Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker is a film steeped in Russian history, evidenced by its meditations on spirituality and the uniquely Eastern European figure of the yurodivy, the Holy Fool. The Stalker appears to take on this role: he is an outsider and an outcast whose sole occupation is to smuggle tourists into the Zone. Yet his “concern with matters of the spirit” (Efird 6) classifies him as a yurodivy. On the other hand, the Writer and Professor come to represent the anti-spiritual which Tarkovsky detested. The Professor is neurotic and blind to matters of the spirit, preferring to believe in the scientific method, while the Writer is a hedonistic cynic. In this essay, I argue that Tarkovsky represents spirituality in Stalker dialectically. He mediates a discourse on spirituality in his film by contrasting the spiritual Holy Fool figure of the Stalker and the anti-spiritual Writer and Professor.
The yurodivy is a literary figure that is common in Russian Orthodox Christianity and literary history, ubiquitous in Dostoevsky’s oeuvre. Yurodivy (holy fools) are characterised by their strange or eccentric behaviour such as “vagrancy, near nakedness in severe weather, and the appearance of immorality” (Keith 11). The yurodivy seeks to enlighten others to the way of Christ, “perform deeds of kindness without engendering praise” (16), as “raise is the enemy of humility”. Yurodivy use eccentric and strange methods to guide others spiritually. They employ controversial methods on purpose to deflect praise from themselves and maintain modesty. Keith gives an example of a monk “engag the services of the prostitute so that he not be detected in the actual service rendered by facilitating her redemption” (16). In this example, the monk may be perceived to be sinning by performing sexual acts with a prostitute. Yet despite the outward appearance of things, he is only pretending to “engage her services” such that he may enlighten her spiritually. This example encompasses two aspects of the yurodivy: Firstly, that they guide others to spiritual enlightenment. Secondly, that they are not praised for their deed.
The eponymous Stalker can hence be seen as a yurodivy, a holy fool. The Stalker lives in an impoverished home by a railway track, sleeping with his wife and daughter in the same bed. The opening scene of Stalker gives the audience a close-up of a glass of water on the Stalker’s bedside table, shaking violently from a nearby train. The shot then pans horizontally over the bed, revealing the Stalker is awake, crammed with his wife and his daughter into the same bed (Stalker, 5:08-6:52). This shot emphasises the state of poverty the Stalker’s family lives in, as the family of three must share one bed. From an outside perspective, the Stalker is surely a fool. He subjects his family to living in poverty as he takes on an illegal job for little apparent profit. The Stalker is even called a yurodivy by the Writer who punches him in the climax of the film. However, the Stalker is not merely a fool, his “overwhelming concern with matters of the spirit places him firmly within the sphere of the holy fool” (Efird 6). The Stalker describes himself as a “cockroach” who has nothing, but only seeks to help others find their way to the Room which grants their desires. His situation echoes that of the yurodivy: the Stalker lives in poverty and neglects his family to guide people to the Zone. He is an outcast and describes himself as having no friends. As traditional yurodivy have unshakeable faith in Christ, the Stalker blindly devotes himself to his profession of guiding others to the Room and nothing else. The Room can be seen as an allegory for spiritual enlightenment, as the Stalker sees it as his spiritual task to guide them to it.
If the Stalker is the yurodivy, the holy fool and spiritual guide, the Writer and the Professor are the anti-spiritual, misled individuals who contrast him. The Writer is an alcoholic, hedonistic nihilist who believes that the world is “utterly boring” (Stalker). The Professor is pragmatic and believes firmly in the scientific method. Both characters express their disbelief in the supernatural and indirectly, God. The climactic scene of the film has the Stalker explain to his companions how to have the Room grant their greatest desire:
You don’t have to say anything. You only need to concentrate and try to remember your whole life most importantly, you must believe.
(Stalker, 2:00:30-2:00:45)
The camera frames the Stalker in a close-up, with the tired figure of the Writer slouched behind out of focus. It is evident from the Stalker’s proclamation that his companions “believe” that he wishes that they have faith in the power of the Room, as he does. However, as the focus shifts to the Writer, Tarkovsky cuts to a close-up of his face. The camera tracks his movement as he replies: “Can’t you see how shameful this is? To humiliate yourself? To snivel and to pray?” (Stalker, 2:01:57-2:02:22) The Writer describes the act of prayer as “shameful” and as “humiliating” oneself. It can be seen that he regards faith in a higher power as a disgraceful act which demeans oneself and lowers one’s status. Unlike the Stalker, who has devoted himself to guiding others to the Room, he decides that he will not even engage in the act of prayer. The Writer’s lack of faith even leads him to interpret the Stalker’s intentions to be selfish:
You earn money off our misery You enjoy yourself here, you’re king and God in here. You even decide who lives and who dies you goddamn cockroach. (Stalker, 2:07:33-2:07:38)
The Writer refuses to believe that the Stalker guides people to the Room for their own good. Instead, he believes that the Stalker does so to become “king and God”, to gain a momentary feeling of authority and superiority over his companions. This belief stems from the Writer’s lack of faith. He projects his lack of faith onto the Stalker, hence believing it impossible for the Stalker’s goals to be solely altruistic.
