With regards to “Stalker”, one can apply this philosophy in many ways, on the film’s plot, characters but also its technical aspects.ĭespite “Mirror” having received equal amounts of praise from audiences and critics alike, Tarkovsky was still regarded as “difficult” by Russian authorities, especially due to the intellectual nature of his film, ironic given how the director himself has repeatedly explained how his films can be easily “understood” if one is just able to feel rather than think about them. Rather than presenting the impossibility of recording and presenting time, as well as designing it using cutting and camera techniques among others, the medium also had the ability be a “hieroglyph of an absolute truth”, one which demands the audience’s senses more so than its intellect. With regards to the early uses of film, the works of the Brothers Lumiere in France, working within the medium was “sculpting in time”, hence the title of his famous essay.

Of course, one of the aspects of Tarkovsky’s career, one which might have played its important role in building his reputation, was his own set of rules, poetics for film similar to Aristotle’s famous work on the rules of the arts, especially theater.

Considering the almost universal outbreak of joy when Criterion announced a newly restored version of the film in 2017 along with a limited theatrical re-release, the admiration for the craft of this man will not cease but rather increase, given the universal nature of his art as well.

“Stalker”, together with “Mirror” and “Solaris”, has perhaps become something of a holy grail for film enthusiasts and cinephiles worldwide, manifesting Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky’s reputation as one of the most discussed and universally liked artists (and don’t you even dare criticize him) of the medium.

Stalker noise of the zone