Days of Eclipse
STALKER (1979) can fairly be described as a kind of partially-sepia-toned cinematic distillation of the themes of the Strugatskys’s Roadside Picnic. I have not read the brothers’s Definitely Maybe, but it would seem that Sokurov is following the same playbook (and so too will German, with HARD TO BE A GOD, 2013, and, in a slightly less abstracted way, Lopushansky, with UGLY SWANS, 2006), but here distillation turns to evaporation. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that Tarkovsky’s influence has generated an ambition to reach for an artistry that exceeds this filmmaker’s grasp.
From what I gather, the key idea elaborated in the novel is that knowledge and reason amount to a localised counter-entropic tendency, but that, when these begin to reach the cosmic scale, a kind of second-order entropic resistance manifests itself to prevent this tendency from becoming a disrupting factor capable of destabilising some sort of mystical cosmic equilibrium. In the book, this idea is expressed as follows (Strugatsky and Strugatsky, 1978, pp. 102–3):
"Vecherovsky introduced the concept of the Homeostatic Universe. ’The universe retains its structure’, that was his fundamental axiom. In his words, the laws of conservation of energy and matter were simply discrete manifestations of the law of conservation of structure. The law of nondecreasing entropy contradicts the homeostasis of the universe and therefore was a partial law and not a universal one. Complementary to this law was the law of constant reproduction of reason. The combination and conflict of these two partial laws were an expression of the universal law of the conservation of structure.
"If only the law of nondecreasing entropy existed, the structure of the universe would disappear and chaos would reign. But on the other hand if only a constantly self-perfecting and all-powerful intelligence prevailed, the structure of the universe based on homeostasis would also be disrupted. This, of course, did not mean that the universe would become better or worse – merely different – contrary to the principle of homeostasis, since a constantly developing intelligence can have but one goal: to change nature. That is why the gist of the Homeostasis of the Universe consists in maintaining the balance between the increase in entropy and the development of reason. That is why there are no and can be no supercivilizations, since the term supercivilization is used for intelligence developed to such a degree that it transcends the law of nondecreasing entropy on a cosmic scale. And what was happening to us now was nothing other than the first reaction of the Homeostatic Universe to the threat of humanity becoming a supercivilization. The universe was defending itself."
If we don’t fixate too strongly on what sounds a bit too much like a kind of variation on the idea of the Gaia principle, then we have something quite interesting, at least as a basis for science fictional reflections: if we can construe life as a counter-entropic tendency operating temporarily and locally, then we can also see that another kind of counter-entropic tendency emerges with that form of life that begins to become capable of fundamentally changing its milieu, and, moreover, changes that milieu in ways that can be destructive of the specificity of that milieu, and can ultimately reach a scale in which the cosmic locality is dissolved into a universe of universalism that threatens the very possibility of every locality. In short, we can read these ideas through the lens of Bernard Stiegler’s notions of anthropy and neganthropy.
Here, on the other hand, all that is boiled down to the difficulties of finishing one’s thesis in the face of frequent interruptions. Admittedly, behind that there is a sense, but in an overly vague manner that fails to be sufficiently allusive, of a world that has not caught up with modernity, giving rise to the question of whether being stuck in tradition amounts to the vice of refusing to leave a backward state or the virtue of remaining stalwart against a corrosion of local particularity. In the end, these explorations are brought to a close in a manner reminiscent of SOLARIS (1972), with the suggestion that all of these concerns and questions might themselves just be expressions of what is in fact no more than a solipsistic loop. It’s not that there’s nothing going on with this movie, but it seems that the wish to follow in the master’s footsteps has led Sokurov to thin the material out to the point of losing the vast bulk of its potential significance.
From what I gather, the key idea elaborated in the novel is that knowledge and reason amount to a localised counter-entropic tendency, but that, when these begin to reach the cosmic scale, a kind of second-order entropic resistance manifests itself to prevent this tendency from becoming a disrupting factor capable of destabilising some sort of mystical cosmic equilibrium. In the book, this idea is expressed as follows (Strugatsky and Strugatsky, 1978, pp. 102–3):
"Vecherovsky introduced the concept of the Homeostatic Universe. ’The universe retains its structure’, that was his fundamental axiom. In his words, the laws of conservation of energy and matter were simply discrete manifestations of the law of conservation of structure. The law of nondecreasing entropy contradicts the homeostasis of the universe and therefore was a partial law and not a universal one. Complementary to this law was the law of constant reproduction of reason. The combination and conflict of these two partial laws were an expression of the universal law of the conservation of structure.
"If only the law of nondecreasing entropy existed, the structure of the universe would disappear and chaos would reign. But on the other hand if only a constantly self-perfecting and all-powerful intelligence prevailed, the structure of the universe based on homeostasis would also be disrupted. This, of course, did not mean that the universe would become better or worse – merely different – contrary to the principle of homeostasis, since a constantly developing intelligence can have but one goal: to change nature. That is why the gist of the Homeostasis of the Universe consists in maintaining the balance between the increase in entropy and the development of reason. That is why there are no and can be no supercivilizations, since the term supercivilization is used for intelligence developed to such a degree that it transcends the law of nondecreasing entropy on a cosmic scale. And what was happening to us now was nothing other than the first reaction of the Homeostatic Universe to the threat of humanity becoming a supercivilization. The universe was defending itself."
If we don’t fixate too strongly on what sounds a bit too much like a kind of variation on the idea of the Gaia principle, then we have something quite interesting, at least as a basis for science fictional reflections: if we can construe life as a counter-entropic tendency operating temporarily and locally, then we can also see that another kind of counter-entropic tendency emerges with that form of life that begins to become capable of fundamentally changing its milieu, and, moreover, changes that milieu in ways that can be destructive of the specificity of that milieu, and can ultimately reach a scale in which the cosmic locality is dissolved into a universe of universalism that threatens the very possibility of every locality. In short, we can read these ideas through the lens of Bernard Stiegler’s notions of anthropy and neganthropy.
Here, on the other hand, all that is boiled down to the difficulties of finishing one’s thesis in the face of frequent interruptions. Admittedly, behind that there is a sense, but in an overly vague manner that fails to be sufficiently allusive, of a world that has not caught up with modernity, giving rise to the question of whether being stuck in tradition amounts to the vice of refusing to leave a backward state or the virtue of remaining stalwart against a corrosion of local particularity. In the end, these explorations are brought to a close in a manner reminiscent of SOLARIS (1972), with the suggestion that all of these concerns and questions might themselves just be expressions of what is in fact no more than a solipsistic loop. It’s not that there’s nothing going on with this movie, but it seems that the wish to follow in the master’s footsteps has led Sokurov to thin the material out to the point of losing the vast bulk of its potential significance.
Mini Review: STALKER (1979) can fairly be described as a kind of partially-sepia-toned cinematic distillation of the themes of the Strugatskys’s Roadside Picnic. I’ve not read their Definitely Maybe, but it would seem that Sokurov is following the same playbook (and so too will German with HARD TO BE A GOD, 2013), but here distillation turns to evaporation. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that Tarkovsky’s influence has generated an ambition to reach for an artistry that exceeds this director’s grasp.
Watch the Trailer