>Tarkovsky made capeshit film >the film was burned accidentally >no money for big movie >lets do black/white shit about conversations of 3 rejects >MUH SOUL
kek
how do you zoomzoom homosexuals deal with the fact that in your efforts to make your hair look more Black personish it ended up looking like broccoli instead
Why do (you) two dislike solaris so much? Tonally I find it to be the most effective. As a visual manifestation of the suicidal mentality I thought it was very effective.
You're right. Tarkovsky and Rerberg created something incredible together, I honestly don't think it will ever be surpassed. Not to say it's the greatest film ever, but it has a certain something that very few other films, if any at all (other than a couple of Tark's own), have managed to achieve. The weakest part of it imo is the dialogue, like in all Tark films. Should've just done away with it
I watched Stalker recently because I saw a thread about it. Does anyone else think that the men had their wishes granted even though they never entered the room?
The Writer seemed like a genius because he convinced the Professor to dismantle the bomb and the Professor got to call his colleague and tell him of his plans. and... the Stalker got a dog.
I thought that was a really strange ending but I thought about it and I think it was put there just to confirm that The Zone was actually supernatural and they weren't hallucinating the stuff that happened. Also, I think The Room was an allegory for heaven, which is explained by the Stalker's monologue at the end about nobody believing and nobody needing the room.
The ending is vague enough to pose the question to the viewer: are you like the scientist who attempt to rationalize the glasses moving as the vibrations from the passing train (as shown in the very first scene) or are you like the Stalker who believes in something *more*?
Funny thing about Stalker, is it's actually a pretty accessible movie. It's not some super abstract stuff that only the most film buff of film buffs would enjoy, it's actually a pretty straightforward sci-fi movie although of course with a lot of Tarkovsky's mystic depth. I'm not sure how the movie got this reputation as being some sort of super inaccessible thing meant only for the most extreme film lovers.
It can be, it's just that Hollywood usually doesn't want to publish movies like that. On the other hand, Tarkovsky had established a track record so even the Soviets gave him the latitude to make some weird stuff. It doesn't say much good about modern Hollywood that even the 1970s Soviets were more open to experimental film than they are, lol.
Tarkovsky really had a knack for showing that sort of poignant subtle stuff that can mean so much to a person, like the repeated wind-blown forest shot in Mirror. It's the kind of stuff that one maybe notices as a child and it becomes very significant, and/or one sees it in dreams. In a way Tarkovsky really is the most Lovecraftian filmmaker I can think of, in the sense of Lovecraft as being about the so-called "adventurous expectancy" that Lovecraft often wrote about:
"What has haunted my dreams for nearly forty years is a strange sense of adventurous expectancy connected with landscape and architecture and sky-effects.... I wish I could get the idea on paper -- the sense of marvel and liberation hiding in obscure dimensions and problematically reachable at rare instants through vistas of ancient streets, across leagues of strange hill country, or up endless flights of marble steps culminating in tiers of balustraded terraces." -Lovecraft
>I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. Symbol for me is something too complicated.
>An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. I was asked once what the bird on boy's head in The Mirror meant. But any time I attempt to explain, I notice everything loses its meaning, it acquires a completely different sense than intended, moves away from its rightful place. I could only say a bird would not come to an evil man but that's not good enough. A true image is an abstraction, it cannot be explained, it only transmits truth and one can only comprehend it in one's own heart. Because of that it's impossible to analyse a work of art by utilising its intellectual significance.
>We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.
>Many think of Stalker as a science fiction film. But this film is not based on fantasy, it is realism on film. Try to accept its content as a record of one day in lives of three people, try to see it on this level and you'll find nothing complex, mysterious, or symbolic in it.
>An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. I was asked once what the bird on boy's head in The Mirror meant. But any time I attempt to explain, I notice everything loses its meaning, it acquires a completely different sense than intended, moves away from its rightful place. I could only say a bird would not come to an evil man but that's not good enough. A true image is an abstraction, it cannot be explained, it only transmits truth and one can only comprehend it in one's own heart. Because of that it's impossible to analyse a work of art by utilising its intellectual significance.
>We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.
>Many think of Stalker as a science fiction film. But this film is not based on fantasy, it is realism on film. Try to accept its content as a record of one day in lives of three people, try to see it on this level and you'll find nothing complex, mysterious, or symbolic in it.
Symbolism homosexuals utterly blown the frick out.
>I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. Symbol for me is something too complicated.
>An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. I was asked once what the bird on boy's head in The Mirror meant. But any time I attempt to explain, I notice everything loses its meaning, it acquires a completely different sense than intended, moves away from its rightful place. I could only say a bird would not come to an evil man but that's not good enough. A true image is an abstraction, it cannot be explained, it only transmits truth and one can only comprehend it in one's own heart. Because of that it's impossible to analyse a work of art by utilising its intellectual significance.
>We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.
