Tuesday, July 30, 2013

A PIER PAOLO PASOLINI tribute, by Abel Ferrara


Abel Ferrara acts like a man. As he has mentioned many times that Pier Paolo Pasolini was one of the most inspiring figures for his works, he decided to dedicate him a film.
And who better than Ferrara, who among other stuff  has directed a porn film where the protagonist actress was  his girlfriend (of that time), can respond to Pasolini’s controversy?

It seems like the director has officially entrusted Willem Dafoe  for the role of Pasolini. For me personally, he could have chosen someone less American than Dafoe. Not because I have doubts about his dramatical mastery, but because I would like to see any European actor (preferably Italian) in the role of Pasolini, so long as  Pasolini himself was a strong critic of consumer culture, with which America embodies herself (even if we do not agree to this kind of “embody”). And more likely that anti-consumerism killed him. That disobedience "ate him".

The film focuses on the last days of Pasolini, in November 1975. As the master returns from Sweden in his hometown, at a dinner between friends someone tells him that he must immediately stop criticizing Christian Democrats. Pasolini says offended that he does not care how it is going to end, someone should be there to criticize that “puppet” government. End is known.

Only in 2005 these facts were made known, throwing new doubts over the distant murder of 1975. Although after "Salo", even if  the political motives of  Pasolini's murder were not spoken loudly , they were intended. "Salo" is his final mockery to consumer culture, to all those paunchy or slender bourgeoisie members, fascism and moderated fascists who label themselves capitalists.
Pasolini was a declared communist, not since the beginning, but after witnessing from nearly those  inhuman massacres against Jews by the Nazi-Fascists. His communism was different from that of others. Even among the Communists themselves he was a divergent man, after  his statements  against allowing abortion, or even more after his criticism of the student movement in Italy in '69 (in this case Pasolini was on the police side cause they were the true proletariat).

I bolded the  political profile of Pasolini, because this profile shows that Pasolini, like all the great personalities of all areas, at all times, never becomes an integral part of any group, at the point where the group's principles interfere with his own principles.
Pier Paolo Pasolini is an example of the intellectual man, who does not easily compromise, one of those  kind of intellectuals who will be always a minority in this dark, letterless world.
Abel Ferrara is a high-toned director, perhaps one of the best of our time. We can not blame him that "no one decided to eat him because of his disobedience." This may be his subconscious reason to devote a film to someone who sacrificed too much because of  principles similar to his own ones (I continue to insist, only in appearance). But after all, only form is visible for all (in art), so I think we are going to watch a good movie.

Filming starts in 2014, immediately after "Welcome to New York".

 But.. .I am still a fanatical worshipper of the “philosopher-artist”, and Mr. Ferrara is not one of these guys. Pasoloni was ;)...by Led Kasapi

Friday, July 19, 2013

Akira Kurosawa's Dreams 1990

I didn’t select randomly "Dreams" by Akira Kurosawa. I could choose between "Drunken Angel", "Rashomon", "The Hidden Fortress", "Seven Samuari", "Dodesukaden" or "Kagemusha" to talk about the genius of this master appreciated worldwide. Of course I also appreciate all of these films with no exception. There are a variety of scenes that I can’t erase of my mind. But however ... I selected "Dreams" (Yume), though it has received no international price. And anyone with reason may say that it does not fully represent Kurosawa's style of filmmaking.

Why "Dreams", when there are all those titles mentioned above?

Because  "Dreams" has left a long lasting smile on my lips. And sometimes one needs to overlive this. This film has not that epic pomposity that characterizes most creations of the Japanese genius. It's almost childish. I have also seen a dream similar to the first one " Sunshine Through The Rain" long time ago.

