Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Zona: A Book About a Film About a Journey to a Room (2012)


27 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

(A&F links to Andrei Tarkovsky and Stalker)

Alright everyone, one of our most anticipated books of the year is out in the stores now. We might as well have a thread for it. Since Stalker is now going to be ranked #2 in our soon to be released Top 25 Pilgrimage films list, it's rather nice that there's a book coming out just now on it.

From The Guardian -

Rightly or wrongly, the synopsis is regarded as one of the lowest forms of writing. Two-thirds of the way into Zona, his characteristically singular book about Andrei Tarkovksy's Stalker (1979), Geoff Dyer declares: "There are few things I hate more than when someone, in an attempt to persuade me to see a film, starts summarising it." Doing so has the effect of "destroying any chance of my ever going to see it". It's a surprising assertion – though less so if you're familiar with Dyer's books which, whether they're about jazz, the first world war or DH Lawrence, go out of their way to fuse form and content in arresting fashion – because Zona is one long movie summary, a shot-by-shot rewrite.

... At a time when David Cameron appears to regard The King's Speech as the acme of film-making, and any art that's remotely ambitious is derided as obscurantist or elitist by middle England's cultural gatekeepers, it's especially important to stress that interested film-goers can enjoy works more challenging than The Inbetweeners Movie. It's equally pleasing to read Dyer speak up for the pleasures of watching films, not in domesticated and tamed form on DVD, but at the cinema. Stalker itself, which is an immersive experience as much as it's a visual spectacle, loses its magnetic force when watched at home. Dyer talks about the "possibility of cinema as semi-permanent pilgrimage site". He also claims "the Zone is cinema." Beyond the book's bravura formalism and in spite of the suspicion that it could be viewed as a highbrow take on live-blogging, it's Dyer's ability at moments like this to make pilgrims of his readers and to lead them on a journey in search of truths about love and about the nature of happiness that make Zona such an exhilarating achievement.

From The White Review -


Stalker is, as Dyer sees it, ‘a test of the viewer’s ability to appreciate it’; within the film, the Zone is also a ‘test’ of its visitors. Zona follows suit. The unknown nature of the book involves reader and writer in an exercise of trust. In this sense it revisits the original sense of an ‘essay’ as ‘a trial, testing, proof; or experiment’(OED). Rather than fashioning his book from a nice knock-down argument, Dyer improvises a set of responses, risking failure in the final outcome, as he modestly boasts: ‘whether it will amount to anything – whether it will add up to a worthwhile commentary, and whether this commentary might become a work of art in its own right – is still unclear’. His apparent lack of agenda actually serves the book’s interests well. It thrives on the creative potential of his personal reactions, which are probably sharpened by all this uncertainty. Like live performance, the writing is also energised by unpredictability and, consequently, also makes better reading. It is like the difference between, on the one hand, talking to someone who charmlessly steers the exchange towards a winning point and, on the other hand, speaking to a dynamic and open conversationist.

Dyer’s project continues a vital legacy. He claims, ‘if I had not seen Stalker in my early twenties my responsiveness to the world would have been radically diminished’. He shares with his idol an artistic ideal of awareness, describing Tarkovsky’s aesthetic as a length of take demanding ‘a special intensity of attention’. The inverse dominates much contemporary culture where, ‘a lot of what’s being shown on the world’s screens is fit only for morons’ with the result that ‘there are more and more things from which one has to avert one’s ears and eyes’. Rubbish art that warrants ignorance. A bit broad-brush and heavy-handed, but its Dyer’s reason for writing. Against a social dystopia of willed numbness, Zona documents a profound engagement with an artwork. It is not so much homage to the film alone, but to the dialogue it inspires.

From Ruthless Culture -


... Many art house films are slow-paced precisely because their directors wish us to mull over what it is that we have just seen, they fully expect our minds to wander and slow down the pace precisely in order to enable these flights of interpretative fancy. As a director who fully identified with the European art house tradition and the creator of some of the most beautiful, entrancing and spiritually confusing films ever made, Tarkovsky is a worthy ambassador for precisely this kind of filmmaking. In fact, one could quite reasonably argue that Stalker is one of the exemplars of the European art house tradition. Once you realise that the point of Stalker is to invite speculation, Zona snaps into focus: This is not a traditional work of criticism, it is an account of Geoff Dyer’s subjective response to viewing Stalker and each of his dalliances, tangents and footnotes represents an attempt to fill one of the gaps created in Dyer’s mind by Tarkovsky. As Bordwell predicted back in 1985, Dyer reacts to the gaps in his understanding by drawing on his understanding of film, his knowledge of literature and his biographical insight into Tarkovsky himself. When neither realistic nor authorial interpretative strategies fill the gaps then Dyer shifts into a more autobiographical register where he relates the film both to his personal experience and to his wider cultural interests.

