Wow, it sucked. Hard

>without building atmosphere
filtered

Like clockwork.

If Tarkovsky didn't use symbolism in Stalker, then 4/5 of the movie's footage becomes pointless waste of time devoid of any meaning.

>Did you see the movie or you're like every other person who gave it positive review on Tomatoes?
I saw the movie multiple times, even on the big screen
>Tanks are not symbolism?
Yes, they are not.
>Syringes are not symbolism?
Yes, they are not.
>Dead Stalker with dog is not symbolism?
Yes, they are not.
>Nuclear power plant is not symbolism?
Yes, it's not.

>meaning can only be achieved through symbolism
Are you 12 or a literal woman?

>A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. 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"
A symbol can easily refer to the infinite world, see the past millenium of western art. What a pseud, he's just memeing about the definition of symbols

HIs 'image' is nothing but a type of symbol, with symbols you can't express anything

>showing Stalker and his wife waking up
>showing train ride into the Zone
>walking across plains throwing nuts
>walk through the pipe
>majority of dunes scene
>rain scene
>ending
Zero tension, zero building up for anything.

>dude overgeneralisation of plot points lmao
You can make the same exact braindead non argument for any film ever made

So you agree that majority of the movie doesn't have any point? Good, thanks.

>t. kids who think pretending to like obscure yuro art movies makes them look intelligent
Notice the lack of any argumentation.

>there's no point to a film if it doesn't have symbolism
Again, you have to be either a middle schooler or a woman.

>Stalker is obscure
OH NON NO NO NO HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Explain the points movie is trying to make then.

>more ad hominem
>no argument
Filtered, stop wasting my time, child.

Why does a movie need to have hidden meanings, and symbols. An idea,a message or a thought can be conveyed in other ways too, it's not necessary to be transmited through a symbol.

Being devoid of meaning gives it meaning.

Ask any normie on the street if they've seen Stalker. Protip THEY FUCKING HAVEN'T WHICH MAKES IT OBSCURE. Stop living your life on Yea Forums like some fucking nigger. That's right nigger you've annoyed me so much I'm risking termination by the mods by request of the advertisement agency that's how much of an annoying nigger you're being you you you NIGGER!

any normie who is 'into film' knows Tarkovsky. Which is not to say he's bad or anything

Holy shit stop talking. You're creating some hypothetical scenario that doesn't even exist now to damage control. Leave me alone you're so damn annoying.

A film (or any art for that matter) is not made just to make a "point" that you can condense into a two line twitter post. First and foremost it has to be an artistic expression that elicits emotion that hopefully engages with the viewer.
You're asking for a singular "point" from a film that is basically like a visual feature lenght poem. Every viewer get's something different from it, some find it beyond spiritual, some find it beautiful on an aesthetic level. I could say it's about finding meaning in living life itself, not thinking the meaning is in the unknown answers we can't grasp, but even that is just one simplistic perspective of ti all.

Movies are not puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them.

>some hypothetical scenario that doesn't even exist
I was actually just remembering all the uni kids Ive known talking about Tarkovsky

Dude, LEAVE ME ALONE.

So you can't, cool.

>A film (or any art for that matter) is not made just to make a "point" that you can condense into a two line twitter post.
any actually coherent art can be explained in a few paragraphs, which is why analysis is even a thing. You can't just read whatever you like into it

>if a normalfag doesn't know about a film, then it's obscure
So anything that isn't a multi million dollar current capeshit product is suddenly obscure then? Is 2001 obscure? Lawrence of Arabia?
Stalker has nearly 100 thousand votes on IMDb and is on every movie list ever made, calling it obscure is pretty retarded.

Do you have unironic autism

stalker is a good movie, it has nice shots and a cool atmosphere. i don't really give a shit about what it means, it looks cool. my favourite movie is the mirror and i still don't know what the fuck it means, and i don't care.

come at me bro

Attached: 6ac6495c9f11ffc35b935dbab4a68f7f4610ac6a1550a6af7e2bc6806e7fe8d0.jpg (944x617, 176K)

2001 and Lawrence of Arabia are well known to normies. Stop talking.
LEAVE
ME
ALONE
NOW
WE ARE DONE. STOP FUCKING RESPONDING.

