Stalker II

[The Ferret]

[glow=red,2,300]"I'm interested in the problem of inner freedom..." [/glow]


The following excerpt is taken from a marvellous tape-recorded interview Jerzy Illg and Leonard Neuger did to Tarkovsky:

"In Stalker, for example, the Stalker himself is perhaps not so important to me, much more important is the Writer who went to the Zone as a cynic, just a pragmatist, and returned as a man who speaks of human dignity, who realised he was not a good man. For the first time he even faces this question, is man good or bad? And if he has already thought of it — he thus enters the path... And when the Stalker says that all his efforts were wasted, that nobody understood anything, that nobody needed him — he is mistaken because the Writer understood everything. And because of that the Stalker himself is not even so important.

Something else is interesting in this context. I wanted to make another film, a sequel to Stalker in which... — This was possible only in Russia, in the Soviet Union, it's impossible now because the Stalker and his wife would have to be played by the same actors. Something else is important here: that he changes, he doesn't believe anymore that people could go to this happiness, towards the happiness of self-transformation, an inner change. And he begins to change them by force, he begins to force and kidnap them to the Zone by means of some swindles — in order to make their lives better. He turns into a fascist. And here we have how an ideal can — for purely ideological reasons — turn into its negation; when the goal already justifies the means man changes. He leads three men to the Zone by force — this is what I wanted to show in the second film — and he does not shy away even from bloodshed in order to accomplish his goal. This is already the idea of the Grand Inquisitor, those who take on themselves sin in the name of, so to speak..."
Andrei Tarkovsky, Stocholm, March 1985





NOSTALGHIA.COM reported the whole interview, however: www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/interview.html

[LetoAtreides]

I see what he is trying to say. In the film towards the end, there is a scene in that watery room where the writer and the Stalker get into a physical fight. That's where we first get to see that the Stalker is not just a victim, but also the offender, or can be. The writer tells him he doesn't care about mankind. He doesn't want the bomb to be disarmed, as far as I can recall. All that.
It was very unclear to me and still is. Hopefully I can figure it out, you can help me.

[The Ferret]

LetoAtreides said:

I see what he is trying to say. In the film towards the end, there is a scene in that watery room where the writer and the Stalker get into a physical fight. That's where we first get to see that the Stalker is not just a victim, but also the offender, or can be. The writer tells him he doesn't care about mankind. He doesn't want the bomb to be disarmed, as far as I can recall. All that.
It was very unclear to me and still is. Hopefully I can figure it out, you can help me.

The Stalker quickly realized strength was the worst possible choice to save the Zone. He had to become weak in order to gain emotional energy and stop the Scientist.

It was the Scientist, not the Writer, anyway. He literally "build up" the 20-kilotones nuclear bomb. He was afraid that the Zone - whatever it really was what supposed to be or wasn't at all - could encourage evil men's purposes...

What's about the Porcupine's tragic story? I have the sensation Italian dubbers messed it up a little bit... can you tell me about it? (the Brother; his conscious wish; his unconscious secret wish; What the Room accomplished for him; the suicide). Thanks.

[LetoAtreides]

Yes, but the writer is the one that had a brawl with the Stalker because he (Stalker) wanted to prevent the scientist from dismantling that bomb. Or am I wrong?

Any which way, it was a real tense and poignant scene. One of the best in the film.

[Pauk]

you folks being eager readers of all the post on Stalker on the net surely know this film is actually the second one, and the first one perished, and so on. and that was Tarkovsky who ordered Strugatsky to remove 'that filthy bandit of his', that is, it was the meaning to make that guy weak and kind of mad, instead of presenting him as a wild and kind of mad. thus the change in Stalker's wife's monolog from 'everyone was afraid of him' to 'everyone was laughing at him'. and the fight scene I find to be completely logical, because the Writer was growing an anger in himself against Stalker, and Stalker is absolutely desperate. I would actually like to see him, forcing happiness into people, who 'are born for a certain purpose, who have a call, who live only once'. and I would like to see him win - through an absolute defeat, of course.

[The Ferret]

Malishas,

I can only say this: welcome aboard! You have a very good insight. I'm actually proud about the way this board is flourishing all over the place.

Thanks.

[Pauk]

Thank you!
I hope you folks can pay a visit a little bit more often, ah?
yours.

[The Ferret]

malishas said:

Thank you!
I hope you folks can pay a visit a little bit more often, ah?
yours.

As soon as I can, I'll advise every member to join the board in a "periodic" way.

[Pauk]

letoatreides said:

I see what he is trying to say. In the film toward the end, there is a scene in that watery room where the writer and the Stalker get into a physical fight. That's where we first get to see that the Stalker is not just a victim, but also the offender, or can be. The writer tells him he doesn't care about mankind. He doesn't want the bomb to be disarmed, as far as I can recall. All that.
It was very unclear to me and still is. Hopefully I can figure it out, you can help me.

I'd say that Writer let's himself express his frustration via this fierce interference. Just before the fight scene Writer scolds out Stalker and says that Stalker chose Professor as his favorite. Writer joins the fight neither intending to help Professor (though there is a split in form of 2+1) nor to save the bomb from dismantling. It's a pure expression of Writer's inner confusion. I believe though it's not the case of a scape goat in form of Stalker. Moreover it is necessary for Stalker to move to a next stage of his inner development both through psychical and physical torment.

[Pauk]

Has anybody seen V for Vendetta? A perfect Stalker II variant - in my eyes. The hero underwent all kind of torments and here he emerges as the savior and the sadist (or fascist, as Tarkovsky put it): belief comes through pain. And belief, according to him, is the most important thing.

Possible spoiler:
He forces both the nation (in macro plan) and the girl (in micro plan) to believe making them suffer.

[The Ferret]

malishas said:

Has anybody seen V for Vendetta? A perfect Stalker II variant - in my eyes. The hero underwent all kind of torments and here he emerges as the savior and the sadist (or fascist, as Tarkovsky put it): belief comes through pain. And belief, according to him, is the most important thing.

BELIEF is what "takes apart" alive people from dead people, if you ask me. If by saying "pain" you truly mean "suffering" and not "sacrifice", then I agree, that's the very only way. There's a fine line between "suffering" and "sacrifice".

The Stalker suffers, but not completely sacrifices himself. If he would quit Stalking, then he would commit the "supreme" sacrifice by his perspective. He don't do that, he just keeps suffering INSIDE.

Will be this the plot of 'STALKER III'? The Stalker retires, everything is lost, the world is delusional.

[MaKS]

admin said:

Will be this the plot of 'STALKER III'? The Stalker retires, everything is lost, the world is delusional.

Wasn't it the plot of "Sacrifice"? the hero sacrificed everything and retired from existence... but the world turns out to be saved somehow - as if there weren't the war. illusional or not, it changed... but i need to watch it again, though