What can we learn from this movie?

What can we learn from this movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=o4JyapuJyvY
youtu.be/CGlzvgTPieE?t=40s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

how to make a boring flick

stick to your capeshit ok

>What can we learn from this movie?
You learn absolutely nothing it's art not a textbook

film is a low IQ medium deal with it

how to fall asleep in the cinema

It is my favorite movie unironically.

the Zone's actual purpose is to filter out plebs.

>UUUuugh I can't handle anything other than "lesbian kino" and Game of Thrones

>UUUuugh I think putting a piss coloured filter over half the movie is artistic.
>UUUuugh I get all my opinions from 'patricians' on the internet
>UUUuugh I have never actually watched this film

I have watched the film 3 times. child. My insult must have stinged, no?

Perfect cinematography

Ok explain what makes this film 'good'?

I've never watched game of thrones. In fact I always fall asleep during the first episode every time I have tried to watch it.(Funnily enough this is the exact same symptom I have every time I try to watch stalker. Also what the fuck is lesbian kino? Is mulholland drive lesbian kino?

>wanting me to write an analysis on what makes this film good just so you can dismiss it with memes like cuck or soyboy
Nah. I have no obligation to do so.

>Also what the fuck is lesbian kino?
Movies like Blue is the warmest color and Atomic Blonde aka fap material with a flimsy "plot"

That we are right about postmodernism.

>soviet Russia once made some shit before it was gone

It's visual poetry

I am kind of genuinely interested in what people see in this film? The cinematography to me is incredibly boring, none of the characters stood out, and I don't even remember the plot other than that they had to get into some secret zone for some reason I cant remember and to do so required the first 1.5 hours of cinema to be walking this through forrest without much dialogue and literally nothing happening at all. Maybe I am just a brainlet. Maybe I wasn't paying attention when I watched this film but I cant remember actually enjoying any part of it or being interested in anything that happened. Funnily enough pic related was my favourite part of the entire movie just because the discussion seemed to have some kind of meaning. I am sure to watch this film again in the future even if everyone that raves about it can not offer me even a single reason why they like this film/ Maybe they are trolling maybe this really is the greatest movie of all time. But I am inclined to think that is not true and this just remains some incredibly pretentious circlejerk.

that people will defend this boring ass movie as high art to mask the fact that they were too stupid to actually read the (good) book it was based on

It's not psuedo-deep, it's full on deep. Stalker can have a few interpretations but the overwhelming themes are faith and identity. The Stalker puts an immense amount of faith into the divinity of the zone. He guides the Professor (science) and the writer (artist) into the zone in hopes of reaching a room that grants wishes. The closer the group gets the more the Professor and Writer think they don't truly know what they want. They struggle with their inner self and their true desires. Ironically, the Stalker acrimoniously tells them to keep going and the more they second guess themselves the more he struggles with his faith

you can't explain it because it isn't good and you're a typical arthouse retard who thinks everything he can't understand must be great art

youtube.com/watch?v=o4JyapuJyvY
watch this retards

I think that you have to change your whole mindset on films in general.

From what you have said here I can conclude that you are only consuming films, not experiencing them. Films are merely plot points for you that you need to decipher, you can just read the plot synopsis on wikipedia with that mindset of experiencing a audio/visual medium.
Stalker and pretty much the rest of Tarkovsky's work is great because of how he executes and creates the experience, the dream-like setting and portrayal of emotion with themes of spirituality. This user explained it pretty good in short, the sole purpose of any of his films is for the viewer to feel.

Be aware that there is no definitive answer to every frame in most great films, start to think of them as an experience and treat them like that.
Looking for a singular universal "hidden meaning" is a pretty surface-level way of thinking, Tarkovsky absolutely hated symbolism. Movies aren't puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them.

Stalker>RSP

The film explores human nature with a minimalist sci-fi backdrop. It's slow and ponderous because that's exactly what the Zone is all about, the journey to the Wish Room is one huge introspection but with very real and unknown dangers lurking about.

>Maybe I am just a brainlet.
Maybe you have different tastes than other people. It's not for everyone and I mean this without claiming mental superiority.

>let me pull this here strawman out of my ass there

>we'll watch this films that is intended to be seen as a whole in 50 separate parts with pauses inbetween and please buy our books
yeah not watching that

anyway you guys like 2001 or you hat it too?

