I don't get it, why didn't the Stalker use the room to heal his daughter and why did he get mad at the writer and professor at the end?
I don't get it, why didn't the Stalker use the room to heal his daughter and why did he get mad at the writer and professor at the end?
liminal spaces for zoomers: >:(
liminal spaces for boomer: 😮
because it wouldnt have been able to heal his daughter, it can only heal those who wish to be healed, its not some overhealing power source
Ok then why didn't he want to be healed
wdym he? im talking about his daughter, not him
He doesn't use the room for himself, he doesn't want to be healed/have his desire granted. Why not?
Because it fulfils your deepest desire not just what you ask for, and he saw his job as helping others fulfil theirs.
You're stupid.
Tarkovsky just made a pretentious film where nothing happens out of a good book actual talented writers made
Sam's story with Solaris, which Stanislaw Lem disowned to the point he preferred the George Clooney version "for doing something different"
>pretentious how was it pretentious in any way?
the wishes wouldnt work as planned because you can never consciously know your true desire
and he was mad at his companions for not having any faith in the zone
But if he didn't use it then he didn't have any faith in the zone. Also how could they not have faith if they realized what you just said
that's wrong, it isn't hard to understand
Then explain it
I already did, it's a religious metaphor. The onus of understanding is on you, not me.
>it's a religious metaphor
Lmao, just because Tarkovsky was religious doesn't mean its a religious metaphor. The writers of the book were staunch atheists
>The Strugatsky brothers (бpaтья Cтpyгaцкиe or simply Cтpyгaцкиe) were born to Natan Strugatsky, an art critic, and his wife, a teacher. Their father was israeli
Yeah of course they were
lmfao
>and their mother was Russian Orthodox.
They were atheist themselves, Im not sure what kind of point you are trying to make
israelite snake blood = atheist = soviet shills. Keep up kiddo
>soviet shills
Ok now I know you are just trolling.
they were literally adopted into the state sponsored league of soviet writers. at least tarkovsky was being censored constantly and wasn’t an outright shill for the regimes
As opposed to fleeing the country and living in poverty like Tarkovsky? They just got lucky to live in a very brief time in Soviet history where writers and directors were given a little bit of support. That doesn't mean they supported the Soviet regime at all and its not like they could really speak out against the hand that fed them either.
The companions were right to not go into the room , they might have killed themselves for all they knew. I don't know why the Stalker had such a problem with that
why would going in the room end with them killing themselves?
It happened to Porcupine. And its hinted at that their death drive might be their deepest desire
who the heck is porcupine
The book makes it much more clear, Tarkovsky muddies its meaning for no real reason
As far as the golden sphere stuff in the book it's much less clear than the 'and now let me explain why we don't wish for things here' in the film. You're left to speculate about the wish being the wish in and of itself.
Why does this movie filter so many plebs. I get that it can be slow but its so comfy
the key is the ending with the train and the wobbling glass. remember the guy was a devoutly religious director. is the train causing the glass to shake (natural causes) or are supernatural powers (immaterial will)? both are really the same thing is what he’s saying. the magic works through things that aren’t magic at all, and therefore it isn’t really magic, but the mundane things aren’t really mundane either. there’s an inscrutable interstice of the divine and profane playing constantly through our lives as conscious beings
Its based on some Lacanian nonsense about our desires being "impossible" to satisfy, don't take it too seriously
Yeah, it came out during a time where that pseudo psychology shit was all the rage. I don't get why Tarkovsky a religious man fell for it. I guess his pretentiousness triumphed over reason
Roadside Picnic doesn't have any of that philosophical bullshit, Tarkovsky just pulled that out of his ass. Its a straight forward sci-fi movie. Id even claim that the video games are closer to the spirit they were trying to capture than Shitkovsky
It’s weird how much soviet art is just complete dogshit.
This but also American "art", british "art", German "art", French "art", Italian "art"
>literally puts a crown of thorns on his head
It was not even subtle about being a religious allegory. Why do so many plebs just flat out ignore it. Them not believing in the zone was a very clear cut allegory for them not believing in Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
because not everything has to be ruined by religious shit, enough good things in life has been soiled from it,
Its a movie that is clearly about religion and not even in a subtle way. If you want an objective interpretation of the movie you can't just ignore it because it doesn't suit your beliefs.
that's not how it works, has it never occurred to you that maybe this said religious symbolism could be a red herring for the actual meaning/plot? similar to real life.
>le death of the author
frick off
???? did u mean to reply to me?
wtf does this have to do with what i said
Tarkovsky intended it to be a religious film. Its not a red herring
its not his content though, its originally from a book,what tarkovsky intended hardly matters unless its his own original work
We are talking about the film not the book. It is its own work.
it is not, the whole foundation of the entire story is from another person's work, their intentions, their meanings.
Ok but Tarkovsky made his own version and its religious. He made a ton of changes, its like saying Funeral Parade of Roses is the same as Oedipus Rex just because its retelling its story
okay i have no idea what either of those references were, how old r u?
and no, he didnt make "his own version" if that was the case, the book and movie wouldnt even be tied together/ related at all.
Im 43, how have you not heard of Oedipus Rex one of the founding stories of Western Civilization. Tarkovsky is the director of Stalker therefore his interpretation is objectively the correct one
damn ur old, and no i dont know what either of those things are.
>Tarkovsky is the director of Stalker
yes, but is he the writer of the source material?
A movie isn't just its screenplay. Are you saying people who make movies don't have any say in how they are interpreted? That if someone made a movie that was just porn but they said some lines from the book that it would have the same meaning as the book?
I am only 23 years old and I know the story of Oedipus Rex, for shame.
It's the reverse of the woke nonsense, my man. You must regard the stalker movie as it's iwn entity that has the director's religious stamp on it disregarded of the source material. Here's a somewhat dumb example of a recent book adaptation: the secret garden (2020)
The author never intended it to be weird, action driven, supernatural fantasy story about a father and son reconnecting through mortal danger, yet this movie is just that. So you have to accept it as it's own thing. The original novel was about overcoming grief by reconnecting through and accepting nature (cycle of life) and not drowning in fear of passing down ones shortcomings.
I don't get people calling it pretentious, they spell everything out clearly in the dialogue. Even the book doesn't make it as clear. Im guessing you guys just dozed off while watching which is understandable
Isn't it just them not wanting to face there true desire. It seemed pretty clear though there friend who wished to heal his brother but instead got a load of money because in his heart of hearts he wanted money more then his brother. They just didn't want to face them selves and learn that there deepest desire was something selfish, greedy and immoral
>why didn't the Stalker use the room
You can't be a stalker if you weren't a desperate person which the room would have granted
The whole thing is a metaphor for the Soviet Union/Russia, a terrible place to be and its inhabitants know that but they are still stubborn and will defend it