It is in these dalliances that Dyer’s voice is at its strongest and most recognisable, habitués of Dyer’s writing may feel like taking a drink every time he references the poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke, the mundane irritations of travel or the experience of being an intelligent 20-something with too much time and too little to do. Ultimately, Zona is not just ‘a Geoff Dyer book’ it is arguably the most Geoff Dyer book that Geoff Dyer has thus far written. By using Stalker as a jumping off point for his tangents and dalliances, Dyer’s writing acquires a degree of tonal and thematic coherence that is sometimes lacking in many of his other works. To borrow a term from the Colin Marshall interview I linked to above, Zona is not just Geoff Dyer doing the same old shtick, it is Geoff Dyer doing the same old shtick and allowing that shtick to be transformed by the themes and concerns of Tarkovsky’s film. Yes, Dyer complains about losing his backpack and yes, Dyer quotes the same Austrian poet he always quotes but Dyer also reflects upon the point of his writing and what it is that he hopes to achieve by writing this kind of book. Consider the following passage:

What is the point in coming here? The purpose of coming here was to get to the point where that question could be asked of oneself rather than someone else. There always comes a moment in the writing of a book when its purpose is revealed: the moment when the urge – Nabokov’s famous ‘throb’ – that led one to consider writing it is made plain. Actually there are two moments, or, if it makes sense to put it like this, the moment comes in two phases. First when one realises that yes, there is a book here – however faintly it can be discerned – not just a haphazard collection of jottings and crossings-out clustered around an inadequately formed idea. Since, in principle, getting to that point should be easy, it’s disheartening to find that so much time and energy have to be wasted, that so many pointless detours, irritating obstacles, self-imposed tests and excuses (that voice constantly whispering or crying out ‘Stop!’) conspire to get in the way. But at that point when you realise that there is a book, even a short one with little hope of critical approval or large sales, you see that all these diversions were necessary and so, strictly speaking, were not diversions at all. [Pp 185-186]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

[url="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-geoff-dyer-20120226,0,4750882.story"]LA Times review[/url] (the writer hasn't seen Stalker).

[quote][font="Georgia,"]In Tarkovsky's Zone, Dyer sees echoes of the Russian gulags, the haunted nature of post-meltdown Chernobyl and the chaotic first hours of Sept. 11 — an impressively broad palette for a film more than 30 years old. And though Dyer colors his book with a staggering arsenal of cultural references from Rilke, recording artists [/font][url="http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/music/thievery-corporation-%28music-group%29-PECLB004912.topic"]Thievery Corporation[/url][font="Georgia,"] and even "bumfights" videos with an acrobatic grace, it's the book's slow reveal of Dyer's interpretation of the Zone that eventually leaves the greatest impact.[/font]

[font="Georgia,"]For all the witty, self-referential asides that can make the book feel like the smartest "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episode ever written, it's Dyer's emotional tie to Writer's journey and the wish fulfillment of that vocation that stay with you the longest after the lights finally come up.[/font][/quote]
Edited by Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[b]Warning:[/b] I opened this up after 10pm or so last night and then, upon turning the last page of the book, I suddenly realized it was past 2am in the morning. I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a book that you can't put down, but it's a certainly a book that you can completely lose track of everything else around you while reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Jeremy, how directly does Dyer address religion in [i]Zona[/i]? [url=http://www.themillions.com/2012/02/blink-vs-think-when-a-movie-bewitches-a-writer.html]This article[/url] had me excited at first, but as I read into it, I began to think Dyer's observations of the film might miss the point.

[i]Dyer duly notes that the setting foreshadows the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown in the Ukraine in 1986 (he calls Tarkovsky “a prophet”), and that the Zone also echoes Stalin’s gulags. Citing Wordsworth, he addresses the importance of such man-made landscapes: “It is when there is some kind of human interaction with landscape, when the landscape, having been manufactured or altered, is in the process of being reclaimed by nature – a source of abiding fascination for Tarkovsky – that its ‘inward meaning’ is most powerfully felt.”