“Dreams" seems to be so perceptible and tender. What has amazed me when I noticed the year when the film was realized was that Akira remained unchanged until the end. Maybe in ‘90 years people expected something more high-tech. But no, Akira remains Akira. Even when Warner Bros. has the distribution rights for the film , still Akira remains Akira. My first impression was that the film should been realized during the late '70s. But the genius pays attention to image details, even when this is not a trend. Even when to the world are served only meanless beautiful stories, but so poorly composed (of these films we see today, at their very best you remember any mot, but no image).
Sunshine Through The Rain
The Peach Orchard


The film consists of eight dreams:1.Sunshine Through The Rain,2.The Peach Orchard,3.The Blizzard,4.The Tunnel,5.Crows,6.Mount Fuji in Red.7.The Weeping Demon,8.Village of the Watermills.

The Blizzard
In the first two dreams " Sunshine Through The Rain " and " The Peach Orchard ", the dream owner  is a kid. And it seems that magic realism that runs throughout the film, here becomes even more magical. All those dreams, except the fifth and the last, are accompanied by a kind of fear and anxiety. Same to  that bad sensation that we all have experienced at least once while dreaming. But the fifth dream " Crows " and the last one " Village of the Watermills " both create a state of peace and harmony that looks like will never end. It's a similar sensation to that tranquility that one can only experience in a dream, completely detached from th
e real world. In the first two dreams (kid) anxiety naturally interlock with inner harmony. Because only a child can experience these two extreme states at the same time.
Crows
Mount Fuji in Red


Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese had a strong hand in facilitating this film. Spielberg was one of the producers and Scorsese was Van Gogh in " Crows ". I’ve always thought that Spielberg is an overrated director. But I don’t lie if I say that I just tripled my respect immediately when I found out his role in making Akira Kurosawa well-known in the United States of America.
The whole film is nothing but the vital human journey , but in another dimension. As a step beyond what we see every day. And this dimension is reflected very well to our dreams.It’s a real life parallelism...vestured by a magic veil.
The Weeping Demon


I think the last two dreams are related to the hereafter. In both versions. Heaven and Hell. In      " The Weeping Demon " is shown a version of hell on earth. On a raped, broken and destroyed land. With no greenery, just a couple of carnivorous plants here and there. This part is Akira’s appeal to stop the destruction of Earth. Demon shows that at the beginning he was a human being. Later he turned into such a creature, as a result of pollution.

Village of the Watermills
Quite the contrary to " Village of the Watermills ". A small terrestrial paradise. No technology. Full of greenery and flowers. Simple and friendly people who live in harmony with each other. And I don’t know why I do believe that lack of 'high-tech' in this film is not a random choice."
The Tunnel


The Tunnel " is a similar fragment to the rest of Kurosawas creativity. An officer in the hereafter gates facing with his dead soldiers. All pale, dead, marching proud. The officer asks them to go back in the dead land, because only thus will find peace. But only when they hear the command like once in the army, they respond to the officer. They don’t obey when he speaks with a normal tone. Maybe they can’t hear. But for sure they may hear and respect their officer voice when he talks like a commandant.  Because Akira never forgets to tell us the Samurai noblesse of his people.

Akira Kurosawa
All this strong symbolism, but treated so naturally maked me choose "Dreams" and not any other film by Akira Kurosawa.                                                I keep being in love, but so badly with this Akira Kurosawa ;) ... by Led Kasapi

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle thieves or The bicycle thief) Vittorio De Sica 1948

As I saw this movie, I needed a little time to put myself together. Immediately I thrusted it in the category of those films that I will never see for the second time. De Sica did a good job. He left me speechless.
I’ll start the analysis from the last scene. The scene where father and son catching by hands disappear into the crowd. Into that poor crowd. They get absorbed from the stomach they were born. Bruno cries. Antonio seems like he’s walking on air. Father’s myth is broken in the face of his son. Yet, they don’t detach their  hands from each other. This was De Sica’s tribute to Chaplin. Un buon lavoro ;)

The relationship between Antonio and Bruno muffles the film with  a strong emotional veil. Both were amateur actors. De Sica selected Antonio (a tall man, charming, con braccia forti) in an audition where he had brought his son to compete. Antonio at that time was a factory worker. Bruno was found occasionally while helping his father sell flowers in the streets of Rome.
Here consists the magic. That’s the reason why this film affected those guys of Academy Awards and made them establish a specific category “Honorary Award” in respect of this film.