>From what you have said here I can conclude that you are only consuming films, not experiencing them. Films are merely plot points for you that you need to decipher,
This is not true at all and part of the reason why I think that the praise for this film is based in elitism.

I think it's the best out of the 2 Tarkovsky movies I've watched, the other being coляpиc.
I admit I fell asleep on the first 2 attempts to watch it, because everything was calm and slow, and my mind was getting bored so easily. On the 3rd try I just 'experienced' it like the others said. The result is a very comfy movie about faith, spirituality and hope, with really interesting views and setting.

>my favourite part of the entire movie just because the discussion seemed to have some kind of meaning.
That's your words user, so my previous post had a fair assumption that you're a plot driven casual.
Not to mention all the "nothing happens" comments

Explain why lord of the rings is my favourite trilogy despite knowing the plot like the back of my hand?

I love his films but I'm not sure I understand the concept of "visual poetry". I'm not even sure what poetry is to be honest, let alone in the visual medium. I think in sculpting in time he clarifies it a bit but I'd have to go through it again.

>The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.

literally a plebfilter

Is Tarkovksy the most patrician kinomaker?

You have to be in the mood. But for some people this is valid for any film. At least for me is.
But the movie remains with you. And those who say that T is a master in representing water, surfaces, textures is right. And the sound associated with them.

youtu.be/CGlzvgTPieE?t=40s

Remember when Tarkovsky brutally killed a horse for the sake of his """visual poetry"""?

The horse would be killed either way, might aswell make art in the process of it

He also killed a bunch of actors and himself by filming nearby a reactor

Sacrifice animals for the god of kino
source?

The book is pulpy sci-fi garbage. It's a similar relationship to the one between King's The Shining and Kubrick's adaptation

yep there it is, an ameripleb who has to have his stories fed to him by moving pictures

absolutely hilarious, let me guess... The Hobbit trilogy was true genius but the book was turgid crap for you?

The horse would be shot. Not quite the same thing as being pushed from a flight of stairs and speared in the neck. Tarkovsky was a sadist.

No, it's a good children's book and I didn't watch the Hobbit films

and solaris
and 2001
The CHAD artist takes the work from the nerd writer and elevates it to a spiritual experience

Games > film

To make true KINO you must make sacrifices

Why can’t you just be content with your personal interpretation? Why can’t you be content with no interpretation and just enjoy the visuals/audio? Why are you so narrow minded? Stalker is an easy candidate for best film ever made, btw.

I didn't get the point of those 3 bottles at the end

>produce an image so painful and real that it gets a visceral horrific reaction out of the audience that wouldn't be accomplished by say showing a hyper violent unattached and bloody head of a horse on a bed
>ooh noes why hurt animuls :( I totally missed the point because one littwe horsy died :(
this all saving and all loving, harmless morality is really corrosive imo.

Lem is little bit different to the likes of King, Clarke and the Strugatskys. I haven't actually read the Solaris book because I heard the English and French translations were bad but I've read a couple of his others and they were excellent and very sophisticated

Not that user but l think they shot some of Stalker at some chemical plant or sth in Estonia. Some time after, Tarkovsky, his wife and the cinematographer all contracted the same type of lung cancer.

Iirc, the cinematographer maintained that the chemical plant was heavily polluted and gave them the cancer.

ANUUUUUUUUUUUUU

The Writer’s actor got the same cancer as Tark. There’s no verifiable proof of the cause, of course.

Lem was pissed that he made it a love story.
The book is 300% more bonkers.

>Why can’t you just be content with your personal interpretation?
Because my interpretation is that I wasted 2 hours.
Stalker is an easy candidate for best film ever made, btw.
according to who? Yourself and the other 'patrician' shitposters you subscribe to?

The movie is nearly three hours, and if you felt like you wasted your time I honestly think cinema isn’t for you. This isn’t a matter of taste; it’s an inability to appreciate great art. Maybe try watching it again when you’re older and more patient.

And (appeal to authority and all) it’s one of the most critically acclaimed films ever made, by both professional critics and cinema fans. If you were around cinephiles and you called Stalker a waste of time you’d be laughed out of the room. Constructive criticism would be fine, but you haven’t offered any of that.