>zero tension
This movie isn't a thriller, its not trying to build tension.

we're not done bb, it's only just beginning

>t.pretentious art student with active Twitter

I don't care about symbols, messages and shiet like all you hipster-autists. I just liked the atmosphere and the slow progession; the implied unseen alien tech/war and the decayed look of all the ruins. But bascially I thought of the game while watching it and was only missing some vodka and pickels for max comfy-chernobly feels. (I almost felt asleep during the train-ride, yet I don't mind - felt almost intentional, like putting you in a zen-mode for the relaxed Zone walking/sleeping in puddles)

I watched this recently and loved it. I don't think I have ever been so rapt in a movie where so little happened. It was a wonderful experience.

trying to break down a tarkovsky movie is like trying to analyze the chord progression in some ambient album, there may be a chord progression there but it's not really the point.

Very insightful op, you changed my perception of the film completely

Explain Mona Lisa and Bach's Chaconne Partita No. 2 in D minor in a few paragraphs

>film is about a group of people entering extremely hostile and alien area from where most people never return
>get literally fucking shot at in the beginning
>its not trying to build tension ;)

Lawrence of Arabia only has double the amount of votes on IMDb than Stalker.

>Stalker is not trying to build tension.
Watch the movie, maybe?

Attached: stalker (1).jpg (900x677, 61K)

Why is Yea Forums especially filled with literal retards these days? Is it because of some new capeshit flick coming out?

40 years and retards still seething about it

It has nothing in common with the game, aside from shorthaired slav protag with high widow's beak.

I"m not trained in either classical music or oil painting so I can't. And I would have to spend time studying them even if I were. But yes you can express the basic purpose of a piece if you know the medium

>You can't just read whatever you like into it
Yes you can.

Death of the author.

The purpose of any Tarkovsky film is to elicit emotions from you. His father was a poet and so was he, just in the visual medium.

tarkovsky is the patron saint of pseuds
anyone who worships him over a true master like haneke is a redditor

Attached: 2902.jpg (300x180, 5K)

death of the author is a fad, classical analysis was around for centuries. Future civilizations will attempt to understand what the purpose of the Divine Comedy was not read random bullshit into it for their critical theory class

dude derrida lol!
the entire concept of deconstructionist theory has been so thoroughly destroyed in recent decades that bringing it up just tells me you went to a really cheap and behind the times university english class

you don't have to understand the intricacies of the theory behind bach for you to enjoy it, it is supposed to transcend that and hit you at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. same with tarkovsky and his movies.

>Mona Lisa
A picture of some random qt3.14 of its time some bearded guy spent half of his life on. Pretentious hipsters of today still wonder what her "can you smile while I draw you?" smile means.
>Bach's Chaconne Partita No. 2 in D minor
Someone plays a violin for 15 minutes.

Art is not as deep as your professors tell you, commie.

sound pretty shallow and pointless tbqh
watchng a movie just to get some kind of emotional jolt from it is something a kid would do
adults should really be expected to use their brains a bit

You can cry all you want, the authors intention doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is the final work itself.

This goes for any art form, be it film, literature or music. If Kubrick came back alive and said that 2001 is actually specifically about the struggles of gay anal sex, that doesn’t mean that all of the talk about evolution is suddenly irrelevant and meaningless, the film speaks for itself regardless of the authors intent. Maybe every single Mozart composition is Mozart writing about the emotions behind his scat fetish, but that doesn’t suddenly make his work any different than what it is.

that's like saying reading dostoevsky is pointless when you could be reading some textbook about math. you learn from both.

So is the purpose of any youtube video, your point is?

I knew it didn't have anything to do with the game, aside from the end with the wish-fucknut and the ZONE as an eldritch loco, yet I still thought it captured the atmosphere well enough.

you've completely misunderstood the meaning of "death of the author"
genuinely feel embarrassed for you

You're simply wrong, and don't understand art because you've been given a shit tier education by modern schools

A piece of art has one purpose, which the artist and people familiar with the art form both understand

Not just an "emotional jolt", but a lifetime long perspective changing emotional jolt.
What you demand from films is actually merely extremely short term puzzle arranging and nothing else. A film like Primer will never be as poignant or praised as any legitimately good film.

Based
Fuck pretentious 2deep4u artfags.

Tell me how, is Roland Barthes wrong about it too.
Tell me the "one purpose" of let's say Mulholland Drive

How is an educational video or a news video meant to elicit emotions from you?

more like any piece of art

Imagine outing yourself this hard as a pleb

Talk about overimagining.
It's just a movie about archetypical people in soviet land with some artsy shots thrown in.

>he doesn't feel emotion from watching news

You gotta admit one thing, Tarkovsky sure knows how to frame, light and arrange a bunch of hobos into a kino shot.

