Stalker (The Criterion Collection) [Blu-ray]

It'd been many years since I had seen Stalker, Andrei Tarkovsky's excellent science fiction film, and I watched it last night. For a science fiction movie, Stalker is certainly an oddity. Released in 1979, loosely based on the short novel Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, and directed by Tarkovsky, the masterful Russian director who lived too short a life, it tells the tale of a part of Russia that has been visited by an odd event. It may have been a meteorite that fell, or it may have been an alien visitation. But the event created the Zone, a dangerous area which was cordoned off by the police, and where few could go. A Stalker - a sort of guide who takes people through the traps in the Zone - meets up with two men who want to visit the Room, a place where wishes come true. One is a Professor, a man of reason, and the other a writer, a man of inspiration. The Stalker is a man of belief. Very little happens in the movie, which lasts more than 2 1/2 hours, except for their trip to the Room, and their discovery of what they want from it. Stalker is science fiction only in its premise; there are no aliens, no magic, nothing that would be noticed as science fiction. It is a slow movie; very little happens, and some of the shots are several minutes long. It's a science fiction movie as it would have been written by Samuel Beckett. Yet it's a brilliant existential examination of the desires of men and women. At first, the film begins in sepia-toned black-and-white, but once the three characters reach the Zone, the film changes to color. Just as Oz was in color, so was the Zone. The Zone is located outside an industrialized city, and is full of the detritus of modernity. Yet Tarkovsky films these banal, cast-off items with the plastic beauty that he showed in all his films. Some of the shots are breathtakingly haunting, yet there is nothing special in them. In a prescient shot, near the end of the movie, the Stalker can be seen returning to his home with his wife and daughter, and, across the river, a nuclear power plant is seen. The Zone could be the area surrounding Chernobyl. There is no devastation, simply signs of nature taking over some human artefacts. According to an interview with the production designer, the film took two years to shoot. The first year's footage was lost, apparently because it was an experimental film stock that couldn't be developed. (Though that suggests that it was only sent for development after the entire film was shot, which seems at odds with the way movies were created at the time.) Tarkovsky then started over, reshooting the entire movie, over another year. The DVD is decently produced, though the English subtitles are a bit clunky. It contains the original mono soundtrack, and also a recent 5.1 mix, which, in my opinion, ruins the movie. It is merely the mono soundtrack with added environmental sounds, trying to create "atmosphere," yet Tarkovsky used a lot of silence in this film, and the surround mix is never quiet. I first saw Stalker in the early 1980s at a retrospective of movies by Wim Wenders in New York. Wenders had made a selection of films to be shown with his movies, and, preceding his Kings of the Road (In the Course of Time), was Stalker and John Ford's The Searchers. All three of these movies are quests, searches for people or ideas, and the very long program that day (more than 7 hours) was an extraordinary example of three different approaches to the quest movie. Since then, it has been one of my favorite films. It's an odd movie, more like a Beckett play than science fiction, yet it is unforgettable. If you've never seen Stalker, you should by all means watch it. It is a truly unforgettable movie by one of the great directors of the 20th century. His life and career were too short, but his films are all masterpieces.

This is my updated review -- for the Criterion Blu-ray edition: The Blu-ray is crystal clear and a huge improvement on the DVD that I bought years ago (by KINO). The sound is also vastly better. It is like seeing the film for the 1st time again. Criterion did an awesome job on this, Thank-You! If you like journeys into abandoned places and landscapes, and also philosophical 'meaning of Life' tales, and a sprinkle of lovely spoken poetry... not to mention fantastic, mesmerizing scenery that lingers in your mind - then this is a film experience that you should enjoy. But it is a slow-paced film (but that is its charm as well, for me). When I watch this, it gives me a 'mind-break vacation' from the daily world of our often crazy reality... 'Stalker' was adapted from the Strugatsky brothers novel ' Roadside Picnic', and is that rare film that takes time to watch and understand the story, but it is well worth the effort. It is a surreal road trip... like 'The Wizard of Oz' crossed with an extended episode of 'The X-Files'! (but in Russian - with English subtitles). And it has humor too. Basically, this is about a 'stalker' - a guide that illegally takes people into a forbidden place called 'The Zone', where it is suggested that something unusual landed years ago, changing the area forever. The Zone is very dangerous and mysterious, and many that go in there never return, but will vanish or die without the stalker. Stalker (a nickname) has an almost spiritual relationship with the Zone. It is like a holy and sacred place for him, even with all its known and hidden dangers. Much of the dialog between him and the two people he guides (Professor and Writer) is a big part of the enjoyment of the story, and all of the visuals and cinematography in many scenes make for some very magical and breathtaking film watching! After 2 viewings I was hooked. This is now one of my favorite films (next to '2001' and 'Blade Runner'). I also read the book this was adapted from, and though there are differences, both are satisfying adventures that should not be missed! Along with 'Solaris' (1972), this is one of my favorite films by Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky. He was a real poet of filmmaking , and this might be his masterpiece - a real 'mind trip' of a movie! Thank-You for reading... but go watch 'Stalker' today!