Similar to the Writer, the Professor has a lack of faith which forms an antithesis to the Stalker. In Stalker, the Professor represents the anti-spiritual side of science which seeks to better the world through technological advancement. However, Tarkovsky prefers the Stalker’s “holy foolery” over the Professor’s blind adherence to science. Tarkovsky’s interview “It’s In Films” is key to understanding this paradigm:
How odd it is that we learn about the world from a pragmatic angle. We are incapable of using our discoveries properly. The scientist thinks the purpose of life is to make discoveries, a pragmatic approach to reality But what every human being should do is catch hold of the meaning of life and live accordingly. (Tarkovsky 5)
Men like the Professor creates things “from a pragmatic angle”, meaning that they invent technologies for the sake of human convenience. In the film, the Writer sarcastically derides the Professor’s work, saying that its only purpose is “so that people can work less and consume more” (Stalker). He uses a metaphor for technological inventions, calling them “crutches and prosthetics”. Tarkovsky asserts through this metaphor that technological advancements only help improve human convenience, which creates a “discord between material and spiritual development” (Tarkovsky 5). Despite mankind’s technological inventions, it is a meaningless pursuit because it does not allow people to “catch hold of the meaning of life” and bring them closer to spiritual fulfilment.
The futility of the Professor and the Writer’s work is further evidenced by the Stalker’s speech in the penultimate scene of the film. As the Stalker lays on the ground exhausted with his wife by his side, he proclaims that his companions have “empty eyes” and that they “don’t believe in anything”. The phrase “empty eyes” denotes their eyes as emotionless and without feeling, implying that they lack any belief in anything. The Stalker clearly states in this speech that his companions lack faith, despite being “writers and scientists”.
Tarkovsky privileges one view over the other, as seen by the destructive behaviour by the Professor and Writer compared to the altruistic Stalker. The Writer’s nihilism and lack of faith lead him to doubt the Stalker’s intentions, even going so far as to attack him. Meanwhile the Professor’s cynicism and lack of faith lead him to believe that people will use the Room for evil. The Professor’s motivation for destroying the Room is because there are “terrifying people” who will use the Room for evil purposes. In response, the Stalker states that the Room is “the only place where it is possible to go. There is nothing else left to people.” The Stalker’s statement creates a paradigm where the Stalker and the Room symbolises “movement, change, and hope” while the anti-spiritual Writer and the Professor symbolise “motionlessness, stagnation, decay, hopelessness.” (Nilsson 3) When the Professor tries to “destroy hope”, the Writer does not stop him, even beating the Stalker out of spite. Here there is a clear contrast where the spiritual Stalker is portrayed as benevolent and altruistic while his companions are hostile and destructive.
Tarkovsky also uses symbolism to differentiate between the spiritual and the anti-spiritual. In a famous dream sequence in the film, the camera tracks over several objects underwater, shot in monochrome: a syringe, coins, a pistol and more (Stalker, 1:21:28-1:24:41). The objects are indistinguishable from other debris in the water. These objects symbolise the things that men devote themselves to instead of faith. The syringe symbolises Man’s need to “keep making ourselves artificial limbs” (Tarkovsky 5), mankind’s pursuit of medicinal knowledge to make themselves live longer. The coins symbolise man’s pursuit of money and the pistol war. Tarkovsky films these items in muddied water, indistinguishable from common debris, asserting that they are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Collectively, these items represent the “material” which men strive for. It is this striving, a “discord between material and spiritual development” which causes “he emergence of social problems” (6). Tarkovsky asserts that Man pays too much heed to their “material life”. Instead, it is more important that men “live accordingly” to their roles by fulfilling their own purpose in life.
Tarkovsky’s advocating for spiritual growth in the film can be seen in the final scene of the film. Tarkovsky shoots the scene in a close-up of the Stalker’s daughter, Monkey reading a book. She turns to look at three glasses on a table and appears to move them telekinetically (Stalker, 2:31:06-2:34:55). At the beginning of the film, Monkey is described as “a mutant”, a “victim of the zone”. Tarkovsky implies through this scene that the Room has answered the Stalker’s prayers by giving his daughter special power. Her apparent moving of the cups alludes to Matthew 17:20: “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move.” (NIV Bible, Matt. 17.20) The Stalker’s faith in the Room led him to have his wish granted, while the others did not as they did not “believe in anything”.
In conclusion, we see that the Stalker can be considered as a yurodivy, a modern version of the Russian holy fool. The anti-spiritual are represented by the Writer and Professor. Tarkovsky uses these characters as dialectic opposites in Stalker to create a discourse on spirituality. The anti-spiritual is portrayed as destructive whereas the spiritual portrays hope and healing. Ultimately, Tarkovsky’s portrayal favours the yurodivy figure of the Stalker.
2024 words
Works Cited
Andrei. Stalker. Janus Films, 1979.
NILSSON, NILS AKE. “UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA IN TARKOVSKII’S FILM ‘STALKER.’” Russian History, vol. 11, no. 2/3, 1984, pp. 320–326. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24652749. Accessed 20 Apr. 2021.
Efird, Robert O. (2014) “The Holy Fool in Late Tarkovsky,” Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 18 : Iss. 1 , Article 45.
New International Version. Bible Gateway, http://www.biblegateway.com. Accessed 19 April 2021.
Tarkovsky, Andrei. “It’s in films that I try to say everything” Interview by Brežná, Irena. Metro. Winter 2012, Issue 173, p72-78. 7p.