![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dotintheskyDear Dobrila,
Two days ago, on the Saturday, Kevin managed to get some free tickets for a screening of "Stalker" by Andrei Tarkovsky. They have been showing classic Russian films at the National Gallery every Saturday for free, and since neither one of us had seen "Stalker" before we decided to give it a try. The cinema was packed (mostly with old people - Kevin's friend Joel, who saw the film with us, said that old people always know when and where there's a free movie showing.) The first thought that came into my mind was that Tarkovsky is your favourite film director, and that you must have seen "Stalker" before. Only natural, therefore, that I should write to you about the film and find out what you think of it.
Joel said that the origianl version of the film had a bigger budget and more stunning visuals. The field of destroyed tanks, for example, which shows how inneficient the army was in invading the alien "Zone", had hundreds of destroyed tanks in the original version. When Tarkovsky sent the film to the labs afterwards, the film rolls were "accidentaly" destroyed. Tarkovsky insisted on filming, using a smaller budget, but he had a hard time convincing the main actor to continue: when you see the anguish of the actor on the screen, part of it is thanks to his fears of a reprisal by the U.S.S.R. government.
I don't think the small budget takes away from the film. Now that we can look back on history, safe in our superior knowledge of what was really going on in the U.S.S.R., it makes more sense to see how weak the military actually was, how ineffectual their weapons were, with the help of a small film budget. Because Tarkovsky had to work with so little, there's this great sense of illusion in the film: for example, a lingering shot of boxes in a field of grass suddenly reveals that they are actually destroyed tanks, or a mound of white dust on a floor becomes the bodies of a man and a woman. What he couldn't do with epic sceneries, he chose to do with tricks of the eye.
It was also one of the scariest science-fiction movies I've ever seen. Once again, the idea that what is suggested rather than shown is the worst possible horror proved to be true. I still don't know if what was to be feared in the "Zone" existed for real, or only in their minds (but, then again, there has to be a real explanation for the daughter's mutant powers.) Tarkovsky managed to play with our fears and expectations aswell, using "ghost houses", "haunted tunnels" and "black wolves" to good effect. I could also mention the philosophical aspect of the film, the archetypal characters, but it seems to me right now the most obvious thing to discuss - and I wouldn't want to do that. I think I enjoyed more the horror and sci-fi aspects of the movie.
I just wanted to let you know that it was the first time I saw a Tarkovsky film, and that I loved it. I had images of you in my mind, watching it in Concordia's film centre (you must have sat there and seen all their archived films, didn't you?)
I have another reason for writing too: I wanted to know how you and your baby are doing. Have you decided on a name for the child already? Where are you living now and what have you been up to? Also, have you been in touch with Sonya? I lost touch with her and I would like to write her an email soon. I hope you are both doing well... send me news soon and ideas for what films I should see next.
Love, xo
Two days ago, on the Saturday, Kevin managed to get some free tickets for a screening of "Stalker" by Andrei Tarkovsky. They have been showing classic Russian films at the National Gallery every Saturday for free, and since neither one of us had seen "Stalker" before we decided to give it a try. The cinema was packed (mostly with old people - Kevin's friend Joel, who saw the film with us, said that old people always know when and where there's a free movie showing.) The first thought that came into my mind was that Tarkovsky is your favourite film director, and that you must have seen "Stalker" before. Only natural, therefore, that I should write to you about the film and find out what you think of it.
Joel said that the origianl version of the film had a bigger budget and more stunning visuals. The field of destroyed tanks, for example, which shows how inneficient the army was in invading the alien "Zone", had hundreds of destroyed tanks in the original version. When Tarkovsky sent the film to the labs afterwards, the film rolls were "accidentaly" destroyed. Tarkovsky insisted on filming, using a smaller budget, but he had a hard time convincing the main actor to continue: when you see the anguish of the actor on the screen, part of it is thanks to his fears of a reprisal by the U.S.S.R. government.
I don't think the small budget takes away from the film. Now that we can look back on history, safe in our superior knowledge of what was really going on in the U.S.S.R., it makes more sense to see how weak the military actually was, how ineffectual their weapons were, with the help of a small film budget. Because Tarkovsky had to work with so little, there's this great sense of illusion in the film: for example, a lingering shot of boxes in a field of grass suddenly reveals that they are actually destroyed tanks, or a mound of white dust on a floor becomes the bodies of a man and a woman. What he couldn't do with epic sceneries, he chose to do with tricks of the eye.
It was also one of the scariest science-fiction movies I've ever seen. Once again, the idea that what is suggested rather than shown is the worst possible horror proved to be true. I still don't know if what was to be feared in the "Zone" existed for real, or only in their minds (but, then again, there has to be a real explanation for the daughter's mutant powers.) Tarkovsky managed to play with our fears and expectations aswell, using "ghost houses", "haunted tunnels" and "black wolves" to good effect. I could also mention the philosophical aspect of the film, the archetypal characters, but it seems to me right now the most obvious thing to discuss - and I wouldn't want to do that. I think I enjoyed more the horror and sci-fi aspects of the movie.
I just wanted to let you know that it was the first time I saw a Tarkovsky film, and that I loved it. I had images of you in my mind, watching it in Concordia's film centre (you must have sat there and seen all their archived films, didn't you?)
I have another reason for writing too: I wanted to know how you and your baby are doing. Have you decided on a name for the child already? Where are you living now and what have you been up to? Also, have you been in touch with Sonya? I lost touch with her and I would like to write her an email soon. I hope you are both doing well... send me news soon and ideas for what films I should see next.
Love, xo
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2004-08-16 08:59 am (UTC)haha, sorry, just wanted to reply. :-*
no subject
on 2004-08-16 09:27 am (UTC)no subject
on 2004-08-16 09:34 am (UTC)no subject
on 2004-08-17 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
on 2004-08-16 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2004-08-16 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2004-08-16 09:02 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2004-08-16 09:23 pm (UTC)