April 29, 2026
See footer for German translation.
In these series of articles on early to mid 20th century European films, I am exploring the missional vocation of art in a secular age. In the previous article, I showed how it has something to do with "yearning for the ideal," as seen in Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev. That story culminates in the creation of the iconic Trinity. Although it is a story set in a Russian medieval context and not a modern Soviet one, it addresses a postmodern desire for the transcendent beyond a purely materialist, rationalist world.
In this reflection, we further explore the meaning of this ideal as seen in a later film of Tarkovsky, Stalker (1979). This is a strange story of a man who guides people into the mysterious "Zone."
On the meaning of Stalker, Tarkovsky wrote, "I see it as my duty to stimulate reflection on what is essentially human and eternal in each individual soul, and which all too often a person will pass by, even though his fate lies in his hands. He is too busy chasing after phantoms and bowing down to idols. In the end everything can be reduced to one simple element which all the person can count upon in his existence: the capacity to love" (Sculpting in Time, 200).
One could describe this purpose in art as more than aesthetic, but prophetic, calling people to an eternal purpose of existence as embodied in authentic love for others. What are the phantoms and idols of which modern man has bowed to that leave him dissatisfied, even in despair? And what is the true reality of life, which beckons us to a higher plane of existence? How might art be used as a bridge to this higher reality? The story of Stalker powerfully raises these questions.
A Journey into the Zone
The film centres on the Stalker, a man who guides people into the enigmatic "Zone." In particular, he guides two men—the Scientist, or "the Professor," and "the Writer"—who are curious and want to experience it for themselves.
We are never told exactly what the Zone is. Was it created by a meteorite with strange alien properties? Or is it something else entirely? In order to debunk various interpretations, Tarkovsky stated, "The Zone doesn't symbolise anything, any more than anything else does in my films: the zone is the zone, it's life, and as he makes his way across it a man may break down or he may come through" (Sculpting in Time, 200).
Certainly, the Zone is a mystery, but there are clues in the film itself regarding a deeper meaning. Tarkovsky himself suggested that all his art is a reflection of the exile that we are in a result of eating the fruit in the garden (Genesis 1-3). We are now in pursuit of self knowledge. Who are we and what this meaning of our existence? In the beginning of the story, as the Stalker and his wife and child sleep, we are shown a bed table with a glass of water, a needle, and a bitten apple, perhaps symbolising our spiritual exile east of Eden. We are now in pursuit of a self knowledge and his art reflects this desire.
This knowledge is what the Zone offers. For example, at the heart of the Zone there is a special room. If one enters it, one's deepest desire will be fulfilled. It is a place that promises happiness. It is the Stalker's mission to lead people to this room, where their deepest desire for happiness is fulfilled, and their true self revealed. But it is a kind of trial to get to this room. The self is tested. How can a person come to terms with themselves in this process? Can they face the truth of who they are?
From the outset, however, we are confronted with the Writer's scepticism. We learn that he is a popular cultural figure, a kind of public intellectual. He is sceptical that the Zone is anything more than what science itself can explain. For him, the world is only material, governed by necessity. In one scene, he cynically confesses, his "conscience wants to be a vegetarian, but his subconscious wants a juicy stake." Similar to Nietzsche and Freud, how can we overcome this powerful, dionysian will to power? For the Writer, there is no real "mystery" in life, nothing transcendent. There are only our base desires that will be satisfied one way or another.
The three men must enter the Zone covertly. The government is threatened by the Zone, because it cannot control it. At the turn of the 20th century, the Revolution of Lenin was a genuine attempt to remove the last traces of the mystery of religion and of "God" from society. Stalin continued the programme, brutally eliminating opposition, including many people of faith. This film reflects this antagonistic cultural milieu, the suppression of the "mystery" for the phantom and idol of control. In a gloomy, industrial setting, they are chased and shot at, but escape on a small rail car.
Yet this is only the beginning of the danger. The Zone itself is a risk. As they go deeper in, it seems to know them personally. The Zone knows your subconscious desire, and can restructure itself according to your inner psychological state. Therefore, they must proceed carefully, throwing metal nuts tied with white clothe to ensure they are not stepping into a trap that is set for them. Indeed, it is sentient, aware of their presence. It can kill.
In one scene, the Writer goes on by himself toward a seemingly abandoned house, where the Room resides. He wants to take the short cut to secret Room at the protest of the Stalker, who demands respect and discipline. But the Writer is unaware of the danger. As he proceeds forward the house, he hears a voice coming from the house warning him to go no further. The Zone speaks to him personally. The Stalker marvels that the Zone had given him a warning and nothing worse occurs. The Zone seems sympathetic to the Writer.
Modern Despair and Hopelessness
The crisis of the story is that secular people have lost hope: in mystery, in a future, and in themselves. People have become cynical, like the Writer and the Professor. As represented in the main characters, the science and art of the modern world have not succeeded in bringing true happiness.
For instance, in another scene, after they have survived a trap set by the Zone, they decide to rest. The Scientist and Writer sleepily discuss the meaning of life. For the Writer, humanity exists to create works of art that generate value, meaning, and purpose. Meanwhile, the Scientist suggests that what is best is practically solving the world's needs, such as hunger and poverty. But what remains in question, as they insult each other, is whether this modern purpose can be fulfilled without some sense of transcendent love.
