didn't ask about your moronic take of cinematography as a whole, but about an interpretation of this one particular film. if you have none or can't even extend your argument and post something ~~*better*~~ than frick off kid
Life is a struggle and getting everything you (think you) want in the moment won't necessarily make you happy. There will always be something missing. It reminds me a bit of Buddhist ideas about life being suffering because of desire.
he took a broader sci-fi concept and made it more about the human reactions to desire and want. with the way the movie is presented you're not even sure the supernatural elements of the zone are even real.
Except for the fact that his goals and desires are never stated through the screen or dialogue. The reason we don't know supernatural elements of the zone are even real is because they were working with a soviet budget and were shit.
ask [...]
they actually care for what the characters say and not just if there are breasts or abs in it.
There's like 30 lines of dialogue for 4 hours of movie.
yeah thats what i was thinking too, it seems no one in this thread is able to distill this information
Except for the fact that his goals and desires are never stated through the screen or dialogue. The reason we don't know supernatural elements of the zone are even real is because they were working with a soviet budget and were shit.
[...]
There's like 30 lines of dialogue for 4 hours of movie.
quality over quantity, there is less dialogue than in western flicks, but it brings some nice poetic reflection, but it seems to me that the topics are scattered all over the place with no unifying motif
Then explain you fricking midwit homosexual. You won't because your a midwit homosexual desperately trying to look deep and intellectual.
Quality over quantity? The dialogue is shit. Its not good. Maybe its poetic in Russia but I don't speak Russian and all the translations are shit an edgy 14 year old would write.
i have a sense that you are clearly aware of the fact that tarkovsky is very respected in cinephile community, and so you're just trying to be edgy big dick boy to feel superior for not liking the thing that artsy hoes like
and when it comes to the explanation of the monologue - it is clear example of stream of conciousness, where the Writer, who is supposed to represent i think the general artist, goes through a series of self-realization, he touches on the purpose of the art he creates and how it affects his own life via the people who consume it and how the process of artistic expression itself is painful way of trying to know oneself. he also touches on the too much materialistic and technopositivist outlook on life itself.
go read a book and stop watching MCU so much imbecile
I dislike it because I watched it and it was shit and very long and boring.
>goes through a series of self-realization
That didn't happen in a single fricking sentence. If by self realization you mean b***hing about le society. He doesn't touch on the purpose of his art has on others. He quite literally just states that he doesn't enjoy it because its become a job and then continues to b***h about muh consumers.
its all literally fricking moronic midwit shit, called deep and artistic. >r-read a book
To reiterate my point for the 10th time because otherwise you won't understand, you are fricking midwit. Communism lost.
you must be fricking moronic anon, it is not supposed to be something concrete and personal, but general or even archetypical. im now starting to understand that you are dimwit yourself not bright enough to even understand this elementary shit. and i dont care about communism or politics. go back to /misc/, bud
2 years ago
Anonymous
But its not general or archetypical of any artist I have ever met and I've met a lot. Its seems very clearly like a message directly from the director himself b***hing and complaining about muh artistic integrity and consumerism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not him but it's clearly not Tarkovsky. If anything it's a strawman of people he despises. People who are petty, don't believe in humanity because they project their own insecurities onto the humankind. Which is what Writers speech and characters essentially are. He is the only one who even wanted to make a wish, yet knew he is full of bullshit and would never enter the room. Because for all his reddit mindset he doesn't believe in it himself or what he is saying or that he is above it. If he did, he would have entered.
>quality over quantity
Of which Stalker has neither. If it had quality dialog you wouldn't be here needing to ask "what it all meant." It's not deep, it's not intellectual, it's a movie a bunch of "cinephiles" desperately want to believe has more to it than it does.
That the person's inner desires are an enigma for even the person himself.
Hence the Porcupine story, hence why they never go into the room. They are afraid to look into their souls and find something ugly and they can't cope with.
Except for Stalker himself of course. He just loves to larp as messiah and bring people happiness.
this whole thread is just people whining about the movie holy frick no one cares about your shitty opinion or how filtered you were that's not even the topic
the unknown and mysterious can't be measured, parceled, or dissected by words. the human mind is unknown to us, shuttered behind the govts fences, minimized by academics, derided by writers and the bourgeoisie.
also psychedelics
>if you don't like this pseudo-intellectual garbage you watch Disney movies
The best insult a midwit can come up with. The accusation of being lower in intellect. Shame your life is so shit that the only thing you can pretend your good at is being smart even though you aren't genetically gifted with a high IQ.
Imo it's an allegory for religion
The Zone is a mystery, no one quite understands what it is or it's nature. Everyone is welcomed by it; good, evil, they are all wretches nonetheless. The Room is God, and intellectuals like the scientist or the writer want to kill God. Stalkers are true believers, or priests.
Easily one of the most boring films I've ever watched but I think it's very meaningful and thought provoking
nothing, it's just shit like the rest of his works, a brainlets introduction into cinema beyond hollywood
didn't ask about your moronic take of cinematography as a whole, but about an interpretation of this one particular film. if you have none or can't even extend your argument and post something ~~*better*~~ than frick off kid
Read Roadside Picnic if you want to know "what it all means" Stalker is quite awful.
pretentious bookgay
pretentious contrarian
they explain it in the movie you dumb frick they have a whole speech at the end
This video explains it
Life is a struggle and getting everything you (think you) want in the moment won't necessarily make you happy. There will always be something missing. It reminds me a bit of Buddhist ideas about life being suffering because of desire.