By the end of their journey, Stalker, Writer, and Professor have learned that the Zone “is not a place of hope so much as a place where hope turns in on itself, resigns itself to the way things are.” Not exactly a heart-warming takeaway.[/i]

EDIT: I should add that I loved Dyer's quote here:

[i]How, you might ask, can anyone spin a 228-page book out of remembering and misremembering that? The simple answer is that Dyer, much like Tarkovsky, recalibrates our sense of time. He doesn’t merely slow things down, he sometimes freezes them, the better to examine them under his microscope. Instructively, Dyer quotes Tarkovsky here: “If the regular length of a shot is increased, one becomes bored, but if you keep on making it longer, it piques your interest, and if you make it even longer, a new quality emerges, a special intensity of attention.”

“This,” Dyer writes, “is Tarkovsky’s aesthetiic in a nutshell. At first there can be a friction between our expectations of time and Tarkovsky-time and this friction is increasing in the twenty-first century as we move further and further away from Tarkovsky-time towards moron-time in which nothing can last – and no one can concentrate on anything – for more than about two seconds…. Tarkovsky is saying to the audience: Forget about previous ideas of time. Stop looking at your watches.”[/i] Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Christian' date='25 February 2012 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1330216324' post='267705']
Jeremy, how directly does Dyer address religion in [i]Zona[/i]? [url="http://www.themillions.com/2012/02/blink-vs-think-when-a-movie-bewitches-a-writer.html"]This article[/url] had me excited at first, but as I read into it, I began to think Dyer's observations of the film might miss the point.

[i]Dyer duly notes that the setting foreshadows the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown in the Ukraine in 1986 (he calls Tarkovsky “a prophet”), and that the Zone also echoes Stalin’s gulags. Citing Wordsworth, he addresses the importance of such man-made landscapes: “It is when there is some kind of human interaction with landscape, when the landscape, having been manufactured or altered, is in the process of being reclaimed by nature – a source of abiding fascination for Tarkovsky – that its ‘inward meaning’ is most powerfully felt.”

By the end of their journey, Stalker, Writer, and Professor have learned that the Zone “is not a place of hope so much as a place where hope turns in on itself, resigns itself to the way things are.” Not exactly a heart-warming takeaway.[/i][/quote]
I think this reviewer gets it incredibly wrong. He might as well just be pulling out quotes from the book at random. Dyer does not leave his discussion of the ending with any sort of resignation at all. On the contrary, he actually argues that the film, along with its ending, is one of the most meaningful and powerful films ever made.

Also, Dyer can't really help but address religion directly because he's writing about a Tarkovsky film. The script, after all, contains selections from the gospels and the book of Revelation. The parallels between religion and the faith and/or doubt exhibited by the three men in the film are limitless, and Dyer constantly returns to this theme. Dyer explores how the Stalker has faith in the Zone, and it becomes his job to try and somehow share his faith with these other difficult men. On the other hand, anyone expecting explicit discussions of Christianity in the book will be disappointed. This is, obviously, not a "Christian" book that you'd find on the shelves of a Christian bookstore. No "plans of salvation" are discussed at the end.

Once you start reading, you can't help but appreciate how much the author has wrestled with Tarkovsky's work. He's a good writer to begin with, and he brings a fascinating background of experiences to bear on this thought here. There are multiple layers of meaning, of literary and historical allusions, of profound beauty, of significant philosophical import ... and Dyer explores every single one of them that he can. Does he even get to everything? I don't think he does. But it is a testimony to the film itself that an entire book devoted to exploring the meaning of its story still isn't quite long enough. Long enough or entirely satisfying? No. Something worth thinking and talking about with your friends for a long time after? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks for fleshing that out, Jeremy. I'm reassured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I wish the author would come to D.C. to promote the book, but for now I'll have to content myself with online articles like [url=http://www.fandor.com/blog/geoff-dyer-expeditions-into-the-zone/]this one[/url].

Dyer's upcoming events are listed [url=http://geoffdyer.com/events/]here[/url]. Those who live in Seattle, New York and California should take note. Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dana Stevens' [url=http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2012/03/geoff_dyer_s_tarkovsky_book_zona_reviewed_.html]review[/url], FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

J. Hoberman in yesterday's [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/books/review/geoff-dyers-zona-examines-the-film-stalker.html?_r=1&ref=books]NY Times[/url]!

