You left out an important part of the movie. That in the drab world of the adults, the crippled daughter saw color and moved the glasses with her mind. In one aspect this could be a statement that hope lies in our children. It can also show that the innocence of a child sees the world vividly but the beaten down adults have lost all perspective. There is a clear spiritual overtone that children implicitly live 100% in the world of spirit, but the adults have lost that and have to struggle to bring it back in their lives. Even those who believe they are filled with faith, like the Stalker.
Yeah I wanted to leave the ending out of the video because most people I know don’t usually finish this movie because of the long run time and pacing. I figured explaining the film up to the final moments might have convinced viewers to rewatch or watch for the first time with a new mindset about Stalker. But thanks for the comment!
The closest anyone came to replicate the book in any other medium. He managed to replicate the feeling of a lost speck suspended in space, dealing with the trauma of not being alone, but still being lonely.
One possibility. Tarkovsky considered himself primarily an artist. One of our Estonian filmmakers, who participated in the production of the film, has said. "Strict, dry classical art" Art requires the freedom that the USSR system allowed at the time. The film tries to convey, to create a certain state. Explaining the content of the film is perhaps necessary for human development. This film is meant for each person personally.
To be honest. This is like The Top 10 best movies of ALL time. The journey you Go through with this characters throw The zone is so eerie and mesmerizing you forgot what is The purpose itself of The hole mission. You are like a ant talking roadside picnic scrap of a major profound reality that feel can GRASP with words and senses... In The End... Not everyone is Lost... Just wandering from broken dreams into a veil of reality...
The first time I watched "Stalker" I was frustrated because I did not understand what the story was. I've since become a big fan of Tarkovsky, and I've watched "Stalker" several times. It's not for everyone, and the same can be said of Tarkovsky's other movies, but he was making films about questions that really matter. My favorite is probably "Andrei Rublev". "Solaris" is another science fiction movie that will subvert the expectations you have about the genre, but haunts the mind once you've seen it because Tarkovsky had the film maker's genius for creating arresting images.
I loved Stalker! It reminded me of a few essays I wrote as a teenager. I was writing about a man trying to find the way in a society governed by materialistic people. 🙂 I find the link with the aliens interesting, but it is not clear in the movie. Maybe the zone was governed by laws know to aliens?
I did not want to give the ending completely away. The goal of this video was to explain the overall themes and symbolism behind Stalker. I know a lot of people choose to stop watching Stalker due to its slow pace so hopefully I convince some to watch it all the way to the end.
Right at the opening of the video now... I am taking a stand on my own principles against ambiguousness... I grow tired of the idea that ambiguous and unclear narratives and events and ideas are in and of themselves a good thing. I seek clarity in life, I seek truth, not my truth, not many truths, THE truth, whatever it may be. This is likely on my part an open rejection of the polite lies I was raised on that later came back to bite me, but I stand on the desire for clarity. If I can know that a film or show tries to thrive on its ambiguity, I refuse to see it. I have no interest in being confused, or baited with breadcrumbs only to be denied a meal.
I can relate. I often feel that artist use ambiguousness as a way to not having to answer philosophical conflicts or to create intrigue, to trick people to speculate or think more about the art. You can make art with a clear statement and don't have be to upfront about it, but being ambiguous is just sometimes laziness.
@@damienschutte3616 My least favourite example of this is First Reformed which is an amazing movie and the ending is very clear and the message concludes the film nicely. I am going to spoil a bit here so warning if you haven't seen it. Paul Schrader says the ending could actually be a hallucination as the main character is dying which there is not any evidence to back up but that's what he suggests could be happening. Thats the other annoying part is he says "I don't know what the true ending is. I'm not which is actually happening" Even though he spent months writing and filming it all. Like no, that just goes against the whole set up of the movie. Why is the writer going against the entire story purely to create ambiguity? It really just sort of dilutes the impact of the film. It reminds me of those theory's that the Rugrats are actually all just dead babies in the afterlife which is just stupid lmao but that's basically what Paul Schrader was doing. Long rant but it really pissed me off and made me think that me, who has a limited secondary school reading level could be a better writer than the guy who wrote Taxi Driver and Raging Bull lol
@@zer-sz5tu I would say this is a way to execute art, not inherently a feature of art. Also not all ambiguous art is without purpose. I am more talking about the andy warhols and george RR martins of this world. two examples where one definitely tricks people and the other is clearly avoiding philosophical conclusions.
I get a sense of a play on destiny each of the men have their role and they don't break it like the stalker himself never sets foot in the room he's a guide and fufils his purpose of or in his "destiny" of guiding those who would where there to set foot in
It's definitely the kind of movie that you put meaning in and not the other way around like a piece of media normally does so it's definitely not for everyone in fact I would say a majority will not enjoy it .
