The Theory of 'What-we-can-only-feel'

[The Ferret]

SPOILERS.

The ZONE is truly what it's supposed to be, and not only a twisted fantasy in the Stalker's mind. That's the theory I fully embrace, and that's the theory I'm going to expose:

1- The prologue of the movie states that the "shaping" of the Zone has HAPPENED, and it's not a made-up event. Professor Wallace's declaration in the prologue of the movie also seems to confirm that.
Stalker's wife, when was much younger, has been told by her mother to stay away from the Stalkers. So, again, they were always a popular affair, and not just an urban "legend".

2- The Zone is forbidden to the visitors. There are tons of armed, hostile and overprotective soldiers in order to grant its security. If it would have been just an abandoned wasted land: WHY ALL THIS, THEN?

3- The Tanks. They appear as been melt. A nuclear explosion would have annihilated their molecular structures and broken them in hundred of fragments. INSTEAD, they look like they had been incenerited under the effect of an unprecised form of energy/force.


My principal hypothesis builds on the fact that either the Serpent and the visitors are somewhat affected by the Zone on a psychological level. It's like the Zone was "fleshing out" them, layer by layer, thus exposing their inner selves - except for the Serpent, who is a Stalker, and he's virtually more resilient to the psychological attack than the ordinary men.

So we're talking about "imaginary" traps set to affect everyone else's mind; invisible traps which irradiate human minds and wear them inside out, freeing the inner demons.

Analysing:


4- The Writer is NOT able to reach the Room while following the 'Straight Path'. It seems he has been literally stopped by an impenetrable psychological barrier.

5- The very first trap. The Writer and the Professor look "stranded", totally absorbed by their own dissertations, while the Stalker goes deeper into himself, almost in trance.

6- The second trap. The Writer falls into a psychological "pocket", where his mind is "peeled out" (I'm referring to the 'Sand Area sequence').

7- The telephone still works, despite it shouldn't do that in such conditions. It's legit to think that it works like a trap of some sort, and that the calling and the voice of the speaker itself (!!!) had been generated by either the Zone or Professor's psyche; possibly, a combination between the two factors: the trap absorbed "infos" from Professor's psyche in order to "arrange" the conversation.


In few words: in the Zone, you "feel" the traps, don't see them. You can perceive them, because they pierce your mind.

Just some points. Have you something to add?


The Ferret

[MaKS]

Two skeletons together! could they rot to that state for several years, or that's a time anomaly? (maybe there are answers in the Roadside Picnic, but i don't remember it that good)

[The Ferret]

maks said:

Two skeletons together! could they rot to that state for several years, or that's a time anomaly? (maybe there are answers in the Roadside Picnic, but i don't remember it that good)

True. It could be a TIME motion arresting field or something along those lines.

[Pauk]

The question is still the same - why is it only Stalker who is aware of all the strange events, while the other two, though observing and experiencing the same, are not affected by them (f.ex. they are more perplexed to see a corpse in the car than to experience the anomalies), these events do not change their attitudes towards the Zone, at least not to the positive. It's as if they take everything for granted, like a kind of reality, and are not capable to percieve the miracle. Perhaps it's anyway a travel in the mind.
Regarding the guards, so it's the same situation around the Tjernobyl area. The tanks for me seem to be as they should be after 20 years in the open air without maintenance. The sceleton couple is a parallel to the last words Stalker says in the Zone - about moving in there. That is, I do not found them to be an omen, but they are more likely to be of a positive meaning, mark the plant growing from between their entangled bodies.

[MaKS]

well, they knew where they are going. they were warned with all the rumours etc. they were waiting for something weird, although the Writer have been sceptical at first

[blue]

Nice to see some discussion going on here guys!

The Ferret: 4- The Writer is NOT able to reach the ROOM following the "Straight Path". He has been stopped by a 'psychological barrier', an energy which affects minds.

That was poetry. Well said! And isn’t that what Life is like? There are no straight paths to our most precious goals.

The rest of the eleven points were physics. However, it really does seem to be something special with the Zone from a strictly objective point. How can otherwise, for example, a lot of troops with tanks have got lost without explanation?