Any time there is mentioned neo-realism as cinematic genre , immediately you think of  "Ladri di Biciclette". Because this film is the culmination top of this category. Estimated and reestimated thousand  times as such a film. Neo-realism was cultivated not for a very long period of time, mostly by Italian cineasts. These cineasts were noted for an extreme truthfully reflection of that time situation, in a world that had just emerged from the Second World War and was not yet recovered. But I will not linger on these facts that you can read quite well in Wikipedia.
There is a general belief (at least from what I've read) that these films come closer to documentary film than to the artistic one. This finding may seem fair because of the fact that almost all the scenes were filmed in open environments, supporting actors were passers, all were amateur actors, natural lighting...etc,etc. A very crude material. Very similar to that of a documentary.

The question that naturally arises inside my mind is:
If "Ladri di Biciclette" is almost a documentary reflecting the events of that time, then why I can’t get it out of my head?
I've seen dozens of Luce documentaries for the same historic period. At their very best, they make me have any of those political-philosophical long conversations with my friends.
 But "Ladri di Biciclette" doesn’t make me start any of those boring conversations. It makes me silent. It makes me bite my lips in order to stop the tears.... Here is art. Because art is like an ax that break the ice into your soul. At least, this is Franz Kafka’s opinion about art. And he is not wrong at all.
Antonio’s simplicity, in all those improvised actions,  passes us much more drama than just the drama of a poor man of his time. He gives us the drama of a powerless father and husband against the cruel occasional circumstances, inevitable not only in the time where he lives in, but in any system that mankind has produced at any time.
The moment where father and son visite the seer and Antonio speaks her softly telling that someone stole his bike, saying this phrase like this is the biggest trouble in his life, makes you laugh and cry at the same time.
A bicycle. A modest thing on two wheels. Someone steals it from you on a beautiful sunny day. And then what? A bike? Is it logical for a man to mortify himself for a bicycle?
No. It’s not the bicycle as an object that pushes Antonio to steal and then being denigrated in the face of his son. But the bike is a necessary condition for Antonio to start working. It was a clear fact to him since the beginning of the film. No bike, no work. Well...Maria, Bruno and baby don’t need only cuddles. Among the other stuff... they want to eat.
To think...that Maria carefully assembled one by one all the white sheets she had at home, so that selling them in exchange for  the bicycle. Sheets ended up in a large pile of  hopeless clothes... Ah, poor Antonio!!! They take his soul away when they steal his bike. They derogate his future.

Vittorio De Sica
De Sica himself was born in a poor family. Knowing well the sense of being hopeless owing to poverty in a pseudovalues system, De Sica, so masterly, characterizes this situation on this film.
Poverty becomes more visible into the Roman background, with all those magnificent masterpieces of art. Art, culture, knowledge ; poverty, filth, rascality ... that coexist separately. Rome ... without former Glory.
...And above all these, lies that noble father and son relationship. Sublime. Perfect. Nothing can break it. Nothing can divide them. A relationship that appears to violate the dregs of filth and poverty and rise above. This relationship makes Antonio’s  drama even sharper in front of us. And unlike a documentary film (with little or no art inside) it makes me cry.

...And please do never forget:

Art (regardless of genre, time, place) is eternal ...by Led Kasapi





Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Almost midnight in my city....i'm gonna watch "Zerkalo"....I'm smelling a big love on horizon ;)

















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yn9q25NWAw
thank you mosfilm :*

Monday, July 8, 2013

Au hasard Balthazar 1966 (un film de Robert Bresson)

Avec Robert Bresson I conclude the cycle of  three most unique filmmakers in the history of cinema (at least by me). I’m not saying that there are not others that excite me as much as they make me shiver...

