WARNING: Defense of "Stalker" In Progress

[dennis grace]

>MantaRay lashes:
>>We've been bashing Tarkovsky for four or five days now and this is the best
>>you have to offer? <snip> None could give me a satisfactory
>>reason for thinking that movie was anything else other than an exercise in
>>pretentiousness.

dgg replies:
>Okay, MR, how about chacun a son gout?  Or, de gustibus non disputandem est?
>I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, but I found _Stalker_ haunting and
>often heart-wrenching.  The opening sequence drags, but it also creates a
>profound sense of menace that maintains throughout much of the film.
>Tarkovsky also eschews the easy answer once inside the Zone.  Sure, at first
>I was annoyed by the fact that the Stalker was unclear as to the particular
>danger inherent in a misstep in the Zone, but once a character strayed,
>Tarkovsky managed to show the possible consequences in terms of the terror
>of shifting perspectives without any facile reliance upon explosions or FX
>monsters. 

I feel I'm jumping into somewhat unfamiliar waters here and perhaps a bit
over my own head, but, hey, what's the worst that could happen?

I have to agree with my husband (dgg) on this one. Stalker's not the kind of
movie to bring home when you're looking for some easy entertainment, but
that's obviously not what the filmmaker had in mind. The long, dragged out
sections can be difficult to sit through for most of us sound-bitten
Americans, who tend to let the screen outline the next step for our every
thought. I believe that's one of the elements that makes Stalker so
disturbing--it provides us with a more than adequate space for thought; one
could easily say it demands that we think.

It can be difficult to will yourself to be openminded enough to strive for a
glimpse of less than familiar perspective, threatening even. The Stalker's
ultimate maintaining of his traditional denial of the satisfaction
(attainment of one's _true_ desire) he leads his "clients" to (is there here
a suggestion that satisfation or attainment of desire and purity cannot
co-exist?), added to one of his "clients'" ultimate refusal of his own
desire, and the near-inaccessibility of this place where desires can
actually _be_ accessed, leads us to question, among other things, the worth
of desire. There's also the strong suggestion that the worth of an
individual can be judged by the quality of his desires. There are some
pretty disturbing concepts laid on the table for our contemplation. Yet the
ending of the film leaves us with hope. The daughter, physically
flawed/challenged as she is (and an obvious product of human desire), is
shown, like the Zone, in color, leaving us the suggestion that at the core
of our own human nature, there is still beauty, there is still hope, and
that at some level, perhaps we do attain our true desires.

Like I said, I'm probably way out of my league here, but I really hate
seeing an extremely thoughtful work like this dismissed out of hand. Much
like the old adage of "If it's worth having, it's worth working for," I
would suggest the same as far as understanding and appreciation for
unfamiliar concepts.

scooting back out of Dennis' mailbox now,
Dory Grace