Stalker

1979, Andrey Tarkovsky
Tarkovsky's use of the camera ir really not the point; we have of course the long takes, but what is important is his photography; the incredible beauty of each and every image, each and every framing. This is true in a manner where each os unique; it is nearly impossible to make generalisations except to say that they are all powerful, all important. If one can say anything, it is that, in a wish to avoid the everyday, many shots are very long, and that many are a quite close portrait.
Perhaps, for me, Tarkovsky's finest images are in black and white (looking forward to Tarr's 'Satantango'. This is largely down to the lighting, but also partly down to the incredibly precise depth of field, incredibly sharp that is, with a nuanced contrast that still allows great changes.
This is all about the lighting. In the colour scenes the same rules apply; it is just easier to work it out for the black and white. Sidelighting allows a great feeling if texture. Important is the dispersal of lighting, through fog, smoke, mist. There is, for all this, also powerful uses of hard lighting, often itself reflected, in water or on a wall.
An interesting aspect of the mis-en-scene here is how disamringly simple it is. This is not a film with extraneous ornamentation; there is the centre of each scene, the action or more precisely the idea, it is centered around. This sense of narrowness, of focus, is exemplified by how often the actors are almost in alignment with each other, blocking each other, and also in how the set narrows the framing, so we see the characters through doorways, or all within the confines of a clour that makes the frame 'smaller', so to speak.
This simplicity carries to the story, at least to the search part, with Tarkovsky's insistence on the great continuity of time. He says it should all seem like one take; indeed no time seems to pass from shot to shot, there are no breaks. We do have a sense of time passing. It can be (also with the simplicity) monotomous; we did drift in and out here, which made it difficult to really reach the heights that are aimed for closer to the end.
Also Tarkovsky's exacting use of sound should be mentioned; picking out the pertinent ones, otherwise letting the ears take in silence, or rather create their own sounds from the images. The sounds we do have are inventive; an insect almost out of the range of hearing, a strainge buzz. Not over-noticeable, but unfamiliar.
The zone is a remarkably realized place. The idea of not just nature, but human history, slowly rotting, being shown to age, all is in time, is a remarkably important philosophical concept, and here in a matter of fact manner. Again, what this film is 'about' does not have to be made too complicated intellectually (though Tarkovsky would have it as an infinite spiritually). The Professor and Writer unable to overcome society, the Stalker, the slightly crazed tortured artist-style figure, going through the horrors; and love, the one infinite.
The incredibly low-key atmosphere here also allows the monologues to flow in well.
Whatever is one's view of the thought here, this film is about the (not really seperable) image. Each one stands on its own as remarkable, a whole world. Not flashy or showy, just... an image. That is this film's miracle.