Robert Bresson
But these three guys Tarkovsky, Bergman, Bresson are from those kind of artists that exceed their professional profile. Their movies are not just movies, but a kind of philosophy of life. Each one of them in his own way has found that golden mean where the depth of thought meets with simplicity of life.
They don’t  have gusty subjects that keep a firm grip over you. Same as Van Gogh in painting, these guys find art where no one else think that there may be art. The three were poets of the image.
While listening to any interview of each one of them, I  feel my heart beating faster than usual. Do you know why? Because it seems like I know them from a long time. I feel closer to them than to the people who are daily confronted with me. They are my spiritual food. My inspiration.
Yesterday I saw Au hasard Balthazar for the first time. It’s been a long  time that I ‘m in love with Bresson,  but I prejudiced this film because of the donkey as the key point of the film.
Anyway ... I believe that it is excessive for me to say that i can’t forgive myself for prejudicing a masterpiece because of a donkey.
I will redeem my mistake here, in this blog. I will introduce you Au hasard Balthazar as the boldest film of Bresson.
Black and white. Short scenes.
A donkey baptized from his lady as Balthazar.
Name is taken from the Bible. Balthazar is one of the three kings who made a long way to see baby Jesus.
Marie (even this name is not random, keeping in mind the fact that Bresson was a Christian who practiced his faith), the girl who baptized the donkey.
The fates of these two characters are very similar.
Even the other characters carry out a major drama on their shoulders. When I say major I mean those things that we see and experience every day, but there must be any Bresson to put these stuff in front of our eyes and force us to see what we avoid  randomly.

Marie's father, who is willing to lose all because of his excessive pride (bah, so similar to me)
Marie's mother, a wise and noble woman, but so timid.
(In fact, here are all so timid.)

Jacques, the early love of Marie. They know each other from a long time, since Balthazar was a baby. There is an extreme similarity to Jacques with Ganja from "The Idiot" of Dostoevsky. Later I learned that Bresson is based on "The Idiot" to realize this movie.
Jacques is the average man. No vices. No dreams. No big disappointment. No major victory. It seems that he lives in normality, differently from all the others, but he is so shallow. Living without passion. He has no courage to make Marie love him.
His childhood friend is not that innocent anymore. She tells him all of her sins. Jacques accepts her again, not initiated by the nobility of a man in love, but because so is Jacques. Like a tree, with no blood.
He doesn’t even believe that Marie can fall in love with him . "What to do Marie with him? So beautiful, so sweet, so sinful. " At least he is aware of this. Same as Dostoevsky's Ganja, he is clear about his linear fate, without ups and downs.

Gerard, a bad guy. Marie likes him until obsession. Not a few times he treats her as a rag. That's enough for describing this guy.
An untrained eye bewails Marie. "Poor girl!"...   Mais no, mes tres chers! Marie can leave Gerard whenever she wants.
Gerard surmises that he has power over Marie. But I really do understand the sweet masochism of Marie ;) Gerard has power over Marie because she wants him to have power over her.
Even later, when Marie goes to the house of the merchant (a cynical man who evaluates people by what they have rather than what they are) and sells her body to him, it may seems like the merchant is using the vulnerable girl. Mais no!!! Marie is mocking them all.

She experiments with all human relationships that she creates. And what she finds in there is way more evil than her little sins.
The final scene with Marie in the film, where the girl is naked and abused in a ruin, according to me is the final mockery of Marie to all, before she finally runs away from there. Bresson did not show us how Marie ended up like that.
And if you ask me, Marie has invented all of this scene. God, how I love this girl!!!