Unfortunately I haven’t read The Road Side Picnic (I think it’s quite different from the film) but as I understand, there the traps of the Zone are far more tangible and dangerous in a concrete manner, while Tarkovsky in the film wanted to make them rather of the inner life and the journey to the Room a mental or spiritual one. And that, perhaps, after all also makes the reality of the Zone more of a question of belief.

As Stalker says about it: it depends on our inner state more than anything else.

As with religion, maybe

[Pauk]

Regarding The Roadside Picnic, so there are also the same two layers, of the mind and the physics, though this dichotomy is expressed in a different dimension.
(SPOILERS? for the book readers) The question raised in the book is what would you do for your wishes to be fulfilled. As an extreme example, could you torture and possibly kill another person to achieve your goal. Even if you do not sacrifice a human being, you yourself are exposed to pain and, again, possible death caused by the indifferent Zone, which is the physics and the machinery in perfection. And this polarity between it and the human mind creates the immense tension that is very likely to affect that certain person. While some become Porcupine-like selfish villains, the others can turn to care for all the humanity. There is also another dichotomy, between the scientific exploration of the Zone (machinery vs. machinery) and the stalking (described above vs. machinery). Stalker Redrick Schuchart seems to be on all the sides - thus the conflict within him and around him.
In short, in the film the spiritual is of the top priority, in all levels, the machinery side both of the humans and the Zone being reduced to symbolic signs. While the book is, well, a tough sci-fi story, though in the end its message is very similar to the film's.
Also, in the film the means of achieving the goal is somewhat twisted when compared to the story in the book. That is, Stalker, putting his customers' stamina and psychics to the test, is not (only?) going for his own goal, but is trying to lead/force them onto the right path.

[blue]

The theme of forcing others to follow the right path was something Tarkovsky planned to develop in a sequel where the Stalker would be turned into a sort of fascist who, I think, even would use violence to “lead” his followers. Though, by emigrating the plan had to be abandoned since any other than Kaidanovsky in the role of Stalker was unthinkable. If only T had got the chance I wonder how he would have succeeded in illustrating the transformation from the more meek Stalker the holy fool into Stalker the fascist. Or is a combination of both possible?

[The Ferret]

blue said:

The theme of forcing others to follow the right path was something Tarkovsky planned to develop in a sequel where the Stalker would be turned into a sort of fascist who, I think, even would use violence to “lead” his followers. Though, by emigrating the plan had to be abandoned since any other than Kaidanovsky in the role of Stalker was unthinkable. If only T had got the chance I wonder how he would have succeeded in illustrating the transformation from the more meek Stalker the holy fool into Stalker the fascist. Or is a combination of both possible?

Of course it is possible, because all the fascists are HOLY FOOLS from the beginning.

Quite frankly, I don't like the transition too much ---> I'm glad Tarkovsky did not succeed at filming a sequel if that was really the direction he was aiming at.

I don't see the Stalker as a loser, either. Misunderstood and unsung hero, yes.

[blue]

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent....”

By “holy fool” I’m alluding to the Russian concept of iurodivyi. They were eccentric individuals (to say the very least) in old tsarist Russia who rejected the social conventions of their society and instead chose to live a life in the truth of God. This made them despised by “respectable” people but popular with the simple ones.

In this aspect there is a kinship between Stalker and Domenico in Nostalghia and Alexander in The Sacrifice.

In the eyes of most people he’s most likely a looser since he’s got no regular job, his family is poor and his only child is handicapped. But he’s serving a higher cause, incomprehensible to most people, and that makes him at the same time a hero in others’ eyes.

What I’m questioning is not the possibility to combine foolishness with hardness (or more exactly: the will to power), but to combine holiness with that. And if we talk about transformation I would believe the other direction would be more natural. Or maybe I’m just a bit romantic?

[The Ferret]

blue said:

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent....”


In the eyes of most people he’s most likely a looser since he’s got no regular job, his family is poor and his only child is handicapped. But he’s serving a higher cause, incomprehensible to most people, and that makes him at the same time a hero in others’ eyes.

Excellent perspective, Blue.