>An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. I was asked once what the bird on boy's head in The Mirror meant. But any time I attempt to explain, I notice everything loses its meaning, it acquires a completely different sense than intended, moves away from its rightful place. I could only say a bird would not come to an evil man but that's not good enough. A true image is an abstraction, it cannot be explained, it only transmits truth and one can only comprehend it in one's own heart. Because of that it's impossible to analyse a work of art by utilising its intellectual significance.
>We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.
>Many think of Stalker as a science fiction film. But this film is not based on fantasy, it is realism on film. Try to accept its content as a record of one day in lives of three people, try to see it on this level and you'll find nothing complex, mysterious, or symbolic in it.
>Tarkovsky said all this yet his pseud fans still can't cope with the fact that the wind in the trees is indeed just a wind in the trees
I think his point is that the wind in the trees is more than the wind in the trees the same way that when you see actual wind in the trees, it's more than just wind in the trees - no symbolism involved, Tarkovsky is just showing you things that if you saw them in real life would affect you the same way as when you see it in his films. So when you see the wind in the trees in The Mirror, it has a haunting mystic quality because it would if you saw the same thing in your real life with the sort of focus that Tarkovsky's camera has. Tarkovsky is a magician but not of symbols but rather by showing actual things in reality in ways that make them highly charged emotionally and spiritually.
>Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero.
To me this quote seems to suggest that the imagery in his movies do have contextual meaning based in the world of the character, but that contextual meaning is meant to be evocative of reality and hold the same momentary significance for us the viewer as it does the characters whose experiences make up that context.
I'm addicted to this movie bros, every week or so I put on the scene where they ride the train and then get to the calm green zone and fall face down in the grass while that music plays, there's just something about it
Have you seen Sorcerer? I only watched Stalker because Sorcerer was amazing (even better than Stalker IMO) and Cinemaphile reminded me there's another movie about a group of men working together to get somewhere.
It's a must watch. I only watched it because I watched To Live and Die in LA and then the first recommended movie on the IMDB page was Sorcerer. >mfw Sorcerer
I was really disappointed by sorcerer tbh. Maybe it was how much Cinemaphile hyped it up but besides how technically impressive it is the actual plot is totally uninteresting to me. Couldn't give less of a frick about anyone in the film.
>Couldn't give less of a frick about anyone in the film.
I only liked the French guy - Serrano and I was really disappointed when I thought the American would get to keep all the money so the ending was actually a relief.
gen x'ers tried
When will boomers (Tarkovsky was older), gen X, or millennials?
And failed.
Yeah, that was kind of implied in the word "tried".
Zoomer cinema will surely be unwatchable
>Tarkovsky made capeshit film
>the film was burned accidentally
>no money for big movie
>lets do black/white shit about conversations of 3 rejects
>MUH SOUL
kek
how do you zoomzoom homosexuals deal with the fact that in your efforts to make your hair look more Black personish it ended up looking like broccoli instead
>Capitalism* will never make a movie like this
FTFY
I honestly think Stalker is a good movie
Controversial take. What do you think is Tarkovsky's WORST movie?
Solaris by far.
The Sacrifice included?
Sacrifice, being objective, is technicall his best. So yes.
Why do (you) two dislike solaris so much? Tonally I find it to be the most effective. As a visual manifestation of the suicidal mentality I thought it was very effective.
Yes, of course.
Solaris
For me it's Nostalghia, but like the other posters, I didn't care much for Solaris either.
Based. That movie was so boring
t. has never been entering middle age having dated a girl who frickken killed herself in the prime of your lives
You're right. Tarkovsky and Rerberg created something incredible together, I honestly don't think it will ever be surpassed. Not to say it's the greatest film ever, but it has a certain something that very few other films, if any at all (other than a couple of Tark's own), have managed to achieve. The weakest part of it imo is the dialogue, like in all Tark films. Should've just done away with it
Offret
They will, it's just that it probably won't get a Hollywood release
Not nearly as good as Stalker but still worth a watch. Spring by the same filmmakers is even better.
This was great. Especially if you've watched Resolution (2012) first.
I watched Stalker recently because I saw a thread about it. Does anyone else think that the men had their wishes granted even though they never entered the room?
The Writer seemed like a genius because he convinced the Professor to dismantle the bomb and the Professor got to call his colleague and tell him of his plans. and... the Stalker got a dog.
The Stalker also got his daughter having superpowers. Not that the filmmakers necessarily intended this interpretation, but it's food for thought.
I thought that was a really strange ending but I thought about it and I think it was put there just to confirm that The Zone was actually supernatural and they weren't hallucinating the stuff that happened. Also, I think The Room was an allegory for heaven, which is explained by the Stalker's monologue at the end about nobody believing and nobody needing the room.
The ending is vague enough to pose the question to the viewer: are you like the scientist who attempt to rationalize the glasses moving as the vibrations from the passing train (as shown in the very first scene) or are you like the Stalker who believes in something *more*?
I watched this but did not understand any of it. Whats this movie about?