Arnold, the village drunkard. He may have killed a man. Everyone mocks him, especially Gerard and his thugs. Suddenly Arnold inherits a fortune from his uncle who recently died.
No one mocks him anymore. But Arnold doesn’t taste for too long the new feeling of being respected. He dies within two weeks.
Arnold is like two different people in the same body. Sober Arnold and drunk Arnold. To create the character of Arnold, Bresson is influenced too much from Catholicism preaching on alcohol. For me this point of view seems a bit excessive.

The one that connects all the characters with each other is Balthazar. The animal changes several owners. Nobody treats him well, except Marie. But all of them need Balthazar to achieve their aims.
Even though the film is mainly dedicated to Balthazar, the animal almost never become a protagonist during the film, except the last scene...that is all his.
Bresson did not choose accidentally a donkey. One of the most obedient animals and one of the most biased as brainless.
There is a scene where Balthazar goes to the circus. There are many exotic animals. Donkey looks very different from the others. There we find out that our donkey may even count.
So I conclude that Marie or Balthazar are not as disabled  as not to change their miserable life, but being victim (at least to the others eyes) in some way is their choice.

However Bresson, tantamount to Bergman and Tarkovsky, let many gaps between the scenes. So everyone can create his/her own idea about what is happening.
The final scene is donkey’s death (by a stray bullet) surrounded by a flock of sheep.
A moment of peace. Balthazar as the Good Shepherd.


I’m closing in here. Think whatever you like about this scene. A wounded donkey dying, surrounded by sheep (super symbolic) ... by Led Kasapi