Watch out -- big spoilers here. "Stalker" is the story of a man guiding two others (a Writer and a Scientist) through The Zone (a cordoned off and abandoned wilderness) to The Room where they will achieve their "heart's desire". During the journey we're given the obligatory and angst ridden insights into each man's character and learn that, while the Stalker can get them to the room, he is himself forbidden entry. We also learn of a previous visitor (called Porcupine) who returned from the room to fabulous wealth and then killed himself. "Stalker" has been hailed by many as a masterpiece. But "Stalker" is long and slow (163 minutes), and lots of people (who seem to be anticipating some kind of "Citizen Kane" thing) have trouble with this, get upset, and write reviews about "The Emperor's New Clothes", etc.. Which is fine, because the joke is on them. "Stalker" is one of those movies that either you get, or it gets you. It is, of course, an allegory. The Writer and Scientist are obviously symbols for the right and left brain, and The Stalker is obviously a Film Director (Artist). The Journey is the work itself, and the Room is the mirror that great Art is: to enter is to risk discovering something new about yourself. This is why Porcupine committed suicide: when he discovered his heart's desire he couldn't face it. Eventually the Stalker gets Writer and Scientist to the threshold of the room, but the journey has shown them enough about themselves to give them second thoughts -- they are petty, vengeful, shallow, narcissistic, insecure -- and on the verge of achieving their "heart's desire", they refuse to go in. Back home they go their separate ways, the Stalker returning to his miserable home, long-suffering wife, and crippled child. He is despairing: he won't go back there, can't make the journey again. It's a waste of time. But while he sleeps his wife tells us otherwise. Tarkovsky's science fiction films are probably his most autobiographical: "Solaris" (his relationship with his father), "Stalker" (his wife), and "The Sacrifice" (his son). Depending on your mood, they can all be a hard slog, but it is "Stalker" that is probably the most gut-wrenchingly personal: it describes the agony, effort and despair that confronts any artist trying to make something of value. And the humiliation when it is wasted on fools. "Stalker" is a film about Art, The Audience and The Artist that is so masterfully constructed it traps the Audience inside the idea that is the film: a work of Art about the Artist amd his Audience; a complete statement about the relationship between Director and Audience: if you are watching this film, then this film is about you. It's a gag worthy of the Coen Brothers (maybe even the Marx Brothers in "Go West"). Once the film begins, you are there: you *are* on the journey (literally and metaphorically). You *are* taken to the room (literally and metaphorically). An artist trying to see their own work is like a magician trying to be surprised by his own tricks. Whatever the original inspiration might've been, in the end it's reduced to process -- the journey. Like the Stalker, this was Tarkovksy's lot in life -- no magic, just a long and arduous journey to a place that someone else will get to enjoy. But if you've ever made art, you will recognize the path, and sometimes that's enough. For everyone else, love it or hate it, "Stalker" -- the movie -- *is* the room. You looked into the mirror, and you didn't even know it. Or maybe you did.

The one essential characteristic of any effective work of art, let alone a true work of genius, is its ability to reflect the viewer's consciousness. True art is never fixed, never stationary, never inert: it shifts and changes slightly in the exact measure as has the consciousness of he or she who experiences it since the last time it was encountered. That Tarkovsky's Stalker is a work of genius is indisputable as far as I'm concerned. If you are planning to watch it, however (and I could not encourage you more strongly to do so), there is one caveat: don't approach it expecting to see an action thriller, or anything approaching typical Hollywood fare, otherwise you will be highly confused & sorely disappointed. In its way, it has its own very powerful moments of action and suspense, but like all of Tarkovsky's work, and this one in particular, it needs to be approached with a sort of open-minded, contemplative attitude, otherwise it will glance off your consciousness like a stone skipping across a pond, leaving behind a similarly irritated & incoherent aftermath. If, however, you approach it in the right state of mind (which is to allow yourself to be quiet & patient enough to allow IT to determine your state of mind; again, like all of Tarkovsky's work, the cinematography and mise en scene is deliberately intended to evoke a certain, definitely altered state of consciousness in the viewer), then you will find an endlessly rewarding experience in feeling the weight of its sheer beauty and noetic ineffability plummet and swirl into the deepest levels of your psyche. This movie is, in my opinion, one of the greatest works, not just of film, but of art, period. Also, the two bonus interviews at the end of Disc 2 with the cinematographer and set designer are both surprisingly good. Both of these guys were clearly deeply affected by Tarkovsky as a person and by working with him on this film in general. The set designer (who lived with Tarkovsky & his family for two years while the film was being made) also has some very interesting behind-the-scenes things to say about the making of the film itself.

Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker is another one of those movies with a bipolar disorder; You either love it or hate it. Having said this, I must admit that I loved the movie. So be forewarned. This is another review by an enthusiast. Stalker improves upon recollection and has a fascination that one cannot readily explain. The stalker leads others into a mysterious and forbidden zone that is heavily protected by a police state. Was the zone caused by a meteorite? We do not know. We do know that many have entered the zone never to return. And we also know that in the twenty some years since the meteorite fell, a legend has grown up that there exists within the zone a room where one's innermost wish may be granted. The calling of the stalker, who has faith in the legend, is to lead others past the police guards and through the labyrinthine zone to the room. The action begins when a writer and a physicist meet together with the stalker in a dreary bar. Everything is wet and slippery here, as it is through most of the movie. Curiously, the images change from sepia to color as we enter the zone. As the stalker explains the mysteries to us we know that we are not in Kansas anymore. In the decidely un-cartesian zone one never traverses the shortest distance between two points. An indirect approach is always best. Only the stalker can divine the way, which is confused beyond words. It is an understatement to say that the scenes are disquieting. The zone is strewn with syringes, silt, and debris of all kinds. Everything seems to be wet, including the visitors. But they don't mind. They are engaged in philosophical-religious speculation! For shame to think of personal comfort when larger issues are at stake. It is remarkable that in 1980 Tarkovsky created a film about a dangerous zone strewn with debris, where children of frequent visitors have deformed children. I cannot escape the conclusion that this film artistically predicted Chernobyl. In many ways the zone is like life (where sometimes progress is simple and other times it is confused beyond words). In other ways it is like death. But it is not all gloom and doom. The Stalker is, in his original way, beatific. Through the prayerful monologue of the stalker Tarkovsky accomplishes the transcendent moments characteristic of all of his films. The stalker's faith is reminiscent of the cargo cults of the South Pacific. That the object of his faith is pathetic makes it no less sincere. The unnamed "writer" and "professor" are profoundly different individuals whose only common experience seems to be suffering. But the quality of their suffering is different. Our "writer" has specialized in a kind of suffering that contaminates all who come within the orbit of his wit. The professor has suffered alone, in intellectual isolation. The stalker has suffered as well, but he has sacrificed his suffering and has attained an acceptance of life through faith. It is a fragile acceptance though, one that can be shaken by intellectuals convinced that they have been "born for something". Stalker convinces us that a man be so misguided as to worship the most pathetic of objects. If such a man has sacrificed his suffering he is greater than the most exalted intellectual. I am impressed that you have read this review from beginning to end. You must really be a fine person!

