An unnamed man just completed his prison sentence for being a “stalker,” the name given to individuals who illegally guide others through a mysterious land known as the “Zone.”
The Zone behaves as a sentient entity where the typical laws of physics do not seem to apply. The government strictly restricts access to this area because at its center lies a room where all your desires can be fulfilled. Inside the Zone, lush wildlife grows out of abandoned train tracks, powerlines and buildings.
Shortly after Stalker’s release, he is hired by a writer who fears losing his inspiration and fame, along with a professor who previously won a Nobel Prize in physics for studying the Zone. Stalker avoids specifying names, locations or times, adding to the mysterious energy surrounding the Zone.
At two hours and 43 minutes, “Stalker” is a slow-paced film that may feel like too much for some viewers. Despite being a sci-fi drama, the film differs from the genre’s expectations, focusing on characters’ philosophy and dialogue over an action-packed adventure. While it is a unique experience, the plot’s flow can feel daunting and challenging to remain engaged with.
Members of the Wildcat Film Appreciation Society, however, enjoyed the uncommon artistic style over the plot. Ethan Hayden, senior in environmental science and member of WFAS, joked about his appreciation despite his struggle to understand.
“I loved every single second of it, but I do not have the faintest idea of what happened in this film,” Ethan said. “I’ll figure it out one of these days, but it definitely won’t be tonight.”
The scenery of the film stood out to me. It opens in the ordinary world covered by a muted sepia filter, making everything look bleak and lifeless. Once the protagonists enter the Zone, the environment shifts drastically as the landscape is overgrown with green wildlife covered in thick fog. The strong visual contrast emphasizes the mundane life in the normal world versus the tempting mysteries in the Zone.
Rather than giving clear answers, Stalker asks abstract questions about a person’s faith, desire and human nature. The conversations between the stalker, writer and professor feel emotionally distant; their conversations read more as debates for viewers to reflect on than moments that directly affect the plot. While it’s an interesting approach, it may leave some viewers struggling to fully grasp the film.
George Colburn, president of WFAS and a senior in English education, explained how the film’s deep topics grew on him over time.
“It took a long time to marinate,” he said. “Only a year after watching, I kept thinking, ‘Hey, that scene was kind of weird.’ One thing I thought was interesting was the lecture on music. It’s the most man-made, artificial thing thought of, yet it appears that it pierces humanity in such a natural way.”
Overall, this film got a mixed reaction from me. I can appreciate the artistic intention behind its slow pace and philosophical approach, and many of the conversations are undeniably thought-provoking. However, the length and abstract storytelling made it difficult for me to stay engaged. Personally, I would rate it a 2.5 out of 5. Director Andrei Tarkovsky had a specific audience in mind, and he made a film that is powerful for them, but I am not one of those people.