Quite a publicity push behind this book. Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Christian' date='03 March 2012 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1330825689' post='268155']
Dana Stevens' [url="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2012/03/geoff_dyer_s_tarkovsky_book_zona_reviewed_.html"]review[/url], FWIW.[/quote]
In which she writes:
[i]... But if Zona goes off in a few too many directions, most of them are fascinating enough that we’re happy to zigzag along in the author’s wake. In addition to being a real-time explication of a single movie, Zona is a meditation on movies and time: the way movies change us, and change for us, as we return to them through our lives ...[/i]

This is true and is the primarily reason I found the book to be so enjoyable.

[quote name='Christian' date='03 March 2012 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1330827544' post='268156']
J. Hoberman in yesterday's [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/books/review/geoff-dyers-zona-examines-the-film-stalker.html?_r=1&ref=books"]NY Times[/url]![/quote]
In which he writes:
[i]... Dyer casts himself as “Stalker’s” stalker; getting there, as cruise lines used to advertise, is half the fun. “We are in another world that is no more than this world perceived with unprecedented attentiveness,” he writes, and his own close attention is admirable. Taking pains to nail the feel of Tarkovsky’s locations (“the echoey, intestinal, glass-strewn, stalactite-adorned tunnel”) ...[/i]

Reading Dyer's prose and descriptions of the very atmosphere of the film is all enveloping. It's the sort of writing you submerge yourself into, which is why I think it's one of those books that is especially enjoyable if you are able to read the whole thing in one sitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Glenn Kenny attends a [url=http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2012/03/tarkovsky-interruptus.html][i]Stalker[/i] screening[/url] and discussion with Geoff Dyer, Walter Murch, Phillip Lopate and Dana Stevens. Interesting insights, including this:

[i](Philip is a neighbor and friend and after the event proper I had an amiable chat in which we reflected that neither of us should be surprised that he chafes at Tarkovsky's evangelical side).[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Kenny also posted [url=http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2012/03/geoff-dyers-zona.html]this item[/url] on the book a couple days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Now, [url="http://www.tnr.com/book/review/stalking-geoff-dyer"]David Thomson.[/url]

[quote]Geoff says he loves [i]Stalker[/i] and that it changed his life, but he doesn’t really say why he loves it, and having known him on and off I’m not sure that anything is going to change his life so long as he can sit in his cardigan in a room of his own and make up books like this.[/quote] Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bought a copy of this just the other day when I visited Boston. Looking forward to reading it very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The book is enjoyable for the most part (the off-hand dismissals of the Coens, Veronique, etc., were annoying), but I'm fairly obsessed with Stalker and have watched it several times, and Zona didn't point out much I hadn't noticed already. The most interesting part for me was learning about the film stock fiasco that was discussed earlier in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Scott Esposito [url=http://entertainment.salon.com/2012/03/31/zona_geoff_dyers/]goes thumbs down[/url] at Salon, which appears to have given over its Books channel [i]completely [/i]to Barnes & Noble Review reprints.

I just bought the book yesterday -- from the Barnes and Noble (!) website -- and am looking forward to reading it. Although I agree with Dyer that Stalker is best experienced only on the big screen, I broke down Friday when I saw a DVD copy of the film at the library. I want to watch it again before I read the book. But that's probably a mistake. The DVD is infamous for having only a surround-sound mix and no mono. [url=http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare5/stalker3.htm]I'm supposed to avoid it.[/url]

Part of me wants to watch the film with sound turned off, just to revisit the visuals. Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The first 25 pages of this book are great! I've laughed, been provoked to think about the film more deeply, been encouraged by how well Dyer can conjure up the images that I saw so many years ago, and have been close to dazzled by the way the author's mind works. I'm trying to hold that last impulse in check; maybe he's going to go down too many rabbit trails. But for now, what a blast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Granted, there are rabbit trails (wherever those sling-shots should happen to fall), but as you keep reading you get a sense that there's still a method to the madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

My favorite passage from early in the book is this:

"The person doing the talking, having the overheard thoughts, is another man, with a woman in a cute little fur cape. Uh-oh! The talker is still going on about how insufferably boring everything is. She asks him about the Bermuda Triangle. He goes on some more about how boring everything is, reckons that maybe even the Zone is boring, that it might have been more interesting to have lived in the Middle Ages. What does he mean by this? Is he saying, effectively, that he’d rather have been in [i]Andrei Rublev [/i]than [i]Stalker[/i]? Which wouldn’t make sense, because he’s Tarkovsky’s favourite actor, Anatoli Solonitsyn — and thirteen years earlier he [i]was[/i] [i]Andrei Rublev[/i]!"

