I don't do enough reviews these days so I've decided to post my thoughts on intriguing things as I find or revisit them. Anything relevant to the blog that seems worth looking at.
Here's a classic to start. Incredibly, John Till at Fate SF just posted his own review of it.
Stalker (1979)
A film adaptation of a Russian SF novel, Roadside Picnic; directed by Andrei Tarkovsky.
One man leads two others into a mysterious, militarily quarantined Zone - an overgrown ruined landscape, possibly struck by a meteorite, possibly the site of an extraterrestrial stopover, a form of roadside picnic - hoping to reach a chamber believed to grant wishes.
This is one of the most old school D&D films I've seen, without being related to D&D in any overt way, and it has a rich, dense terrain that might surprise and inspire wargamers too. The central location - the landscape of the Zone - is arguably at the heart of the film.
Stalker (1979)
A film adaptation of a Russian SF novel, Roadside Picnic; directed by Andrei Tarkovsky.
One man leads two others into a mysterious, militarily quarantined Zone - an overgrown ruined landscape, possibly struck by a meteorite, possibly the site of an extraterrestrial stopover, a form of roadside picnic - hoping to reach a chamber believed to grant wishes.
This is one of the most old school D&D films I've seen, without being related to D&D in any overt way, and it has a rich, dense terrain that might surprise and inspire wargamers too. The central location - the landscape of the Zone - is arguably at the heart of the film.
Average shot length is long and many of the views are conflictingly beautiful; a few are revelatory. One short sequence soon after the arrival in the Zone may even express the essences of novel and film in just a few seconds. It may be a lethal beauty too if the location really did poison crew members. Many images show or suggest the action and interactions of water, and the effects of this in some cases appear almost otherworldly.
Dialogue is light then heavy by turns, and reflects the region and era, in this case the eastern bloc of the 1970s, part of an ongoing debate on life there, and indirectly human nature. I have a lot of time for this in general, but here I'd argue it adds very little, and covers ground covered better elsewhere, largely distracting from the magic of the site and situation. I'd say the long tracking shot over the water as the group rests says far more than much of the back and forth, or a key monologue, and is almost a film in itself.
Dialogue is light then heavy by turns, and reflects the region and era, in this case the eastern bloc of the 1970s, part of an ongoing debate on life there, and indirectly human nature. I have a lot of time for this in general, but here I'd argue it adds very little, and covers ground covered better elsewhere, largely distracting from the magic of the site and situation. I'd say the long tracking shot over the water as the group rests says far more than much of the back and forth, or a key monologue, and is almost a film in itself.
Certain decisions, and partly the stylisation, mean that much of the journey seems to me messily loose, lacking in tension; the one detail I thought was outstandingly creepy is more or less ignored by the characters. But taking a long view this detail is also optimistic, and true to the underlying continuities seen in the film. One or two elements, like the tactical nuke, seem out of place, even if the language did later extend to the exclusion zone at Chernobyl, and inspire the PC game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. The overall feel is more that of an experimental play than a feature film, and that may have been deliberate.
If this lack of tension was intended - and I'm not convinced - it would more strongly imply a particular reading, that there is no wish-granting chamber in the sense it's understood by the Writer and Professor. But this reading may be undermined by the final scene, one that's arguably the only element classifying the film as SF, even if the implications of the event shown seem at odds with the sensitivities of the film as a whole. What could any new technology achieve in light of the failings of the existing, presented on screen?
But this scene itself is undermined in the way the fourth wall is broken just before: could the whole film be a projection of a wife's disappointment in a husband, and a mother's hopes for a daughter? Or is the final scene a variant first reading, with the daughter living out a fantasy? What are the trains carrying? Where? What are our screens showing?
In summary, a fine way to spend a couple of hours. The style may grate and the content might be patchy, but the suggestion and the vast space for reflection are the substance.
I'll also offer a few starting points for further exploration of the ideas, aspects or moods: in this case, I'd say look at Roadside Picnic, The Captive Mind by Miłosz, All The Anne Franks, The Wizard of Oz of 1939, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", Matilda, Life After People, Solaris - the novel and the second film adaptation - and Picnic at Hanging Rock.
_ In summary, a fine way to spend a couple of hours. The style may grate and the content might be patchy, but the suggestion and the vast space for reflection are the substance.
I'll also offer a few starting points for further exploration of the ideas, aspects or moods: in this case, I'd say look at Roadside Picnic, The Captive Mind by Miłosz, All The Anne Franks, The Wizard of Oz of 1939, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", Matilda, Life After People, Solaris - the novel and the second film adaptation - and Picnic at Hanging Rock.