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
You left out an important part of the movie. That in the drab world of the adults, the crippled daughter saw color and moved the glasses with her mind. In one aspect this could be a statement that hope lies in our children. It can also show that the innocence of a child sees the world vividly but the beaten down adults have lost all perspective. There is a clear spiritual overtone that children implicitly live 100% in the world of spirit, but the adults have lost that and have to struggle to bring it back in their lives. Even those who believe they are filled with faith, like the Stalker.
Yeah I wanted to leave the ending out of the video because most people I know don’t usually finish this movie because of the long run time and pacing. I figured explaining the film up to the final moments might have convinced viewers to rewatch or watch for the first time with a new mindset about Stalker. But thanks for the comment!
The closest anyone came to replicate the book in any other medium. He managed to replicate the feeling of a lost speck suspended in space, dealing with the trauma of not being alone, but still being lonely.
One possibility. Tarkovsky considered himself primarily an artist. One of our Estonian filmmakers, who participated in the production of the film, has said. "Strict, dry classical art" Art requires the freedom that the USSR system allowed at the time.
The film tries to convey, to create a certain state. Explaining the content of the film is perhaps necessary for human development.
This film is meant for each person personally.
To be honest. This is like The Top 10 best movies of ALL time.
The journey you Go through with this characters throw The zone is so eerie and mesmerizing you forgot what is The purpose itself of The hole mission. You are like a ant talking roadside picnic scrap of a major profound reality that feel can GRASP with words and senses... In The End... Not everyone is Lost... Just wandering from broken dreams into a veil of reality...
The first time I watched "Stalker" I was frustrated because I did not understand what the story was. I've since become a big fan of Tarkovsky, and I've watched "Stalker" several times. It's not for everyone, and the same can be said of Tarkovsky's other movies, but he was making films about questions that really matter. My favorite is probably "Andrei Rublev". "Solaris" is another science fiction movie that will subvert the expectations you have about the genre, but haunts the mind once you've seen it because Tarkovsky had the film maker's genius for creating arresting images.
I read the novella it’s based on years ago, long before I heard about the movie or the video game.
Now I need to watch the movie :)
The film is very different, deep philosophically.
I loved Stalker! It reminded me of a few essays I wrote as a teenager. I was writing about a man trying to find the way in a society governed by materialistic people. 🙂 I find the link with the aliens interesting, but it is not clear in the movie. Maybe the zone was governed by laws know to aliens?
Seems like you stopped watching before the movie's ending. Did you miss it?
I did not want to give the ending completely away. The goal of this video was to explain the overall themes and symbolism behind Stalker. I know a lot of people choose to stop watching Stalker due to its slow pace so hopefully I convince some to watch it all the way to the end.
Yes: the true meaning! 😂😂😂
It resembles the serial Under The Dome
Right at the opening of the video now... I am taking a stand on my own principles against ambiguousness... I grow tired of the idea that ambiguous and unclear narratives and events and ideas are in and of themselves a good thing. I seek clarity in life, I seek truth, not my truth, not many truths, THE truth, whatever it may be. This is likely on my part an open rejection of the polite lies I was raised on that later came back to bite me, but I stand on the desire for clarity. If I can know that a film or show tries to thrive on its ambiguity, I refuse to see it. I have no interest in being confused, or baited with breadcrumbs only to be denied a meal.
I can relate. I often feel that artist use ambiguousness as a way to not having to answer philosophical conflicts or to create intrigue, to trick people to speculate or think more about the art. You can make art with a clear statement and don't have be to upfront about it, but being ambiguous is just sometimes laziness.
@@damienschutte3616 My least favourite example of this is First Reformed which is an amazing movie and the ending is very clear and the message concludes the film nicely. I am going to spoil a bit here so warning if you haven't seen it. Paul Schrader says the ending could actually be a hallucination as the main character is dying which there is not any evidence to back up but that's what he suggests could be happening. Thats the other annoying part is he says "I don't know what the true ending is. I'm not which is actually happening" Even though he spent months writing and filming it all. Like no, that just goes against the whole set up of the movie. Why is the writer going against the entire story purely to create ambiguity? It really just sort of dilutes the impact of the film. It reminds me of those theory's that the Rugrats are actually all just dead babies in the afterlife which is just stupid lmao but that's basically what Paul Schrader was doing.
Long rant but it really pissed me off and made me think that me, who has a limited secondary school reading level could be a better writer than the guy who wrote Taxi Driver and Raging Bull lol
@@zer-sz5tu I would say this is a way to execute art, not inherently a feature of art.
Also not all ambiguous art is without purpose. I am more talking about the andy warhols and george RR martins of this world. two examples where one definitely tricks people and the other is clearly avoiding philosophical conclusions.
I get a sense of a play on destiny each of the men have their role and they don't break it like the stalker himself never sets foot in the room he's a guide and fufils his purpose of or in his "destiny" of guiding those who would where there to set foot in
It's definitely the kind of movie that you put meaning in and not the other way around like a piece of media normally does so it's definitely not for everyone in fact I would say a majority will not enjoy it .