Thursday, July 4, 2013

Persona 1966 Ingmar Bergman

Ingmar Bergman himself said that this film saved his life.
And even later admitted that this was his maximum.
He wrote the script in six weeks. In that time he was hospitalized because he was suffering from pneumonia. Looking with a little bit more attention to the film, it has some weak and indirect autobiographical approach. Things that Bergman mentioned rarely. So "Persona" is a kind of “getting grumble out” from the director himself.
The film begins with a  turmoil of different images without any specific meaning and unrelated to each other closely. A spider, heated iron, slaughtered sheep, the crucified Christ and a pure erection (but this last scene has been deleted and can be found only in a limited edition DVD of 2004).
A young boy in a room that looks like a hospital room. There is only one bed. It is white and clean. The boy seems to feel a foreign presence within the room. He put his glasses on. And goes back to bed. He starts to flip Lermontov ‘s "A hero of our time". He rises from the bed again. There appears a large screen with a feminine blurred face. The toddler put his hand on the screen and caress the figure.
This is the entrance.
The film progress begins with a conversation between a female doctor and  a nurse (Alma). Doctor asks Alma to care for a patient  named Elisabeth Vogler, a theater actress who became mute while she was acting as Electra, and although all the medical tests show that she is physically and mentally very normal, she is still mute. Alma looks confused due to the lack of experience in this profession, but finally accepts the case.
After visiting the patient, Alma reports to the doctor that Elizabeth at first glance seems like an innocent child, but if you focus on her sight ... you understand that being mute is an elaborate choice, from which our actress will not give up easily . The doctor says  that it would be wise for them both to go on the coast, at her own summer resort. So Elizabeth will continue treatment and she will possibly recover very soon.
Elizabeth, in her hospital room, sees a TV news about Vietnam war. Among other images , the image of a monk who is burning in public causes to her catatonia.
Alma begins to construct  a strange sort of friendship with Elisabeth since her first visit in the patient's room. I say “strange” because one soliloquies , and the other almost doesn’t provide any kind of response.
I can’t get out of my head this Alma’ mot: "I'm skating on thin ice".
Now imagine the  scenes. The whole black and white film. Characters are also wearing white, black, or black and white clothes and they put no make-up on. Great graphic contrast.
Girls arrive in the coast. Alma starts to speak for herelf. For a married man with whom she had a five-year affair when she was studying nursing. He was tired of her. She was in love with him. Then there comes the engagement with Karl-Henrik (another guy). A stable job. Ready to born and raise any child ... so, everything’s alright, but ... She doesn’t continue the sentence. Here she passes to us a sense of “null and void” in her life . A kind of lack of existence, lack of motivation, even being in conformity with the unwritten rules of humanity.
Elizabeth listens only. (no reaction)
Positions of the girls in the room + lighting give us the impression that Elizabeth is acting the role of psychologist and Alma the one of the patient.
After sipping some glasses of wine, Alma tells about a "menage a quatre" on the sea shore, during vacations, when Karl Henrik was working in the city. Alma, Katarina (a random girl on the beach) and two minor boys, respectively 12 and 13 years old (but their age is not mentioned except in that blessed one limited edition that I mentioned above). In the evening Alma returned home and found Karl Henrik who was returned from the journey and the two of them spent the night together. That night was different from any other night, whether before or after that one. That nate conceived a child within the body of Alma. She aborted the baby later.
The nurse displays signs of anxiety. She almost falls asleep on the table. She hears Elisabeth’s voice saying: "Go to bed, otherwise you would be falling asleep on the table!"
She goes to bed. As she sleeps, Elizabeth enters the room. Alma wakes up. Rises on her feet. Both stand in front of the camera. Elizabeth a bit back, almost covered by the silhouette of Alma. One touches other’s forehead and hair. And vice versa. (Epic scene)
The next day Alma asks Elisabeth if she had spoken to the table last night. She denies with her head. And makes the same reaction even when Alma asks if she has been inside her room.
A small detail that I almost forgot  is that Alma by the end of her long monologue repeated often to the other girl that they both resemble too much. They are almost the same person.
   "Elisabeth, you could be me, just like that, but your soul...would be too big...It would stick out everywhere”.
Alma does not appear less problematic than the other (if not more).
She says that she is a good listener, but nobody ever listens to her. She feels very well now that Elisabeth is listening to her. And therefore I understand that Alma hasn’t shared these memories with anybody else. Same as Bergman himself ... with his dark sides. That’s why this film was his saver.
Anyway ... Elizabeth writes a letter to her doctor and gives it to Alma since Alma is traveling to the city. Alma’s curiosity pushes her to open and read the letter ... and she does not feel very well from what she reads. According to the actress, Alma is a worth case to be studied. There are apparent inconsistencies between her principles and her actions. She doesn’t forget to remind the "menage a quatre".
As she returns to coast, Alma yells and screams to the other. She threatens to burn her with hot water. Elizabeth there utters a "NO". Alma self satisfied continues to highlight other’s hidden cynicism. She says that her mute is a role just like her theatre roles. Elizabeth leaves offended. And the other follows praying to forgive.
Later:  Elizabeth in her room reading a book. In the middle of the book finds a picture of Jews persecuted by Nazis. She experiences the same condition of catatonia as in the case of the Vietnamese monk.
Closure: Alma watches  the other as she sleeps. She doesn’t forget to highlight other’s ugly freckles, those ones that the beauty never forgets to cover.
She hears a man voice calling: Elisabeth!!!
She turns out in the yard and find  the actress’ husband with blind man glasses. He confuses her with his wife. Alma says she is not Elizabeth, but he continues. In those moments there appears the actress who picks Alma’s hand to approve her to continue with this misunderstand.
Alma releases to play the next role. She adds that she miss her son too much.
Both go to bed. Elizabeth in the same room sitting in a chair looks sensitive. After sleeping together , Alma cries and dispatches Elisabeth’s husband.
In the morning she sees Elisabeth keeping a picture on her hands. She takes it away from her. That’s a picture of Elisabeth’s son.
Alma insists there once again for the other to speak. And after she doesn’t get any response tells the story herself. In short: Elisabeth doesn’t love her son. She tried several times to abort, but her attempts failed. Even after the baby came to life, his mother didn’t love him. This is the shadow that pursues her, inability to love her son. From the reaction of Elizabeth,it seems that Alma is right.
Alma repeats once again the whole story. She tries to say "I'm not like you", "I'm not you", but the words stuck in her throat.
She only articulates: You. I. We.
Meanhile the camera shows the half face of Elisabeth and half face of Alma in a single head to give the impression that they are the same person.
Alma comes out again. Enters again inside. She finds Elisabeth in a strange situation. Alma also passes into a kind of strange situation ... she scratches her arm with her claws and forces the other to drink blood.
Then she packs up her stuff and leave the cottage alone. The camera focuses on the director and on his crew.
Bibi Andersson (Alma) ; Ingmar Bergman ; Liv Ullman (Elisabeth)
Now ... to clarify some things:
"Persona" is a term that was used by Jung to tell what is shown, ie that part of the personality that we manifest in the outer world. As we want to be seen by others. A type of role. A personage, who often do not correspond to what we are.
The one above is such this complicated situation. But unlike three quarters of the films we see today (with much regret I enclose even Fight Club) here is not easy to ascertain which one of the girls is the alter-ego, ie "persona". They may be both “persona” for each other.
Alma and Elisabeth are a great “bi personality”. How different on the surface, so similar in the inside.
Bergman himself is intentional even there where he let the things flow. Unlike Tarkovsky that spreads his art slowly ('m sweet), Bergman is like a sharp knife in action.
"Persona1966" is a directorial “chef d’oeuvre” in all sense of this word. One of those little things that make us believe in the existence of God ( because I can’t explain otherwise the existence of Bergman ) and leave us to perceive in a subjective way each fragment, without harming our creative force of imagination.