Meaningless boring trash with pretty shots.
>pretty shots
barely
Whatever some midwit leftist homosexual said it meant to cope for the failure of soviet cinema.
Don't you think Russian movies are a bit problematic now? Have some respect for the Ukrainians posting here. Thanks
he took a broader sci-fi concept and made it more about the human reactions to desire and want. with the way the movie is presented you're not even sure the supernatural elements of the zone are even real.
Except for the fact that his goals and desires are never stated through the screen or dialogue. The reason we don't know supernatural elements of the zone are even real is because they were working with a soviet budget and were shit.
There's like 30 lines of dialogue for 4 hours of movie.
yeah, but there is some good monologue in it too
That was 90% vague unintelligible babble and 10% midwit homosexual takes on life.
yeah thats what i was thinking too, it seems no one in this thread is able to distill this information
quality over quantity, there is less dialogue than in western flicks, but it brings some nice poetic reflection, but it seems to me that the topics are scattered all over the place with no unifying motif
Then explain you fricking midwit homosexual. You won't because your a midwit homosexual desperately trying to look deep and intellectual.
Quality over quantity? The dialogue is shit. Its not good. Maybe its poetic in Russia but I don't speak Russian and all the translations are shit an edgy 14 year old would write.
i have a sense that you are clearly aware of the fact that tarkovsky is very respected in cinephile community, and so you're just trying to be edgy big dick boy to feel superior for not liking the thing that artsy hoes like
and when it comes to the explanation of the monologue - it is clear example of stream of conciousness, where the Writer, who is supposed to represent i think the general artist, goes through a series of self-realization, he touches on the purpose of the art he creates and how it affects his own life via the people who consume it and how the process of artistic expression itself is painful way of trying to know oneself. he also touches on the too much materialistic and technopositivist outlook on life itself.
go read a book and stop watching MCU so much imbecile
I dislike it because I watched it and it was shit and very long and boring.
>goes through a series of self-realization
That didn't happen in a single fricking sentence. If by self realization you mean b***hing about le society. He doesn't touch on the purpose of his art has on others. He quite literally just states that he doesn't enjoy it because its become a job and then continues to b***h about muh consumers.
its all literally fricking moronic midwit shit, called deep and artistic.
>r-read a book
To reiterate my point for the 10th time because otherwise you won't understand, you are fricking midwit. Communism lost.
you must be fricking moronic anon, it is not supposed to be something concrete and personal, but general or even archetypical. im now starting to understand that you are dimwit yourself not bright enough to even understand this elementary shit. and i dont care about communism or politics. go back to /misc/, bud
But its not general or archetypical of any artist I have ever met and I've met a lot. Its seems very clearly like a message directly from the director himself b***hing and complaining about muh artistic integrity and consumerism.
Not him but it's clearly not Tarkovsky. If anything it's a strawman of people he despises. People who are petty, don't believe in humanity because they project their own insecurities onto the humankind. Which is what Writers speech and characters essentially are. He is the only one who even wanted to make a wish, yet knew he is full of bullshit and would never enter the room. Because for all his reddit mindset he doesn't believe in it himself or what he is saying or that he is above it. If he did, he would have entered.
Also speaking of scattered topics, the monologue posted just above your post goes all over the fricking place.
>quality over quantity
Of which Stalker has neither. If it had quality dialog you wouldn't be here needing to ask "what it all meant." It's not deep, it's not intellectual, it's a movie a bunch of "cinephiles" desperately want to believe has more to it than it does.
ask
they actually care for what the characters say and not just if there are breasts or abs in it.
This movie doesn't get shit enough for it's awful acting
I guess it gets lost in translation
I thought the acting was pretty decent, but is it really bad if you know Russian? How can ye tell?
That the person's inner desires are an enigma for even the person himself.
Hence the Porcupine story, hence why they never go into the room. They are afraid to look into their souls and find something ugly and they can't cope with.
Except for Stalker himself of course. He just loves to larp as messiah and bring people happiness.
this whole thread is just people whining about the movie holy frick no one cares about your shitty opinion or how filtered you were that's not even the topic
the unknown and mysterious can't be measured, parceled, or dissected by words. the human mind is unknown to us, shuttered behind the govts fences, minimized by academics, derided by writers and the bourgeoisie.
also psychedelics
Wow so deep and mysterious its like space. haha so cool i'm am such a deep person, psychology is a lie.
go back to your disney thread, homosexual
>if you don't like this pseudo-intellectual garbage you watch Disney movies
The best insult a midwit can come up with. The accusation of being lower in intellect. Shame your life is so shit that the only thing you can pretend your good at is being smart even though you aren't genetically gifted with a high IQ.
tldr homosexual
Imo it's an allegory for religion
The Zone is a mystery, no one quite understands what it is or it's nature. Everyone is welcomed by it; good, evil, they are all wretches nonetheless. The Room is God, and intellectuals like the scientist or the writer want to kill God. Stalkers are true believers, or priests.
Easily one of the most boring films I've ever watched but I think it's very meaningful and thought provoking