Funny thing about Stalker, is it's actually a pretty accessible movie. It's not some super abstract stuff that only the most film buff of film buffs would enjoy, it's actually a pretty straightforward sci-fi movie although of course with a lot of Tarkovsky's mystic depth. I'm not sure how the movie got this reputation as being some sort of super inaccessible thing meant only for the most extreme film lovers.
Nobody said it was, troony. It's just that the mystique and authenticity of the movie cannot be recreated by today's filmmakers.
It can be, it's just that Hollywood usually doesn't want to publish movies like that. On the other hand, Tarkovsky had established a track record so even the Soviets gave him the latitude to make some weird stuff. It doesn't say much good about modern Hollywood that even the 1970s Soviets were more open to experimental film than they are, lol.
>go into a chamber called the meat grinder
>nothing happens
What did Tarkovsky mean by this?
>Tarkovsky movie
>nothing happens
more news at 11
It's explained in the movie, dood. None of them would survived if they were bad people.
Tarkovsky really had a knack for showing that sort of poignant subtle stuff that can mean so much to a person, like the repeated wind-blown forest shot in Mirror. It's the kind of stuff that one maybe notices as a child and it becomes very significant, and/or one sees it in dreams. In a way Tarkovsky really is the most Lovecraftian filmmaker I can think of, in the sense of Lovecraft as being about the so-called "adventurous expectancy" that Lovecraft often wrote about:
"What has haunted my dreams for nearly forty years is a strange sense of adventurous expectancy connected with landscape and architecture and sky-effects.... I wish I could get the idea on paper -- the sense of marvel and liberation hiding in obscure dimensions and problematically reachable at rare instants through vistas of ancient streets, across leagues of strange hill country, or up endless flights of marble steps culminating in tiers of balustraded terraces." -Lovecraft
>there are idiotic homosexuals who think that Tarkovsky uses symbols in Stalker
BROOOO... RAIN INSIDE THE BUILDING...THE DOG... THE CROWN OF THORNS...FOAM ON THE WATER
are you blind?
>I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. Symbol for me is something too complicated.
>An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. I was asked once what the bird on boy's head in The Mirror meant. But any time I attempt to explain, I notice everything loses its meaning, it acquires a completely different sense than intended, moves away from its rightful place. I could only say a bird would not come to an evil man but that's not good enough. A true image is an abstraction, it cannot be explained, it only transmits truth and one can only comprehend it in one's own heart. Because of that it's impossible to analyse a work of art by utilising its intellectual significance.
>We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.
>Many think of Stalker as a science fiction film. But this film is not based on fantasy, it is realism on film. Try to accept its content as a record of one day in lives of three people, try to see it on this level and you'll find nothing complex, mysterious, or symbolic in it.
Symbolism homosexuals utterly blown the frick out.
>Tarkovsky said all this yet his pseud fans still can't cope with the fact that the wind in the trees is indeed just a wind in the trees
I think his point is that the wind in the trees is more than the wind in the trees the same way that when you see actual wind in the trees, it's more than just wind in the trees - no symbolism involved, Tarkovsky is just showing you things that if you saw them in real life would affect you the same way as when you see it in his films. So when you see the wind in the trees in The Mirror, it has a haunting mystic quality because it would if you saw the same thing in your real life with the sort of focus that Tarkovsky's camera has. Tarkovsky is a magician but not of symbols but rather by showing actual things in reality in ways that make them highly charged emotionally and spiritually.
Well said. I don't think Tark would disagree.
>Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero.
To me this quote seems to suggest that the imagery in his movies do have contextual meaning based in the world of the character, but that contextual meaning is meant to be evocative of reality and hold the same momentary significance for us the viewer as it does the characters whose experiences make up that context.
you millenialc**ts need to stop obsessing
>Zoomers will never make a movie like this
Thank God, no more pseud bullshit.
I'm addicted to this movie bros, every week or so I put on the scene where they ride the train and then get to the calm green zone and fall face down in the grass while that music plays, there's just something about it
Have you seen Sorcerer? I only watched Stalker because Sorcerer was amazing (even better than Stalker IMO) and Cinemaphile reminded me there's another movie about a group of men working together to get somewhere.
Sorcerer is a great film for sure, but it didn't even approach the beauty of Stalker for me.
I'll add it to my list
It's a must watch. I only watched it because I watched To Live and Die in LA and then the first recommended movie on the IMDB page was Sorcerer.
>mfw Sorcerer
I was really disappointed by sorcerer tbh. Maybe it was how much Cinemaphile hyped it up but besides how technically impressive it is the actual plot is totally uninteresting to me. Couldn't give less of a frick about anyone in the film.
>Couldn't give less of a frick about anyone in the film.
I only liked the French guy - Serrano and I was really disappointed when I thought the American would get to keep all the money so the ending was actually a relief.
Agreed. The film has several great individual moments, and it looks gorgeous, but the story as a whole isn't very interesting at all.
Yeah I also have to agree, unfortunately Cinemaphile hypes it up way too much
Sorcerer is kino. Much more conventional and less interesting stylistically than something like Stalker, but it is undoubtedly peak Hollywood.
Stalker is just russian capeshit.