Versions?

[LetoAtreides]

Are there any special versions of STALKER which are longer or shorter than the original cut?

[The Ferret]

letoatreides said:

Are there any special versions of STALKER which are longer or shorter than the original cut?

There's the scrapped 1977 original version --- half of the movie was actually filmed, presumibly with a much higher budget and lot of special effects. Something wrong happened with the photographic development of the tape, and it "went off" all tinted in green. Apparently, Tarkovsky took the chance, because he was unhappy with the screenplay anyway.

The tape should be somewhere.

What do you know about this "incident"? There are lot of discrepancies and theories...

[Pauk]

As far as I know the first variant was not richer in special effects. There were however experiments with the technical side - some "aquarium" effect.
The material was corrupted beyond saving, apart from some very short sequences. The editor Lyudmila Feiginova apparently had stored them, but they are said to have perished in the fire (the woman was killed in it). That's at least the official story.
No other finished versions exist.

[The Ferret]

Oh God, I'm going crazy.
I know in the original 1977 version there were many other "liquified" tanks and some more optical effects. What do you know about the 'Aquarium' rendition? It sounds very interesting. Why did Tarkovsky drop that from the definitive 1979 version?

I read that the filmed product was all "tinted in green", but nothing worse. So, theorically, you can still see it as well.

Feiginova is one of the many victims of what should be defined as the 'curse of the Stalker'.

When was the original version ('Wish Machine') filmed? Early or late 1977? And when did they film the definitive version? 1978? When was 'Stalker' theatrically released? Any date?

We should talk about the differences in the screenplays, too.

[Pauk]

Yes, in the first variant, they had plenty of artifacts. Due to the budget (and director's whim) the scenery was never recreated.
The "aquarium" effect was based on using extra filters, in order to make an effect of looking through an aquarium wall. In other word, they tried to achieve visual effects while shooting. As long as I know and understand, the material was physically destroyed.

From the interviews with Feiginova from nostalghia.com
tarkovskyzone.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=porcupine&action=display&thread=1129834750&page=1#1129834750

Lusya, has anything survived from the first version of Stalker? And what has really happened to the emulsion?

From the 5,000 metres filmed, only individual film frames survived, the ones I had cut out from every episode and subsequently sent to Andrei Arsenevich. We wanted to store the negative at Bielyie Stolby but some idiot there — I forget his name — said Filmofond was not a junkyard.

It was all very simple. At the Goskino someone who didn't even know me — when he saw how upset I was — told me: "Well, what did you expect, this is an outdated emulsion, it doesn't satisfy the norms". And then look how they developed it.

After finishing a portion of the material Andrei Arsenevich would stop the shooting and rush out to argue and they would say: "Everything will be all right". It is complete nonsense to say that Andrei Arsenevich refused the material because he wanted a second version. [...] It was only the gigantic strength of Tarkovsky's will; he managed to go back to the original idea for the film and to give birth to a new Stalker. Tarkovsky was rewriting it with his own blood! No other director would ever do such a thing. At the same time Andrei Arsenevich was very economical and watched every kopeck. They reshot entire film for the money that was set aside for Part Two — this was simply heroism.
---
I keep materials for the first variant of Stalker shot by the amazing cameraman G. Rerberg. This is brilliant material, both in its directing and in its photographic mastery. During the shooting of Stalker a disaster struck. The entire filmed material turned up defective. The problem started with the Committee for cinematography acquiring the precious Kodak film through one of its divisions abroad. Portions of this emulsion were given to different film production groups. And when they got a defect, the groups simply reshot their damaged materials without much fuss. But Stalker was shot on this film in its entirety. The defect was not immediately obvious. They tried to determine whose fault it was. Some said that Rerberg intentionally, at the director's insistence, had used filtration to have the image acquire an "aquarium" look. Tarkovsky had a foreboding something funny was happening to the emulsion. He kept asking the lab to check every portion of the shot material thoroughly, he flew from Tallinn to Moscow telling the lab personnel that something was not right. Still, they weren't rejecting any material, the filming continued and all the nature shots were finished. The money alotted for them was spent. In the end the film defect was confirmed and the director and the crew found themselves in a critical position. Tarkovsky found the only possible way out — make it a two-part film, get the money for the second part and shoot it all over again.

From another interview:

Yet some of Rerberg's shots — two, I think — survive in the finished film: that chemical foam which we had filmed before wasn't there anymore, it was impossible to redo this.

The other surviving shot is believed to be the one where we see Stalker lying in the water, in sepia, head on his fist, and he turns his face toward camera - a very brief sequence.

The first version (it was already called Stalker, I suppose, the other titles have never left the paper) was being filmed in 1977 - 1978. The "second part" was filmed in 1978 - 1979. Released in 1980, 193 copies, 4,3 million viewers.

[The Ferret]

1980? Are you sure? I thought 'STALKER' got a teathrical release in 1979.

[Pauk]

Well, the film had premiere at Moscow film festival in august of 1979. One thing I am sure of - there had been negative reaction from "above", thus there was only a little number of copies (having in mind the vast territory of USSR) and it was not shown very wide. It was no blockbuster, and it reached its audience very slowly.

[The Ferret]

malishas said:

Well, the film had premiere at Moscow film festival in august of 1979. One thing I am sure of - there had been negative reaction from "above", thus there was only a little number of copies (having in mind the vast territory of USSR) and it was not shown very wide. It was no blockbuster, and it reached its audience very slowly.

Frankly, I still don't understand all the story. First part, second part, re-shooting... if Tarkovsky used the "incident" as an excuse to film 'STALKER' again because the screenplay was unsatisfactory to him.... Ijust don't "grasp" it.
It's all confused in my mind, and the interview didn't help that much (language barrier; just don't know).

Can you sum it up, Spider? Maybe, maybe, maybe... that would be a terrific idea. You should edit a section in the 'Secret Archives of the Laboratory 9'... featuring a brief story of the movie written by youself.

That would help the many people who read the many divergent and often misleading theories surrounding the creation and shooting of 'STALKER'.

[Pauk]

I am working on the stuff. I can see the whole process rather clearly, though it is a bit of a mess-up with the dates. So stay tuned.

Current variant(s) of the time-line are to be found behind the barbed wire> tarkovskyzone.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=porcupine&action=display&thread=1161788751

[The Ferret]

malishas said:

I am working on the stuff. I can see the whole process rather clearly, though it is a bit of a mess-up with the dates. So stay tuned.

Thanks God !!!

This threat is not over, anyway. If someone has something to add about censored versions of the definitive 'STALKER' movie, this is the place!