Attached: based hobos.jpg (1227x897, 168K)

>actors literally died from filming it
>not kino

holy goalpost moving.
You were the one to firstly imply meaning lel

>off-center bed in the opening shot of the movie
>constant face close-ups
Debatable.

just dropping in to say that you're a fucking dipshit and although you don't believe me, that doesn't change the fact that you're a fucking dipshit.
and it's not because you didn't like the film, it's because you expect anyone to give a fuck about what you think when your arguments are this pseud. like you clearly don't understand filmmaking at a basic level so why the fuck would you even comment on it? it's like if I joined a private messageboard for NASA engineers and started ranting about the shapes of the rockets even though I have no fucking clue about any of that shit. that's you, faggot.

>waaah waaah weeeh
Cry more you big baby.

Attached: 1511750198799.png (288x300, 2K)

> NUCLEAR POWER IS DANGEROUS, DO YOU GET IT?

The meltdown in Chernobyl didn't happen until 7 years after this movie was released. I

Also, forget about all your superficial, low brow interpretations- the real take away from this movie is that we need an exclusion zone for brainlets like you, for the betterment of mankind.

Attached: jrLQ5dh.jpg (472x472, 59K)

>NUCLEAR POWER IS DANGEROUS, DO YOU GET IT?
So this is what it's like having room temperature iq

>Stalker doesn't really know what he's doing
>Is he taking us in circles lmao
>Says I'm a good person even though I get cunny everyday on the DL
>Room doesn't even do anything lmao
>Zero tension, zero build up for anything

t.writer

Attached: anon.jpg (259x194, 6K)

>people didn't see danger of nuclear power before Chernobyl
>what is Hiroshima

>exclusion zone for brainlets
Yeah, that'd be really nice.

Attached: 1542379733563.jpg (715x438, 82K)

>people didn't see danger of nuclear power before Chernobyl

It wasn't that romanticized as negative cultural set piece before that happened. Either way, you're wrong.

Ultimately, the film is about faith and escapism. Not hard topics and issues.

>Not hard topics and issues.
>Stalker crying over his gulag time
Ignorant fool.

>Symbolism
I haven't seen any other Tarkovsky but the thematic stuff was pretty upfront
>a scientist, religious guy and an artist argue pointlessly about the supernatural.
>Meanwhile Innocent psychic kid btfo them at the end.
How did you not get anything out of it?

>movie has to be story driven
Tarkovsky was a photographer, all he did was make a 3h long photography, 24 frames per second. You don't watch his movies because there is some philosophical woke shit behind them, there usually isn't. It's just pretty to watch, learn to appreciate such things faggot

Also, there actually is a lot of "woke philosophy" behind story, Tarkovsky just didn't choose to push any of it. Stalker was based on Roadside picnic, read it. The entire tone of the movie will make lot more sense if you do

Attached: Mirror14.jpg (1280x847, 71K)

Nigger I've read the book a dozen time, movie is nothing like it.

>Hurrrrrr this character has a backstory too, so it's definitely High Concept, and a bad one at that

You literally can't make this shit up. Did you even watch the movie, user?

Either you have trouble digesting abstract concepts, or you're completely missing the forest for the trees.

How do you know there even was anything supernatural in The Zone? With Monkey?

Perhaps it was all a form of mass psychosis? Perhaps, the time and place were deliberately withheld from the viewer to through shade over some of the Sc-Fi aspects of the movie ( Professor's thermos bomb).

Maybe Monkey, like her father, only yearned for 'magic' to exist in a world of unending, existential despair. After all, the rumble of the train knocking over stuff was established earlier. Maybe she just fluffed up reality in the same way the Stalkers, dregs of society, LARPed in an Urban ruin for 20 years.

Its' the unhappy, the unfortunate, that look outside themselves for deeper meaning. They need to believe in a higher power, for they themselves wield non.

Attached: elbrainleto.jpg (1000x988, 65K)

Maybe the 20 Captain Marvel threads on the catalog are more up to your speed, OP.

Tl;dr

Tarkovsky is like if reddit tried to be an arthouse director

Are the Stalker games inspired by this movie?

>movie is nothing like it
>because the story is not the same

Tarkovsky and Kubrick basically reveal both plebs that don't understand kinematography and plebs who overanalyze kinematography. Ask someone what they think of A Space Odyssey or Stalker, if they hate it because it's boring = pleb, if they start praising it because of some woke underlying philosophy = pleb again. It's pretty, what more a movie needs to be, stop watching hollywood blockbusters and hipster indie movies and you'll break away from your closed mindset of what a film should and shouldn't be. Pleb

Attached: Pleb.jpg (624x351, 33K)

Considering everyone defending this garbage ITT use reddit spacing, you might be onto something here.