Keep calm and watch this fucked up film... by Led Kasapi

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Stalker 1979 Andrei Tarkovsky

Incidentally I read somewhere something about Andrei Tarkovsky. And I saw a documentary on his life and work. At the end, I began with his own films. So, I made the work vice versa.
I Selected "Stalker" 1979. The title is the same in Russian and English. In those years the word "stalker" was used to identify that type of huntsman that goes hunting unarmed and without greyhounds. The one who observes, the one who waits for a long time to see something and tell what has seen to the other huntsmen.
Today  this word has another meaning. It is used random for followers and listeners.
Tarkovsky used this term to personify someone who is obsessed with something. To the one who knows every detail of every corner of that thing, no matter how dark it is, but has no power to act over that.
I say "to personify" even because stalker has no name. He is recognized only as stalker.
Neither the other characters do not have names, the writer, the professor, the writer’s wife, stalker’s wife and stalker’s daughter. There are not used toponyms neither. We can listen some people’s names through the stories they tell, but not when the characters address to each other.
Pardon ... can not wait till the end to tell you this: This movie is perfection. Is the reason why some crazy guys created cinema!!!
There are long scenes, terribly long, at the beginning they bore you, but than...you can’t get them out of your head and you want more and more.
Official plot: "Three men embark the Zone. There is a room where wishes come true. "