I recently got into the world of Soviet cinema when I watched the 1986 sci-fi bizarro comedy "Kin Dza Dza" on Amazon Instant Video. Shocked by what a good feature it was, I searched for more Soviet science fiction and came across two films by the same director that stood out: "Solaris" and this film, "Stalker." I was a little underwhelmed by Solaris, don't get me wrong I liked Solaris a lot, but it didn't match what I expected it to be in my head. "Stalker," on the other hand, went way above and beyond my expectations. As you probably know, Stalker is a film about a sort of guide, called a stalker, who guides people through a surreal landscape sectioned off by the government due to its unpredictability called "The Zone," which was supposedly the sight of an alien crash landing some thirty years prior in this film set some time in the indefinite future. The stalker's job is to navigate the Zone because of its ever-changing nature and lead his clients to a place called "The Room," which supposedly grants wishes, or rather, makes whatever someone's deepest desire, whatever wish that has caused them the most pain-- make that dream a reality. As a result of this, no one leaves the Zone or the Room the same. The stalker in this movie guides two men going by the aliases of the Professor and the Writer through the Zone and to the Room in what becomes over a series of heated debates between the men leading up to the climax a stunning meditation on the nature of belief. The movie was filmed in the old USSR, where religion was banned. I'm not the most religious person in the world, I'll be the first to admit that, but the stalker seems to be a man of some faith, and is ultimately dismayed at the results of what he says at the end of the film will be the last time he guides anyone through the Zone. He swears he'll never take anyone to the Room again based on the end of his latest adventure because the people he guided there lacked the necessary belief to have their wishes granted, or maybe even the basic belief to even want to have their wishes granted. It's a stunning conclusion, and I'm trying to write it out with as few spoilers as possible, here, but I've already said too much. The film is beautifully restored in a 2K restoration and it was apparently filmed in 4:3 ratio, which I found a little confusing at first, but that's the way it's supposed to look-- if you have a widescreen TV, the black bars on the sides of your screen are normal. I was actually a little taken aback by this at first considering that "Solaris" was filmed in 2:39:1 or at least 16:9 and filled all or most of my television screen. But back in the 1970s and 80s it was not unheard of to film a movie in the 4:3 ratio because that's the same ratio that old TVs were back then. A good example of this is "The Shining," which was filmed in 4:3 and cropped to a more theatrical ratio, which is precisely why I haven't bought "The Shining" on Blu-Ray because all the Blu-Ray versions of "The Shining" are cropped to a 16:9 format from the original 4:3, but in the case of "Stalker" the original aspect ratio is retained and restored in beautiful 2K. The special features didn't speak a whole lot, which is sad considering this is a Criterion Collection Blu-Ray, there were a few interesting interviews from 2002 with some of the people who worked on some of the more technical aspects of the film, but nothing with any of the actors which I assume is because many people involved with direct production of this film got sick from the heavy pollution surrounding the outdoor sets, some of whom even died, including the director. But there's also an interview Geoff Dyer, who's like a superfan of the movie and wrote an entire book about it, but nothing in particular that I found extremely enlightening. This was also the case with the Solaris Blu-Ray-- which I also found sad, aside from the great restoration done on the film itself. So this Blu-Ray is really more about the feature itself than the supplements which are usually the highlights of a Criterion Blu-Ray. All in all, this is a thinking man's movie. I wouldn't recommend it to the casual moviegoer because they're likely not to "get" it. If you liked "Solaris" chances are you'll like "Stalker" even more. It's soft sci-fi bordering on fantasy but sci-fi nonetheless. It was made in a world where all direct talk of gods or God was strictly forbidden and does a great job at getting around that by having several discourses on the nature of God, faith and belief or lack of belief. I watched this film back to back with "Solaris" and that makes for an excellent double feature and if you buy this Blu-Ray, you should probably also buy Solaris on Blu-Ray because as I said, they go well together. But to sum up this review, "Stalker" is a stunning meditation on the nature of belief and what it meant to be a believer in a world that had outlawed believing.

Widely regarded as Tarkovski's "Solaris" sequel "Stalker" is a different film but only a little so as once again the director chooses to focus more on the cerebral, human issues rather than on the "science" in this sci-fi offering. Tarkovski gives a wink to and seems to make fun of the parts of the audience expecting "Solaris Pt 2" by including a strange scene in the beginning of the protagonist's wife writhing on the floor in a kind of painful ecstasy/torment which clearly imitates the scene with the frozen female lead in "Solaris". Otherwise this film deals with the true inner desires of man and whether he is truly ready to face them when given the opportunity or is he just too afraid and so is this endeavour a foolish and pointless one? Maybe what we truly desire is something very different from what we think and can only be provided for spiritually and not materially? As all great classic films do this one challenges the audience and not just with the long nearly 3 hour length but it does make you think and assess your own views and values. Just like "Solaris" this film raises spiritual questions but in a subtle enough way to avoid/confound the Soviet censors. This Criterion release is as expected a well restored picture and sound quality version with a foldout containing an essay on the film also included with the blu ray disc. There is no doubting the master Tarkovsky's brilliant direction and while this is not his best ever film like say "The Mirror" or "Andrei Rublev" this is still a classic worthy of any serious film buff's video library. Highly recommended!