I don’t know why that makes me smile so broadly, but it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I finished this and rated it 5 stars at GoodReads. It's probably a 4.5-star book, but GoodReads doesn't let me assign half stars. The book is better than 4-stars-out-of-5, so I rounded up. I was frequently delighted while reading [i]Zona[/i], put off just once or twice, and now would like to read more of Dyer's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Christian' timestamp='1334451533' post='269843']
I was frequently delighted while reading [i]Zona[/i], put off just once or twice, and now would like to read more of Dyer's work.[/quote]
Same here. Glad you got a chance to read it. It's rare you have such a combination of light, almost frivilous, reading with occasionally deep and meaningful subjects. [i] Zona[/i] is a highly enjoyable read. It deals with occasionally heavy subject matter. Dyer often seems like he's goofing off, dallying here with a tangent, making a wild comparison other there, and then giving an insight on the film that I never got before. But when he gets to the questions of depth in the film, he doesn't short-shrift them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Geoff Dyer recently had a mild stroke. He wrote about it here.

 

 

There’s a line in Tarkovsky’s Solaris: we never know when we’re going to die and because of that we are, at any given moment, immortal. So at this moment it feels pretty good, being where I’ve always longed to be, perched on the farthest edge of the western world. There’s a wild sunset brewing up over the Pacific. The water is glowing turquoise, the sky is turning crazy pink, the lights of the Santa Monica Ferris wheel are starting to pulse and spin in the twilight. Life is so interesting I’d like to stick around for ever, just to see what happens, how it all turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I was frequently delighted while reading Zona, put off just once or twice, and now would like to read more of Dyer's work.

And so I have been. First was The Missing of the Somme. I had no idea what that book was about for, literally, 40 pages, I think, but it was an easy, enjoyable read (odd, given its subject) that was over before I knew it.

 

I'm now on to Yoga for People Who Can't Be Bothered to Do It, and have come across this passage in a story called Skunk, in which the author and a woman get stoned together. The strength of the drug hits the woman hard, and she engages Dyer about why he gave her the drug, and why he likes it:

 

Marie shook her head. "Why did you do this?"

 

"Do what?"

 

"Give me that stuff."

 

"I thought it would be fun. And useful for my work."

 

"Why?"

 

"It enables me to enter the Zone," I said. "You know, the dream space of the city."

 

I probably wouldn't have mentioned this here were "Zone" not capitalized. I doubt there's any connection, but it was striking to see another Dyer work use the term.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Looking further into Dyer's Yoga for People Who Can't Be Bothered To Do It, I see that the final story is titled, The Zone. But before I could get to it -- tonight, I hope -- I came across this in the story Leptis Magna:

 

I always know when I'm in the Zone, When I'm in the Zone I don't wish I was anywhere else. Whereas when I'm not in the Zone I'm always wishing I was somewhere else, wishing I was in the Zone. ...

 

It was not surprising that these details came straight out of Stalker: I got the idea of the Zone from Tarkovsky but the Zone in Stalker is not the only Zone. If it weren't for Stalker I'm not sure I would ever have realized that the place I wanted to be -- and the state I wanted to be in -- was the Zone. Before I saw Stalker I only had the need, the longing. In some sense I might have been in the Zone prior to seeing Stalker, but part of being in the Zone is realizing you're in the Zone, and since I didn't know there was such a thing as the Zone, I was not really in it. That is the thing about the Zone, that is one of the things I love about it: I know when I'm there, and I knew I was in it in the Several Forum.

 

Does Dyer mention this book in Zona? I can't recall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I just read this today.

Zona is the book I've been wanting to read since I discovered Tarkovsky.

(It's as if I went into the Room and it brought into existence a book that contains, among other things, my new favorite brick joke of all time: on a footnote to pg. 8, Dyer references the part in Voyage in Time where Tark is at Tonino Guerra's house and Antonioni calls, and in a footnote to pg. 153, this pays off when he suggests a "YouTube-style redub" for the scene with the Zone phone: "Ah Michelangelo!")

 

Warning: I opened this up after 10pm or so last night and then, upon turning the last page of the book, I suddenly realized it was past 2am in the morning. I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a book that you can't put down, but it's a certainly a book that you can completely lose track of everything else around you while reading it.

I know this is a 2.5-year old post, but as Stalker itself does the same thing for me, I imagine Dyer might consider that the best compliment he could get for Zona.

Edited by Kinch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0