Andrei Tarkovsky
For all of us to be a little clearer:
Film starts with the stalker’s bedroom. This guy,his  wife and his daughter are lying on the bed. A cup moves for no reason on the closet. Man rises from bed. He changes his clothes and get ready to go out. Woman pleads not to go. He does not obey te her. He goes out. There he meet the professor, the writer and the writer's wife (we see this woman only in this scene). The three men sit in a bar. They make a presentation alla Tarkovsky (without giving importance to events). They hear a train horn, get out of the bar, escape successfully from the guards (who protect the area of the Zone) and begin a journey toward Zone.
into the bar
These occur around 45 min. The picture is sepia-toned. There's a glare brightness in the lightened areas.
When entering the Zone, the picture becomes colored. There is too much green. The contrast with the last part becomes even stronger, but at the same time staying balanced.
I will not tell you in details what happens "Into the Zone". I’m enough with: "There happens  almost Nothing."
There was thought that the laws of physics were different into the Zone. Stalker mentions several times that.
Now the scenes are even more extended by the director, so producing a different kind of time dimension into the minds of viewers.
The three men don’t talk too much,they almost soliloquy, without being in any way clear for the real reason that has pushed them towards Zone.
They return to the starting bar. Picture becomes sepia-toned again. There comes stalker’s wife. Than both go home. The man lies in bed, saying: "They do not believe in anything. They think that they are designed to fulfill any major purpose" (more or less). And he falls asleep.
The woman addresses directly to  the camera. She explains that she knew her destiny before getting married. But even if she had made another choice, it would be all the same again.
Tarkovsky shows here that  vanity of existence that characterizes all and everything outside the Zone, referring to our world. The one that remains the same beyond any coincidence.
And through the point-blank communication of the women, emphasis on this scene.
Then stalker, girl on his back (because she can not walk) and his wife are traveling.
Picture becomes colored.
last scene
Last scene: Highlighted colors. For the first time we see red. The girl sitting in the chair. A front desk. Three cups on it. An empty, two filled. Girl moves glasses without touching them. She leads the three of them in the corner of the table. The empty glass slumps without getting broken. (she moves glasses with her mind) That's it.
There are some who believe that through this film Tarkovsky shows the futility of the communist regime in the former Soviet Union. There are others who think that this movie is an environmental anthem.
But I have come to the same conclusion that I had at first (the one that i realised in the end of the film, before I read all of these):
"Stalker is not directed to a specific group or a specific phenomenon. It is directed to all of us. Each one of us. "
There are some others who think the same.


To justify this approach:
Stalker is dreaming
During the journey into the Zone, stalker has two dreams. At first he hears a voice that says among other things that “weakness is power and power is nothing”. In the second dream there is a thrilling female voice that recites verses from the Apocalypse (Revelation) in the Bible.
He himself is a powerless man, who can not do anything else but leading curious people to the Zone. But even that remains evasive, cause it is not shown clear if he has lead any other person there, before leading writer and professor.
He insists that it is dangerous to cross at the Zone twice in the same way. At one point the professor crosses twice the same way because he has forgotten a sandwich to the bag...and nothing happens.
Stalker refers to some Prokupini, who has been stalker before him. He had left his brother to be dead, in the "meat cutter" into the Zone. When the professor and the writer escape this  trap " meat cutter", Stalker says that they are good people. The scene is accompanied by photographic images that hardly get forgotten.  Compressed sand dunes and green walls.
"meat cutter"
The writer is carrying explosives. He will destroy the Zone. That place is not helpful to anyone.
Stalker cries. The Zone is very important for him. The landscape is so calm. He must bring even his wife and daughter in there. They will feel safe.
Professor withdraw immediately from the idea of ​​a few moments ago.
Those three need the Zone. They never enter into the room where wishes come true. They return home.
These details I intended not to mention before, but I realized that I needed them to reinforce the idea that "Stalker" is a philosophy for life, not for any particular aspect of life.
The Zone is a common place. Stalker admits (more or less) this fact. When his wife asks him : “Why don’t you take us (mother and daughter) to that room, so we can be happy?”He says that maybe the room has no effect over them. So there is no room where wishes come true at all.
The writer and the professor knows this fact. Although they do not  not explicitly accept, they continue to see the Zone as the only point of breakup from reality. Not because it has magical powers, but because it is like that in their minds.
The Zone
The journey through the Zone is a good thing happening to them. The interaction between them is the real magic. "Stalker 1979" combines the vanity with the beauty of the simple life. You see it in their eyes, without allegories or parables.
Tarkovsky did not give many explanations for his films. This film remains one of the most discussed art forms even today. Author almost doesn’t help us at all: "If Bergman and Bresson liked it, I'm alright", he said.

Or the whole film is a brilliant part of our imagination ;)
Ps: The excessive repetition of the words: Zone, stalker and any verb time.....are not random choices!!!
+I m so sorry for any spelling or grammar mistake (but english is not my mother language)


Keep stalking, by Led Kasapi