I enjoyed this new version of Stalker. I did not mind the yellow sepia ish effect. This movie reminds me of 3 guys who are on a hallucinogenic trip outdoors The whole film is like that deep self examination that you go through during a serious psychedelic experience. I love this film. I was a little on the fence about the new transfer but quickly came to love it.There is a divide in the meaning of the film in that there are parts that are clear in relation to the types of questions meant to be addressed. The symbolic meaning of having an artist/writer and a scientist are clear in the argument proposed. Tarkovskey is obviously worried about dehumanization and science becoming too advanced as made claer in Solaris -more specifically the ending. I feel this film is in Tarckovsky's slightly commercial category. What i mean by this is ,like Solaris, i feel he uses a futuristic as well as supernatural element (depending on how you interpret those moments) to capture a larger audience while possibly fooling them into finding out something about themselves as well as their environment. This film has one of those artistic fail safe devices that has multiple meanings and even if you do not grasp all of the meanings it is almost impossible to miss some of the intention.There seems to be a lot of elaborate reviews for this so i will point out a few tidbits of significance. There is a very positive point that is explicitly made in that The artist as well as the Scientist seem to upset the Stalker in the end because he thought by taking 2 people of the mind they would understand the lessons of the Zone. The Stalker is an introverted socially lacking type who we find out is most likely equal if not more academically skilled that the 2 professional due to his extensive library of reading materials shown in his house that is purposely not shown at the beginning (even though we see many good interior shots of the Stalkers home. Tarkovsky is making statements that are not hard to figure out such as the overall theme of having hope in life. There is an agnostic as well as a unified field type of suggestion. I have thought for years that Andrei Rebleiv is my favorite Tarkovsky film and i still hold that opinion because i feel it is the ultimate ode to real artists. I also prefer The Mirror ,Nostalgia,Ivans Childhood and The Sacrifice over Solaris or Stalker. Stalker is a film that is growing on me. It does seem to have a direct message while most of Tarkovskies films leave more to ponder. The mystery element of the film is what exactly is the cosmic-ness of the Zone. I find any comparison to Roadside Picnic completely irrelivent to Tarkovskys film. Often people will jump on a film for not being in sync with the book. This is a common response from closed minded people. There is no rule for interpreting a work of art. You never hear anyone going on and on abut the differences in the Richard 11 films. That is because people who know that material are not pop critics. For someone to compare this film with either a. Chernobyl or b. Roadside Picnic is comparing a non argument and instantly turns into puedo intellectual backwash. There may be loose connections to Chernobyl but that would be too obvious. Look at The Sacrifice or Nostalgia. Those films are the only real Tarkovsky films that have a straight forward meaning. This leaves the viewer to form their own meaning using the loose structure Tarkovsky gives them. Anyone who will completely disregard a film because it does not match with the source novel should not be watching an art film to begin with. One of my favorite criticisms of film versus novels is Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Most people do not even realize Nabokov himself wrote the film script, intentionally making it challenging. Challenging in making it able to be a film in the early sixties. Back in the day film studios had legit authors like Capote and Chandler writing film scripts so the Lolita script was actually a great work of art. Hearing Tarintino criticize the script is funny because he is supposed to know so much about films. Back to Stalker, anyone even remotely concerned with the Russian history or book comparison is not only missing the point of the film but also getting stuck in a corner. Each of the characters in the film represent a generalization that could apply to any battle with science, man and nature. I feel this film is very accessible and also the last time Tarkovsky would do that. Calling it a sci-fir film is very non cerebral and again not within the category of films that require a different kind of thinking.

A slightly odd film. Cold, paced, mystical, odd, slightly fearful. Searching for answers, it arrives back with none but the experience. Not to everyone's taste.

Tout est dans le titre. Ce serait dommage de gâcher certaines surprises en lisant trop de commentaires par avance. Il y aura assez de questions ou de détails pour le revoir une seconde fois... L'atmosphère de ce film est simplement unique.

