Tarkovsky felt the sci-fi elements on screen were intrusive to the telling of the story, the human element.
Which is complete idiocy, as I said.
He didn't want the focus to be on the machinery and the technology, which he felt were distracting, but on the story and the characters. I imagine this is why he disliked Kubrick's "2001", with the long takes detailing visions of the future and all the technological wonders of zero-gravity toilets.
Then this just reinforces the view that the guy was, on some level, an idiot--2001 was an extreme example and a better, smarter filmmaker would have known that there are all sorts of ways to tell a science fiction story and retain the human element. The book did it. The book had more humanity than the movie, frankly.
And by the way, Tarkovsky's long takes on landscapes and liquid were every bit as "distracting" and harmful to the human element as Kubrick's long takes on technology and weird trippy stuff.
In the end I think he was just bewitched by a certain kind of anti-science and anti-technology ideology that was common during the sixties and seventies with people in the arts and humanities.
You're approaching this topic from a prejudiced POV.
No, I'm approaching it with reason--and also with the experience of reading and watching science fiction where human elements are balanced with the science and technology.
There's nothing wrong with sci-fi. There's nothing wrong with art house movies. You can appreciate them independently on their own merits/intentions.
I did not mean to suggest that there was something wrong with art house movies, only that some small subset of them wallow in levels of obscurantism that are ridiculous and serve no purpose other than to give the illusion of depth.
It isn't that I dislike art house movies being "difficult", either. Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color" and Jonathan Glazer's "Under the Skin" are both art house movies, both science fiction, both very difficult, both share a disinclination for exposition with "Stalkers," and both manage to balance the science fiction and philosophical elements with the human elements much better than "Stalkers" does, which is why I admire them much more.
Those two guys know it can be done and how. Tarkovsky was clueless about it, end of story, however much a genius he was at other elements of his art.
reply
share
Z_cm
10 years ago
Which is complete idiocy, as I said.
That's one opinion. I don't agree. That's another opinion. Now what?
Was Tarkovsky anti-science and anti-technology? Film-making stands at the crossroad between art and technology, so it's interesting to make that statement. You do have a biased view, possibly a cultural one. Let me quote something from Tarkovsky himself, since it's better to use his own words than to offer my personal interpretation.
Why, as we look back, do we see the path of human history punctuated by cataclysms and disasters? What really happened to those civilizations? Why did they run out of breath, lack the will to live, lose their moral strength? Surely one cannot believe that it all happened simply from material shortages? Such a suggestion seems to me grotesque. Moreover I am convinced that we now find ourselves on the point of destroying another civilization entirely as a result of failing to take account of the spiritual side of the historical process. We don't want to admit to ourselves that many of the misfortunes besetting humanity are the result of our having become unforgivably, culpably, hopelessly materialistic. Seeing ourselves as the protagonists of science, and in order to make our scientific objectivity the more convincing, we have split the one, indivisible human process down the middle, thereby revealing a solitary, but clearly visible, spring, which we declare to be the prime cause of everything, and use it not only to explain the mistakes of the past but also to draw up our blueprint for the future. Or perhaps the fall of those civilizations means that history is waiting patiently for man to make the right choice, after which history will no longer be driven into an impasse and forced to cancel out one unsuccessful attempt after another in the hope that the next one may work. There is something in the widely held view that no lessons are learnt from history and that mankind takes no notice of what history has done. Certainly each successive catastrophe is evidence that the civilization in question was misconceived; and when man is forced to start all over again, it can only be because up until then he has had as his aim something other than spiritual perfection.
In a sense art is an image of the completed process, of the culmination; an imitation of the possession of absolute truth (albeit only in the form of an image) obviating the long — perhaps, indeed, endless — path of history.
There are moments when one longs to rest, to hand it all over, to give it up, along with oneself, to some total world-view — like the Veda, for instance. The East was closer to truth than the West; but Western civilization devoured the East with its materialist demands on life.
Compare Eastern and Western music. The West is forever shouting "This is me! Look at me! Listen to me suffering, loving! How unhappy I am! How happy! I! Mine! Me!" In the Eastern tradition they never utter a word about themselves. The person is totally absorbed into God, Nature, Time; finding himself in everything; discovering everything in himself. Think of Taoist music. ... China six hundred years before Christ... But in that case, why did such a superb idea not triumph, why did it collapse? Why did the civilization that grew up on such a foundation not come down to us in the form of a historic process brought to its consummation? They must have come into conflict with the materialistic world that surrounded them. Just as the personality comes into conflicts with society, that civilization clashed with another. It perished not only for that reason, but also because of its confrontation with the materialistic world of "progress" and technology. But that civilization was the final point of true knowledge, salt of the salt of the earth. And according to the logic of Eastern thought, conflict of any kind is essentially sinful.