Even the Writer despairs that his art has done any good. As they come closer to the Room, they must go through a tunnel called the "meat grinder," where one's character is truly tested. After he comes through, he is almost killed. But he awakens and offers a kind of confession. He wanted his art to inspire people, transforming them into something higher and better. But he admits that he has only made consumers. His art only reflects them. It does not point beyond them. He laments that his efforts were illusory. His project is a failure.
For the Professor, we learn that he is not really driven by altruistic intentions for humanity or society; he only wants to earn a Nobel Prize. Moreover, he is driven by petty resentments against his own colleagues. While they are waiting by the Room in a decayed, abandoned factory, a phone rings. He has a conversation with a colleague, gloating that he is in the Zone. However, his colleague brushes this off, reminding him that years ago he slept with his wife. What is revealed is a loveless, egotistical, resentful self that wants to one-up and outdo one's neighbour.
As the three stand on the brink of the Room, however, the Writer insults the Stalker. He will not enter the Room. The Stalker informs them they can enter, but the one thing required is faith. They must believe that the Zone can fulfil this desire, despite the risk. Will the Room really give happiness or only reveal something about us that will cause us to despair? For example, they discuss another Stalker, nicknamed Porcupine, who entered the Zone with the intention of healing his ailing brother, but instead became wealthy. His materialistic essence—greed—was revealed. In despair at this knowledge, Porcupine commits suicide.
Moreover, the Professor has an ulterior motive in coming to the Room. He smuggled in a bomb, planning to destroy the Zone. The three engage in a physical altercation, as the Stalker tries to take the bomb from him. The Writer, however, continues to throw him to the ground. The Stalker breaks down in despair. All he has is the Zone. His very life is dependent on it, not just for his income, but for his essential purpose. He believes that the Zone is ultimately a gift for those who have lost all hope; it is a gift for the modern world, but he despairs that so many people fail along the way or lack the faith to receive it.
After the altercation, the three sit before the door of the Room, not ready to enter, but perhaps in acceptance of what the journey revealed about themselves. As Tarkovsky wrote, "This, too, is what Stalker is about: the hero goes through moments of despair when his faith is shaken; but every time he comes to a renewed sense of his vocation to serve people who have lost their hopes and illusions" (Sculpting in Time, 193).
The Apocalypse of Love
While it is true that the Zone, stated Tarkovsky, is simply the "Zone," there are clues that a deeper transcendent, even religious, meaning is at work in this film.
As Tarkovsky wrote, "In Stalker I make some sort of complete statement, namely that human love alone is - miraculously - proof against the blunt assertion that there is no hope for the world. This is our common, and incontrovertible positive possession. Although we no longer quite know how to love..." (Sculpting in Time, 199). But this love is not abstract; it is given in revealed truth.
For instance, as the men are resting, the camera pans over things that lie under the water, beneath the surface, such as machine guns and medical equipment, technology of the modern world. But we are also shown an icon of John the Baptist, the last major prophet, who prepared the way for Christ. As this happens, we hear the voice of the Stalker's daughter reading a text from Revelation. This is a reference to the apocalyptic undertone of the story, speaking of the victory of the Lamb of God. In other words, Stalker points in the same direction as Rublev's Trinity, but there is an idea here of an apocalyptic cleansing of divine love.
Moreover, when the Stalker wakes up, he reflects on the disciples who walked with Jesus on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24). In that story, the men were in the presence of Christ and did not recognize him. In the context of the film, the suggestion is that modern, secular people have lost the ability to see and recognize the presence of God in the world. Before moving on, the Stalker talks about how music too points to some kind of transcendence beyond our material world. The point is, there is something eternal placed within us, reflected in music, that the revelation of Christ fulfils.
However, Tarkovsky himself said that the faithful love of the Stalker's wife is the greatest miracle of all in the story. The film opens and concludes with the suffering of his wife.
It is worth quoting Tarkovsky here in full: "The arrival of the Stalker's wife in the café where they are resting confronts the Writer and the Scientist with a puzzling, to them incomprehensible, phenomenon. There before them is a woman who has been through untold miseries because of her husband, and has had a sick child by him; but she continues to love him with the same selfless, unthinking devotion in her youth. Her love and her devotion are that final miracle which can be set against the unbelief, cynicism moral vacuum poisoning the modern world, of which both the Writer and the Scientist are victims" (Sculpting in Time, 198).
This claim is astounding. Faithful love, as embodied in covenantal relationship, is what reflects the mystery of divine love. This is precisely what Paul writes in his reflection on marriage, "this is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:32).
However, the emphasis here is on the faithfulness of the wife to her Stalker husband. As he gives his life to lead people to happiness, she has given herself to him in support of this vocation. As he despairs at the failure of faith of people in modern society, she cares and comforts him. She does not regret her life with this "holy fool." In this sense, as a prophetic message to modern humanity, the commitment of fidelity and faithfulness in covenant marriage—the sacrifice of self for the other—is the miracle. This is also the Gospel: God, who gave himself to us in Christ, so as to lead us into the true higher "Zone."
See previous article on Andrei Rublev.