The last limit

The last limit

"Stalker" is an extraordinary film. The storm itself unleashed in the comments already testifies to something. Paradoxically, the people who evaluate the film extremely lowly get involved in disputes over the multitude of interpretations. So, does xnetoasis mean fineness, or does it indicate that the film, despite the absolutely not-so-good design, encourages thinking? The book "Piknik on the edge of the road" by the brothers Arkadija and Borys Strugatskis appeared in 1972 and talked about the existence on Earth of places where all elementary laws of physics lose their meaning.

 

To these extremely strange and dangerous places, strictly protected by state governments, the stalkers came in search of artifacts - extraordinary objects with the most appropriate properties - sometimes completely useless, sometimes salutary for humanity, sometimes (probably) posing a threat. However, stalkers did not act in the name of higher reasons (although there were exceptions) - only profit and survival were counted. There was also one particular artefact - almost mythical ... The film "Stalker" is by no means a screen adaptation of the book - only the idea of ​​"zone" is taken as a living organism that has its own rules. Even stalkers have ceased to be ordinary looters, but they have almost become servants of this strange land. Like priests of a new religion, they run willing tourists - often scientists, artists or philosophers - into the zone, an artefact, which, according to what stalkers maintain, is to serve the most secret and personal wishes.

 

The zone becomes the last border - a place to escape and get to know oneself. Its unpredictable nature, unknown even to stalkers, affects the human psyche, when a person joins the area, he cuts away from reality. The very form of a stalker accompanying the "tourists" brings to mind a therapist person who tries to direct the mentees to the proper path of thinking - he only suggests, but does not interfere, leaving the final choice entirely to the guided guests.

 

 The structure of the film is essentially two-part - so we have what is happening in the cool, dirty and industrial reality of man and what is happening in a vivid, colorful and unknowable "zone". The presented story shows above all three people - a professor (probably highly respected in the academic environment, though his views are probably unpopular), a writer (whose behavior and attitude to the surrounding world indicate his internal marasmus, nihilism and decadence), and Stalker (human about morbid fizis, ignorant, believing in humanity as such). Is it possible to speak of some "action" in this case? I doubt it - this is actually one of the most common accusations against Stalker today. The whole development is based on successive, rather static, shots in which the figures of Stalker, Professor and Writer conduct talks. As the journey progresses, dialogues become more and more personal, characters are more and more influenced by "zones", the sense of alienation. They feel more free in their thoughts (when no outsider can hear us, even the most reckless thoughts become sensible). "Stalker", in general, asks a question about the contemporary (then, but now) humanity, human infirmity and the sense of justifications and activities that we justify. Today, it is relatively difficult to create this kind of work that, apart from asking questions, also gives time to think about them. We have less and less time, the pace of life is increasing, movies and other entertainment become packed with action to the brim, so that the viewer, player, participant did not feel bored for a moment.

 

 Maybe this is why we need a trip to the "zone" - to the last border, where everyday life ceases to be counted, but the weight gains what is in us? .