>because the story is not the same
No you dumbass, because they have completely different tone.
>Pleb
>Pleb
>Pleb
Go read Roadside Picnic, brainlet.

>muhh cool geeky sciency stuff
no you go read it again and maybe you'll realize what it was all about cunt

>muhh cool geeky sciency stuff
Yup, brainlet. Read the book.

>Porcupine killed himself after getting his wish granted? Shit, I guess because that's because his true intentions were different from what he wanted, y'know, like in the book.
lmao that's not even correct. it's the meatgrinder phenomenon that kills whoever makes the first wish. that's why he brought that kid in the first place, so that he could safely get his wish.
they called her monkey because that's her name in the book.
i don't get where you're getting the nuclear thing from. it's pretty clear that the Zones are locations where aliens arrived and left some shit when they left.

>Movie deconstructs objective reality
>Self proclaimed crem-de-la-crem snobs judge it objectively

Like poetry

Attached: 9180-1094938653.jpg (1280x720, 111K)

>wish granter fullfilling things person truly wishes for
>lmao that's not even correct.
???
>they called her monkey because that's her name in the book.
It's not her literal name, it's a nickname because she's covered in hair.
>i don't get where you're getting the nuclear thing from
Missed the ending of the movie? Ain't gonna blame ya.

Source-fags gtfo. Adaptations are inherently different and should be judged on their own merits.

For instance, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheeps and Brade Runna are both good, but for entirely different reasons.

Attached: costanza.jpg (188x188, 7K)

It's meant to be directly emotionally resonant, rather than abstractly emotionally resonant.

>low IQ pajeet that types in somewhat broken english thinks Stalker is shit
Colour me fucking surprised.

>1979
>soviet critics trash the film
>amerimutts watch the film after playing janky ukranian FPS
>say it's the best shit ever because it has subtitles and is black and white in the beginning and the end
>be russian and watch the film
>it's garbage
Saying you like something to appear smarter doesn't really work when thing you like is a piece of shit.

Attached: 1487608207628.jpg (480x360, 16K)

ahhhh yes, those glorious pre1979 Ukranian FPS games

Oh, can't even follow, huh? Sasuga amerimutts.

>a pajeet AND a weeb
yikes

And yet critics completely disagree with each other all the time. How is that possible if art pieces had a single 'point' that people could look at and say "ah yes, this is what it's all about"?
Art isn't a medium through which some arbitrary message is provided. If that were the case then it would be useless.

>it looks cool
and that is literally all you need to get out of a Tarkovsky film

Sounds great aswell

>essay stating the reader's interpretation is the correct one
>you're wrong if you disagree

Attached: pepegenes.jpg (1015x752, 187K)

>There is literally no symbolism
symbols can exist and be found regardless of authorial intent. art speaks for itself

Kino

Attached: tumblr_nuqf7cDNQd1rt27y3o1_500.gif (500x375, 1.89M)

It's so obvious people that pretend to "LOVE" tarkovsky are just Russian Nationalists overpraising the one semi-talented person in their entire countrie's history. It's just embarassing. Embrace western art, Ruskies

>three russians go urban exploring and have SO DEEP conversations for three hours while nothing really happens

Such kino! A movie for people who think they have taste.

Ah yes, the western art of extracting billions of shekels from dumbfuck pedestrians all across the globe. America won the culture war through sheer volume, and by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

This empowered women and negorids, basically people with no agency, to determine what's good.

Attached: rosscott.jpg (262x192, 5K)

But there is something happening from the first frame right up until the last one though?

>amerimutts watch the film after playing janky ukranian FPS
here, found your problem, you're a Yea Forumsermin, you can't possibly appreciate art

Based low context poster

Attached: amerikek.png (220x229, 9K)

> the one semi-talented person in their entire countrie's history.
don't embarrass yourself, we are talking about Russia, not India, Pajeet.

This is some reddit-tier humor

bump

>without building any atmosphere

Are u fucking retarded? I can't think of any other movie that has such a thick atmosphere as Stalker. This just has to be bait.

Maybe watch a recent Steven Seagal movie, I think that is more your kind of thing.

Attached: 1498382610339.png (666x666, 797K)

why the fuck did you bump a 126 post thread you brainlet, the discussion as been had, OP got btfo, now move on.