I received top rating for my review from the website's member film critics. However, if anyone on this forum would care to have a look at it and give me his or her comments and criticism (good or bad, don't be shy), I would be most greatful.
"She professes that their marriage was blessed, because while there was no happiness, there was neither any sorrow." is not correct. She says that if there would have been no sorrow, there could have been no happiness (i.e. there were both).
I do not understand what do you mean with "he shifted the philosophical implications of the story in a more pleasant direction".
Otherwise it's a decent review. I would perhaps underline some other things, but that would be my review.
Thank you for taking the time to read my (rather long) review, and for your generous opinion of it. Your pointing out of several mistakes (I am sure there are many more) is most welcome.
Here are my answers to your observations:
"the gauze is tied to the nuts"
Actually, Stalker talks about "bandages (Eng.), "bandes (Fr.), or "vendas" (Sp.). Since I do not speak Russian, I cannot tell what Stalker says exactly. But that a very small detail, which I nevertheless will correct ("bandages." iso "cloth.").
"She professes that their marriage was blessed, because while there was no happiness, there was neither any sorrow." is not correct. She says that if there would have been no sorrow, there could have been no happiness (i.e. there were both)."
Yes, you are correct, and I shall revise this mistake in my review.
"I do not understand what do you mean with "he shifted the philosophical implications of the story in a more pleasant direction"."
In the Strugatskys' novel, "Red" is confronted with having sacrificed young Arthur's life to save his (Red's) daughter, while Tarkovsky brings up very different and, in my opinion, more pleasant philosophical issues (Tarkovsky explores the conflict between science, rationalism, materialism, and cynicism versus spirituality, faith, art, and love) than a human sacrifice to redeem another human being's life.
Did you by any chance already write a review of this film? If yes, I personally would like to have, as I think every member of this forum would, the opportunity to read it and benefit from your insights to the film.
Again, thank you for taking the time to read my review.
You're welcome. I do not mind the length of the article as long as it deals with Stalker.
Stalker says 'bintiki', that means bandages made of gauze (and look like them too). So it's either gauze or bandages, if one should say it short.
'Pleasant' would be the last word I would call the Tarkovskian conflicts. They are more clean, because they deal with theory, while the novel is more down to earth. But nonetheless they can still be understood on the level of the naive receiver - as describing the everyday situations and troubles.
I have never gathered my thoughts into a single article. They are spread in various fora.
Thank you for this review Daniel. I don’t think it is too long, it can’t be said too much about this topic, and I really enjoyed reading it.
I’ve wondered a bit about the change of the use of water in his films. That is, from having been a redemptive purifying force to be connected with decay and stagnation. In Stalker, though, there are two exceptions to this where water regains its spiritual value: the rest in the swamp and the rain inside the Room.
You’ve got a point there that Professor’s main reason to blow up the Room is that he doesn’t understand it, not to save humanity from misusing it. That’s actually something I hadn’t thought of, but it’s consistent with his role of representing science in opposition to anything that cannot be proved.