[LetoAtreides]

I was thinking of my favorite scene, with the Christ picture lying under the water. What does it mean really? I think it could be a sort of anti-theological view on the world. There is no god and The Stalker is the closest to that. I believe that The Stalker represents a sort of a saviour, of course, but maybe it was meant to show that salvation can only be found by those who know how and where to find it.

His child can't or don't speak, yet she possesses overnatural powers. I also love the first scene, the camera shows their bedroom for 5-10 minutes and nothing moves there. We see that worn out wall behind them, then they slowly start to awake. The scene ends with his wife going hysteric as he leaves.

This film really frustrates me because of all the segments and bits that can mean something and yet again they don't have to. Do you agree? The nuclear plant, the dog in the tavern, the child which moves that glass in the end.

[MaKS]

letoatreides said:

I was thinking of my favorite scene, with the Christ picture lying under the water. What does it mean really? I think it could be a sort of anti-theological view on the world. There is no god and The Stalker is the closest to that. I believe that The Stalker represents a sort of a saviour, of course, but maybe it was meant to show that salvation can only be found by those who know how and where to find it.

I tend to connect this scene with Stalker's mind directly. I think, it can be either his dream itself or at least a sort of metaphor for the dreams he have. For me this scene is a picture of Stalker's mental landscape, so to say... At least, for the moment he dreams there. The water, for which Tarkovskiy has a soft spot, can be interpret in many ways, like the matter of dreamflowing or the Tai Te Ching reference...

I'm not sure about the anti-theological view. I think there's several things we all can agree about. In the film God does not appear. It doesn't mean there's no God, but at least he is silent (for Zone may be interpret to be indirect manifestation of God, but may be not). Yet, we can agree that Stalker himself is very religious in his own way. For example, he expressed his views on the nature of music very clearly. He practices a sort of ascetism and religious lifestile of his own. And he leads people.

Sure, it makes him look like a savior. And in the end... Don't know if he fails, but he certanly feels this way. Does it mean he's the savior who failed because there's no God? I guess it is possible interpretation.

(Yet, i tend to think otherwise. To me, in the film, it doesn't really matters if there's god, but it matters if there's faith. I think, as it's been noted by someone in this forum, it matters what happend with the Writer. There weren't the miracle of granting wishes, but there were the miracle of transfiguration of the Writer, so to say, and it was the miracle made by faith.)

letoatreides said:

This film really frustrates me because of all the segments and bits that can mean something and yet again they don't have to.

True, true. Confusing, but exciting, isn't it?

[LetoAtreides]

You may be right about the writer. He really did change for the better in the end and started thinking clearly. He was absorbed with his own cynicism and pessimistic view on the world that it blocked his vision. As I already said, that scene where he wrestles with Stalker over the disarming of the bomb is very pivotal. That's all I want to say right now. After all, its almost midnight here.

Of course its exciting. Thats one of the reasons why I enjoyed watching Stalker more than Andrei Rublev or Solaris. Solaris was exciting in its own right, but it became too tiresome for me after 2 hours or so. Stalker keeps your curiosity going all the way to the end.

[The Ferret]

letoatreides said:

You may be right about the writer. He really did change for the better in the end and started thinking clearly. He was absorbed with his own cynicism and pessimistic view on the world that it blocked his vision. As I already said, that scene where he wrestles with Stalker over the disarming of the bomb is very pivotal. That's all I want to say right now. After all, its almost midnight here.

Wait a moment. I don't think the Writer did really change as human being by any stretch of imagination... maybe he became "aware" of the psychological barriers which tainted his soul and almost turned him into an "empty" version of his former original self but... THAT'S ALL!
He was fighting with the Stalker because he was afraid that the Room could be a real danger to humankind, materializing all the "undesidered" wishes (see the Porcupine episode) Humans keep "stored" inside themselves. Since the Writer realized to be "full" of undesidered wishes on his own, the Room was no longer a miracle but a calamity.
So what's the point?
I don't see any self-realization or evolution in his character... as much as I can see nothing on Professor's side, except sadness and disappointment about life.

If we have to argue about anything concerning Writer... at least, he somewhat began to believe into the Zone, but only as far as concerned the "negative aspects" of it.