The movie is nearly three hours, and if you felt like you wasted your time I honestly think cinema isn’t for you.
I already told you i fell asleep before I finished it dickhead. And are you saying that all the films that I currently enjoy I am not allowed to watch since I am not a 'cinemaphile'. You people are honestly retarded and every post you make just convices me even more that this film is overrated pretentious trash
> If you were around cinephiles
I couldn't think of anything worse

One thing I never picked up on in the film that was explained in the game was why he kept throwing those weighted pieces of cloth. It just made him look bonkers, but at least in the game you can actually get your shit fucked up by the anomalies if you're not careful.

This whole is a contrarian cringefest, Stalker is pretentious and shallow relative to how it presents itself, yet it is not capeshit tier.

Watch what you like but you should know you have “shit taste.” It’s probably an attention-span/IQ issue. You could always work past these problems and appreciate films like Stalker but I doubt you’ll do that. And please learn to greentext, brainlet.

How is it pretentious? How is it shallow?

If life is shit, go for a walk.

Name one deeper film.

I learned that you had to put giant exploding heads on posters to sell art films

t. super IQ 180 + patrician that no one can disagree with because you are literally too smart for cinema and anyone who enjoys any other films must be shit taste brainlets

That people will try to rationalize any borefest if it makes them seem elitist enough.
I fucking hate that flick.

Thank you. And if you really cared about cinema you’d recognize the quality in Stalker, even if it’s not to your personal liking.

Its shit fucking movie.

wild strawberries
tokyo story
yi yi
the great beauty
embrace of the serpent
deer hunter
apocalypse now
a brighter summer day
uncle boonmee

Name top five movies

>tries to sound patrician
>doesn’t realize that none of these films are as deep or difficult to interpret as Stalker
Look, kid, it’s good that you know the names of some kinos but you’ve just revealed your power level to be abysmally small.

Well that was a nice nap.

How about bottom 5?
Pink Floyd: The Wall, Easy Rider, Kin-Dza-Dza, Tideland, The Blair Witch Project.

>Blair witch
Nice, das kino

>tries to sound patrician
>doesn’t realize that all of these films are as/more deep or difficult to interpret than Stalker
Look, kid, it’s good that you can spell "Tarkovsky" but you’ve just revealed your power level to be abysmally small.

You just said Yi Yi, Tokyo Story, Apoc Now, and fucking Deer Hunter have more depth than Stalker. Jesus Christ dude stop trying to sound smart.

>The film needs to have a gay sex scene at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
wow Tartakovsky was really a genius lol

>Jesus Christ dude stop trying to sound smart.
Funnily enough this advice should be applied to all the stalker fans in this thread

>You just said Yi Yi, Tokyo Story, Apoc Now, and fucking Deer Hunter don't have more depth than Stalker. Jesus Christ dude stop trying to sound smart.

Because you know the plot like the back of your hand? You know what you're in for, it satisfies your autism. It's a happy meal.

You’re basically admitting that liking Stalker makes you smarter.

Dude I LOVE Deer Hunter but is nowhere the level of Wild Strawberries or shit, and let alone Stalker.
Come on now.

>tips fedora

>Sup Forums hates Tarkovsky now

What went so terribly wrong?

Nor is Apoc Now (even if it is one of the greatest films ever made).

He is right. Just stop, you are just showing your ignorance you imbecile.

Dude I LOVE Stalker but is nowhere the level of Wild Strawberries or shit, and let alone Deer Hunter.
Come on now.
lol exactly

>tips menora
Why do kikes get mad when someone BTFOs an IQlet

There's nothing deep about Stalker.
It's a movie about three men playing pretend.

I really like Tarkovsky, it's just fun messing with this one weirdo who has a raging hard-on for Stalker and refuses to accept that anything else could be on its level. That's the antithesis of artistic thought.

are you really surprised?
Sup Forums has been in a nonstop decline for years

Not to film and work in areas contaminated by hazardous waste.

An actual redditor, wow
Cinema illiterate ape, stay mad tho XD

Yeah. The guy is just ignorant and desperate.

Is that your idea of BTFOing someone?
Your IQ must be so high.

>Tarkovsky, etc etc, the list goes on!
An actual redditor, wow

But you haven’t named a non-Tarkovsky film as deep as Stalker... I can’t personally think of one so I was hoping you’d have a real suggestion instead of memes.

I enjoyed it

user, you are calling illiterate people because you think Stalker is bad movie.
I mean.. ok. Yeah.

Liking good directors is reddit?