We all live in the world as we imagine it, as we create it. And so, instead of enjoying its benefits, we are the victims of its defects.
Finally, I would enjoy the reader — confiding in him utterly — to believe that the one thing that mankind has ever created in a spirit of self-surrender is the artistic image. Perhaps the meaning of all human activity lies in artistic consciousness, in the pointless and selfless creative act? Perhaps our capacity to create is evidence that we ourselves were created in the image and likeness of God?
What exactly is a "difficult" movie though? "Primer" is much more "difficult" than "Stalker", it demands further analysis just to understand the basic plot! "Stalker" is a contemplative meditation, the long takes draw you in, the dialog jump-starts thoughts about topics that are typically forgotten as we go about our business. Some people, though, are unable to sit still and contemplate anything. "Stalker" is one of my favorite movies, but I've watched it fewer times than other works I like much less. That's because it takes a lot out of me to watch it, there's an emotional engagement, through simple moving images, that is simply absent when I watch other movies. To me, Tarkovsky knew exactly what he was doing. Even if he was somewhat pig-headed about certain topics, but that's the price of having any creative vision at all.
reply
share
Faustus5
10 years ago
That's one opinion. I don't agree. That's another opinion. Now what?
There was more than just opinion there.
Your use (and his use) of Kubrick is a bad example to support his "pig headed" views on science fiction. I cited examples of people who were better able to balance human elements with science and technology than Kubrick, proving my point that his avoidance of the science fiction elements in the book was misguided.
I also pointed out that his own devotion to long takes on non-human images did just as much damage to the so-called "human elements" in his own move as Kubrick's long takes on machines. Neither film was particularly concerned with the "human elements" in their stories. Both were highly abstract and spiritual. This is not a criticism, by the way. But it just shows how foolish it is to think that concern with the "human element" had any real role to play in his opposition to the science fiction in the book he was adapting.
You do have a biased view, possibly a cultural one.
Stop with this "biased" nonsense. You throw that term around to the point where it loses any meaning. "Bias" implies a disconnect with objective reality which you cannot demonstrate in me. Since I'm the one who can actually back up my criticisms with examples and reason, it would appear that the one who is biased is you.
To me, Tarkovsky knew exactly what he was doing. Even if he was somewhat pig-headed about certain topics, but that's the price of having any creative vision at all.
Pig-headedness is still pig-headedness. You can be a genius without such flaws. His work would have been improved without it.
reply
share
Z_cm
10 years ago
No, all you have is an opinion, but because you approach the topic thinking that there's only one way (your way), you automatically assume that it's the most logical one. And if that isn't bias, what is? Wait, maybe pig-headedness!
It's incredible that you're saying Tarkovsky's landscapes are "non-human". I guess you skipped the remark he made about man being part of nature. To understand his work, you need to know where he was coming from and, of course, to find some resonance with it.
Different people have different perspectives. That's all you have, a particular perspective on the topic. Bear in mind, emotions are not factual, by the way, and we are discussing something that is largely emotional and psychological interpretation of the same moving pictures. I'm happy that I can look at the world, take in several different angles and enjoy them equally. I can watch a Tarkovsky movie and be moved, I can watch a Lucas movie and be entertained. And I somewhat pity and sometimes despair at people who will die defending a single, narrow-minded view without even considering any alternatives. Fundamentalists, in a word, who always defend themselves by saying that there's only one truth, one path, one way. But even a sub-atomic particle can be in two places at once, so what's fact anyway? ;)
Tarkovsky was a fundamentalist, too. It may be a flaw, but again, to create, you need creative, artistic vision. As an observer, you can be more flexible.
To note, it always amuses me, that part where the Stalker speaks about life and how fragility and flexibility are life forces, and strength and rigidity are death forces. It's so true, the contradiction being, Tarkovsky seemed to be very inflexible about his own views on cinema. He accepted an award one time by climbing on stage and blurting out that "cinema is a whore". Haha. Good old, AT! Tell them like it is.
reply
share
Faustus5
10 years ago
No, all you have is an opinion, but because you approach the topic thinking that there's only one way (your way), you automatically assume that it's the most logical one.
Wrong.
By seeing what other filmmakers and what authors who write science fiction do with the material--in other words, by EDUCATING MYSELF ON THE SUBJECT--I see as a matter of
fact, and
not opinion, that one can balance the science and technological aspects of the story with the so-called "human elements".
That Tarkovsky thought it could not be done just shows how blinded he was by ideology. I'm the one who can see multiple possibilities in the genre. He's the one with the limited vision.
Furthermore, this whole thing about him being concerned with the "human elements" is a complete and utter joke. His characters have no more depth than the characters in 2001. They aren't real people; they're just mouthpieces and "types". That's perfectly fine--these are films about ideas, not about the lives of ordinary people, and I don't see this as a flaw in either film. But either he or the both of you are just fooling yourselves if concern for the "human element" was the real reason he rejected so much of the book's content.
