places due to the Zone's influence. Tarkovsky was a genius in how he translated all that into hypnotic mystical images on a shoestring budget for a sci-fi film where the only real special effect in the entire film is a single slo-mo shot. Oh, and that moving glass of water at the end. --37.81.145.218 (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In the film,Tarkovsky doesn't entirely "cloud the Zone's origins in mystery". There's that bit of expository dialog between the Professor and the Writer near the beginning of their entry into the Zone:

Professor: About twenty years ago, they say a meteorite fell here. It razed the settlement. They searched for it, but they found nothing, of course.

Writer: Why "of course"?

Professor: Then people began to vanish. Finally it was decided that this meteorite was not quite a meteorite. So, for a start...they put barbed wire to stop the inquisitive taking risk. Then rumours began that somewhere in the Zone is a place where desires come true. Well, naturally, they started to guard the Zone like a treasure for who knows what desires a person might have?

A mysterious object falls from space resulting in unexplainable phenomena? Sounds like a classic science fiction trope to me. However, I certainly will agree that turning such a hackneyed premise into a film like Stalker is convincing evidence of Tarkovsky's genius. Chukhung (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Railway Work Car vs. Draisine

In the Plot Summary, the vehicle the Stalker and his clients use to travel into the Zone is called a "railway work car". Later in the article, it's called a "draisine".

Why the inconsistency? Chukhung (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rights holder has released the film for free on YouTube

It may be relevant that the film's rights holder Mosfilm has released a recent HD telecine of the film on YouTube: [2]. For a few years, it was also available as both a stream and download for free on Mosfilm's official website, and I distantly remember when Mosfilm originally uploaded the film to their website, they officially released it into the public domain with an explicit statement to that effect. --2003:71:4E33:E588:71AF:E80F:8714:23DD (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Eastmancolor and Sovcolor

According to IMDB[3], the film was made both on Eastmancolor and Sovcolor. Now, we know that the original version was pretty much destroyed in the Soviet lab because it was Eastmancolor so one could assume that IMDB is referring to the destroyed and the finished version respectively, but IMDB usually lists the stocks for released versions. Could it be that they're referring to the camera negatives as shot on Eastman (provided the Soviet labs did get it right on the second try) and the release prints made on Sovcolor? It could explain the utterly abysmal quality the film had on VHS versions (as VHS tapes were usually taken from release prints, this VHS version had severe color and brightness flicker in the CMYK colorspace of chemical film; it's the version still found on the German ICESTORM DVD), and the fair quality in the recent HD telecine (which are usually taken from camera negatives). In any case, the article would certainly benefit from an authoritatively sourced statement on the matter. --2003:71:4E33:E570:1CFB:45E4:FB81:73D4 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Monkey -> Martiška

Stalker's daughter in the film is called Martiška, not Monkey. Why and according to whom, or source, was used "Monkey"?--89.172.157.61 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably just a childish vandal. Fix, forget. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The English subtitles on the Criterion Collection definitely call her "Monkey." I assumed it was a nickname. -Steve Mollmann (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The German DEFA dub also literally calls her "little monkey". --2003:71:4F76:836:E846:992C:14E6:9380 (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stalky

I removed this: In the book, stalker alluded to Rudyard Kipling's character "Stalky" in his Stalky & Co. stories. I found no reference to stalky or kipling in the (English translation of the) book by a Ctrl-F search. @Beardo: you seem to know more about this, so i pinged you. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thasnks for the ping - but I really don't know any more - I have no idea where this link originated (and had forgotten my earlier comment). -- Beardo (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"...thus becoming a near cult film..."

Paragraph three mentions the film has now acquired "near cult" status. Surely, the adjective 'near' is redundant as the film obviously does have cult status, as for example evidenced in the 240 page book Zona by Geoff Dyer. What do people think?

Also, I think the description of the stalker's daughter as 'deformed' in the final paragraph of the plot section is entirely inappropriate - can I change it to something less offensive? ("the couple's deformed daughter, sits alone in the kitchen reading as a love poem by Fyodor Tyutchev is recited.") --Invulgo (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Themes section

I think this article definitely needs a themes section as a lot has been written about different themes and interpretations of the film. Nothing about interpretations or themes is mentioned in the reception section. I am not sure where to start with the themes section though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineapple4321 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A good source for this section would be The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue by Vida T. Johnson and Graham Petrie, if anyone can get their hands on a copy. I also may have time to work on this section myself. Rublov (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I fleshed out the section a little bit using the article's existing sourcing, but it could still use some additions from Johnson and Petrie's book and perhaps other academic sources that go more in-depth into the film than reviews. Rublov (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sound design

While the "Sound design" section has a lot of good information, I feel that it is too detailed and overly reliant on a single source. Any objections if I trim it a bit? (for posterity: a permalink to the section as it is now) Rublov (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Kipling connection

Please re-instate the reference to Rudyard Kipling's Stalky & Co. as the origin of the meaning of the word in both the book and film. It was removed back in 2018 (see a few sections above this one here on the talkpage) when people complained that there was no source attached to it. External print sources:

• Michael Andre-Driussi dedicates an entire chapter called Stalky v. Stalker, or, Stalky & Co. against Roadside Picnic, in his book Roadside Picnic Revisited: Seven Articles on the Soviet Novel that inspired the film "Stalker", Sirius Fiction, 2017, ISBN 1947614002, pp. 31-36 to this issue. It's available to read as a preview on Google Books. This chapter was originally published as an essay in The New York Review of Science Fiction, no. 20, November, 2015. It includes various references to own publications by the Strugatsky brothers to the fact that they were referencing Stalky & Co. on the meaning of the word stalker.

• Sarah LaFanu mentions the fact, along with a print source, in her book Something of Themselves: Kipling, Kingsley, Conan Doyle and the Anglo-Boer War, Oxford University Press, 2020, ISBN 0197536018, pp. 21-22. See it here on Google Books --2003:EF:1709:2965:F44D:BA12:ECF1:D36F (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)