Jetzt soll er also auch im August 2016 auf BluRay erscheinen. Besonders sorgfältig geht man mit solchen künstlerischen Filmen leider nicht um - vor allem im Verkauf. Leider auch nicht hier, denn wie heißt es auf der entsprechenden Amazon Seite in Deutschland im Moment: "Nicht verfügbar, wann und ob der Titel WIEDER verfügbar sein wird...usw." - Naja auf der britischen Seite von Amazon wird man da schlauer und dort kann man sogar schon vorbestellen. Über Jahre war die Artificial Eye DVD Version die beste verfügbare Abtastung des Filmes. Teuer aber lohnenswert. Ich hatte das Vergnügen beides im direkten Vergleich sehen zu dürfen (Artificial Eye Abtastung vs. Icestorm / Rote Version) und da lagen nicht nur Welten, sondern Universen dazwischen*. Allerdings war und ist der Nachteil, dass Artificial Eye keine deutsche Tonspur/Synchro anbietet. Selbst einer Licht-Kinokopie war und ist die Artificial Version DVD praktisch ebenbürtig. Das ist insofern kein Wunder weil von Stalker haben praktisch keine "echten" Kinokopien das Jahr 2003 in Deutschland überlebt (damals gab es meines Wissens gerade noch 2 in einem sehr abgerockten Zustand und nur eine mit deutscher (DDR) Synchro, die WDR/ARD Synchro war nicht mehr verfügbar). Demgegenüber hatte Artificial Eye für die DVD wohl sehr aufwendig in Russland eine Neuabtastung von einer noch recht "frischen" bzw. gut erhaltenen Originalkopie machen lassen. Nun kommt Stalker also endlich auf BluRay - für mich weiterhin der Nonplusultrafilm. Tatsächlich und ohne wenn und aber: Mit Sicherheit kein "Unterhaltungsfilm". Langatmig, schwer und dennoch für mich - DER Film, sowohl optisch wie auch thematisch. Allerdings gibt es da doch einen Wermutstropfen: Stalker war, wie hier jemand anderes bereits schrieb, Tarkovskys letzter Film in der damaligen Sowjetunion. Produziert unter schwierigsten Bedingungen und teilweise Widerständen. Tatsächlich ist der Film auf 1,37:1 Filmmaterial gedreht worden (sozusagen 4:3) und nicht 16:9, also 1,78 : 1 bzw. 1,85 :1 oder gar cinemascope. Und das Ursprungsfilmmaterial war nicht das Beste**. Tatsächlich konnte man das auch schon im Kino bemerken und die DVD Version erreicht deshalb bereits annähernd die Auflösungsgrenzen des Originals. Insofern darf man gespannt sein ob die BluRay hier noch eine Verbesserung des Bildes bringt und ob Artificial Eye bei der Produktion 2002 schon so weit gedacht hat, das damalige (gute) Original bereits in HD abtasten zu lassen, oder sich auf DVD Auflösungen beschränkte, und jetzt nur einen "Neuaufguss" im Neuen Gewand verkauft. *Das zeigte sich schon daran, dass der 155 Minuten Film bei Artificial Eye auf 2(!) DVDs gesplittet wurde - um die Datenrate bei der MPEG Kodierung nicht zu weit reduzieren zu müssen. - Also "Rollenwechsel" - fast wie im Kino. ** Große Teile des Originalfimmaterials der Urversion wurden bei der Filmentwicklung zerstört

Consigliata la visione. Un film da vedere e rivedere per poter essere apprezzato in quanto non di chiara e immediata interpretazione. Da avere nella propria cineteca.

The Stalker is quite simply the best movie ever made. In this as in other Tarkovsky movies, the imagery will linger and stay with you for the rest of your lives.This movie is about what really matters, the most important questions that humankind has struggled to answer....the question of faith. This movie is about hope, about faith, the innate philosophical and metaphysical questions that stalk us. It is about God, the mystery, the awe inspiring mystery of God.It is also perhaps about the loss of these very things.I feel there is nothing vague or deliberately mysterious about the movie. The narrative has an urgency unlike Andrei Rublev for instance.The movie is cloaked in religious symbols and the imagery, so surreal but real, is set against a background of waste, dirt, disuse and decay. Perhaps in this too, the allegory is not difficult to follow.The tunnel or pipe scene is a heart stopper and are not all Tarkovsky scenes like paintings?There is something inhuman, frightening, mysterious and detached and distanced about this imagery and that perhaps is the meaning of the the journey in this movie.Some images make you stop and not want to go on seeing the movie further, lest you lose the delirious heartache of that moment.But each image is followed by another devastating image and one soon finds it wiser to assume silence. Tarkovsky's stalker character, I felt, is a medieval mystic guide, given to philosophical sololiquies and reveries.He recites poetry and lies down, like an epileptic. The other two characters, the writer and the professor represent philosophical cynicism and scientific empiricism. The imagery is kafkaesque and viewers might be reminded of The Castle and Before the Law.However, Tarkovsky is not vague and defines the stalker with the strength of religious fervour but not zealous prejudice. As to the Dog.....Vladimir Nabokov cautioned against over analysis, and that surely should be left for each one to decide.