It's incredible that you're saying Tarkovsky's landscapes are "non-human". I guess you skipped the remark he made about man being part of nature.
If long takes of nature get to count as supporting the "human element" in "Stalker", then since advanced technology is a unique product of the minds of humans, long shots of spaceships supported the "human element" in "2001". I can play these games, too.
I can watch a Tarkovsky movie and be moved, I can watch a Lucas movie and be entertained.
So can I, though I have more respect for Tarkovsky even though his ideological limitations are annoying. When I want art, I'll see something by him or Kubrick or Cronenberg. When I want pure entertainment, I'll watch some Lucas or the latest in the Marvel universe. I want variety like anyone else.
Tarkovsky was a fundamentalist, too. It may be a flaw, but again, to create, you need creative, artistic vision.
Fundamentalism is not a requirement for artistic vision. It just makes an artist more passionate. You can have a unique voice without those kinds of ideological limitations.
reply
share
jacob_barreiro
9 years ago
His work would have been improved without it.
But then his work wouldn't have really been his. Tarkovsky is indeed a polarizing creator. His short book, Scultping in Time, was pretty enjoyable for me because he wrote it with the intent to give people an insight into why he creates the way he does. He even writes specifically that it's not his idea to change anyone's mind or recruit people to his side, but rather to explain just why he entrenched himself where he did. Outside of Ivan and Solaris (which was more accessible for the very reasons Tarkovsky was displeased with the movies) his work can be pedantic and labored. Had he "fixed" some of these so-called flaws or idiosyncrasies which he created under, his movies might have been more accessible, but perhaps less memorable? Or not, I'm not sure, the Post WWII Japanese gurus like Ozu and Mizoguchi made pretty great movies with oversight from a studio system.
reply
share
Faustus5
9 years ago
Had he "fixed" some of these so-called flaws or idiosyncrasies which he created under, his movies might have been more accessible, but perhaps less memorable?
This isn't an either/or function. I think if he had been less idiosyncratic on the measures I've been complaining about, his movies could have been both more accessible
and more memorable.
I don't care about the accessible part so much, though. I'm all for movies that are completely inaccessible to the general public; that wasn't my issue with this movie.
reply
share
jacob_barreiro
9 years ago
I'm not really sure what this movie would have looked like if Tarkovsky had relented on the nature shots and added more technology, or given each character a thorough background check..as is I thought there was a lot of content to suggest the lives of the characters.
I kind of liked the avoidance of big sci-fi elements because it adds a layer to the story: the aspect of the movie that suggested the Stalker was a looney kook, because he kept talking about how dangerous the zone was, and all of these powers therein, but outside of the armed guards chasing them before they arrived, nothing looks dangerous at all there and the zone's mythical powers are never seen.
I'm feeling like watching it again though, I've only seen it once, and recall it made a good impression on me, although some aspects of it were kind of infuriating (Stalker being a big baby who whimpers and whines about people losing their faith in the zone being one of them, I also thought the analogous behavior traits of each main character ie: Stalker being faith, writer being jaded skepticism, and professor being passionless science was a little on the nose). It's definitely worth a rewatch though, perhaps I'll check it out again this week and get back to you.
reply
share
Faustus5
9 years ago
I kind of liked the avoidance of big sci-fi elements because it adds a layer to the story. . .
How does avoidance of the source material
add layers? He took away layers.
. . .the aspect of the movie that suggested the Stalker was a looney kook, because he kept talking about how dangerous the zone was, and all of these powers therein, but outside of the armed guards chasing them before they arrived, nothing looks dangerous at all there and the zone's mythical powers are never seen.
So basically he took away the science fiction elements from the book and replaced them with the suggestion that the Stalker was a kook. Not adding layers, but replacing layers.
Good science fiction writing doesn't take away from the philosophical or human elements of anything. That's my only complaint about his ideology. I still think the movie is good (though over-rated).
reply
share
jacob_barreiro
9 years ago
I gave you an example of how it adds a layer to the story. It complicates Stalker's worldview, makes his faith and belief that much stronger because it's unverified by anything we actually see. There is such a thing as addition by subtraction.
Also, I can't tell you exactly why Tarkovsky chose to focus on what he did. Likewise, I don't think he has any obligation to conform to my vision, your vision, or anyone else's. I agree that science-fiction (as a genre) isn't necessarily void of philosophy or human elements, there are countless examples of great works of art that show this, but I don't think Tarkovsky was trying to make a sci-fi movie either. Me and you are in line that we don't 100% endorse his movie-making ideology, he sounds like he was a real prick to work with and had a habit of bullying people on his set and always had a victim's mentality... I was just pointing out that the movies he had wouldn't really have been so distinctly his if he didn't make them this way.
reply
share