I didn't quite get it, especially the ending

I didn't quite get it, especially the ending.

whats not to get

>3 bald men walk around in a forest

WOW SO THIS IS TRUE CINEMA

You really need to watch more movies not just Hollywood cookie cutter material.

Read the Roadside Picnic.

Your point is invalid. I DO NOT watch modern "Hollywood cookie cutter" and instead have been watching films from TSPDT list for a while. And I also have seen Andrei Rublev and The Mirror before Stalker.

>TSPDT
I dont know what this is.
How about instead someone else telling you want to watch,you try to understand what the director is trying to tell you.
I recommend watching solaris and then watching it again with the commentary track to see where is the director coming from.
Basically you lack the perspective of what communist society is,was,and what has done to that part of the world.
Its a story more about life than anything else.

You mean it didn't make you want to have a Monkey on your own?

>Basically you lack the perspective of what communist society is,was,and what has done to that part of the world.
I'm Russian. Your point is invalid once again.

Than you are too young to browse this board.

The Monolith obscures the truth.

This is the actual synopsis of the film

>Drive
>man just drives around the city
This is the actual synopsis of the film XXDDD

>Mad Max
>Max is mad
This is the actual synopsis of the film XXDDD

There is nothing to "get".
It's not like you are missing some secret puzzle piece to get it.

It's pretty straightforward, what you were seeing/hearing is what it is.
Tarkovsky just wants to create an emotional reaction from the viewer, if you didn't feel anything then you simply don't enjoy Tarkovsky and that's fine.

I'm 26. You failed 3rd time.

Ok explain to me why the girl in the end was possessing the telekinesis ability and moved the glasses around the table.

You mean when the train went by and made the shit on the table move? Its literally man of science, man of faith.

When stalker fucked his wife and impregnated her some of the power of the zone got into the fetus. So now the kid is the zone

sure if you say so

You clearly didn't understand my post.

Here's a quote from Tarkovsky himself to get a grip of the point of his movies:
>"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. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? My images do not signify anything beyond what they are... Viewers search for meanings as if this was some sort of a charade. I know of no work of art whose meaning would be clear to the degree demanded by some. When they listen to music, read a novel or watch a play they frequently encounter fragments they don't understand. It's a normal state of the relationship toward a work of art. But when they go to the cinema — they demand complete clarity, total understanding. I am against discrimination in art. Clarity is not most important. The world created by an artist is as complex as the world that surrounds him.

theres only two actors fuck that wheres the alien

BASED

Atmospheric films have little to get anyways.

Not that guy but this cleared it up for me, thanks

>"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. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? My images do not signify anything beyond what they are... Viewers search for meanings as if this was some sort of a charade. I know of no work of art whose meaning would be clear to the degree demanded by some. When they listen to music, read a novel or watch a play they frequently encounter fragments they don't understand. It's a normal state of the relationship toward a work of art. But when they go to the cinema — they demand complete clarity, total understanding. I am against discrimination in art. Clarity is not most important. The world created by an artist is as complex as the world that surrounds him.

This so hard. When I encounter people who don't get the "meaning" of art or have a unique "interpretation" that they want to spew to everyone, I instantly know they are a philistine.

You seem like one of those people to be honest with you senpai

It's okay to have your own interpretation of the movie, as long as you don't pretend it is some kind of ultimate answer to the movies narrative.

It wasn't a train, it was telekinesis. It is written in the script for the film.

plebs BTFO