|
Post by MaKS on Sept 1, 2006 19:17:13 GMT -5
That was Professor, not Writer, who was afraid of the Zone. the Writer fought Stalker just to keep him away from Professor. This is how i see it. Writer had no fear - he was too busy with himself. Since the very beginning (in the Zone) he believed in the voice, but stuck by his own way of dealing with things, his cinical and gritty character. That's how he walked through the Zone, believing and fearless (although sometimes afraid and always grumpy). If a stalker is one who can lead through the Zone and can't enter the Room - what if he's more stalker than Stalker himself? What makes me emphasize Writer's character is the last episode with Stalker, when he tells his wife that no one of "them" believes anything. Since the first time i saw the film i couldn't help but feel there's something wrong. And i think, i know what. It's not true nobody believed - because there was Writer.
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 1, 2006 19:23:27 GMT -5
But of course it is very possible to see it other way: Writer failed and showed the way a modern man deals with things he can't believe in, even if have to... And Stalker was right in the end, and maybe (remember Tarkovskiy's words in "Stalker II") couldn't do anything but actually force people to go into the Zone... All and all, it's the Stalker who seem to be the main hero of the film; making Writer stalker-like certainly looks like heresy - i wonder if we have a schism now
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 1, 2006 19:34:37 GMT -5
MaKS,
Do you think the Serpent quitted his Stalking activity for good? Is that that the very end of the movie hinted? Did he surrend? He refused to bring the wife to the Zone. Those were his last words.
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 1, 2006 19:52:06 GMT -5
Hmm, I don't really think he quitted it. He had this moment of depression, but his wife didn't seem to be disturbed when calm him - it is quite possible it wasn't the first time at all. But sooner or later (and after this particular, err... misadventure? - it's likely to be sooner) he probably won't able to take it anymore and either got agressive (he can - remember Professor) and drag people into Zone or just walk into it with his family away from the others. It's rather uncertain.
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 2, 2006 14:15:05 GMT -5
Hmm, I don't really think he quitted it. He had this moment of depression, but his wife didn't seem to be disturbed when calm him - it is quite possible it wasn't the first time at all. But sooner or later (and after this particular, err... misadventure? - it's likely to be sooner) he probably won't able to take it anymore and either got agressive (he can - remember Professor) and drag people into Zone or just walk into it with his family away from the others. It's rather uncertain. I don't agree with Tarkovsky's vision for his 'Stalker II'. I think the Serpent will return to his "old business" as soon as he can. Maybe he experimented such terrible depression every time something about his 'Stalking' activity goes wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 2, 2006 19:51:37 GMT -5
Maks> that was a very controlled aggression, and actually aimed not at Professor, but at the bomb. Stalker never hits Professor, just tries to wrestle the bomb from him (compare with Writer's tactics). What I want to say, there must be a definite shift from aiming at an object and aiming at a human. As it struck me now, watching again - the next step: when no matches will be presented, no illusion for Stalker that it is not him who chooses.
Yes, and about the very first post in this topic, about the tanks, just noticed, - they came in AFTER the Zone took it's shape, thus they were not affected by the initial blast or whatever it was. They were abandoned during that crusade immediately after the impact.
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 2, 2006 21:30:34 GMT -5
I don't agree with Tarkovsky's vision for his 'Stalker II'. I think the Nit/Worm will return to his "old business" as soon as he can. Maybe he experimented such terrible depression every time something about his 'Stalking' activity goes wrong. I agree that he won't give up just for "now". The question is how far he can go not giving up... And I don't find it possible for myself to ignore what A. T. had to say - if he seen the Stalker's ability to become like that, we can't deny this streak in his character. On the other hand, i don't think he inevitably had to become that bad, the sequel was never shoot, and Stalker's free to choose his future Maks> that was a very controlled aggression, and actually aimed not at Professor, but at the bomb. Stalker never hits Professor, just tries to wrestle the bomb from him (compare with Writer's tactics). What I want to say, there must be a definite shift from aiming at an object and aiming at a human. I agree. he's not a monster, our good Stalker, and he's far from being ready to actually harm someone yet... As it just stroke me now, watching again - the next step: when no matches will be presented, no illusion for Stalker that it is not him who chooses. What does it mean to you, according to the whole film?
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 3, 2006 4:50:04 GMT -5
Maks, I do not know. It seems to be the most obvious prove against the Stalker, but again - it can as well be the necessity, a ritual. Can a word become a body? That's what we were discussing about Stalker II. Already now Stalker is aware that he is forcing the belief onto his companions, and what is also important, he believes he is right. That's what could be called psychological violence (They were asking for it ). If Stalker's belief became even more pure (if it's possible), he would not need to push - people would jump down themselves. That's sort of an alternative in the development of Stalker. Perhaps a more effective one. About the "good stalker": the same last time I watched it, I became fully aware of the change in Stalker after he reads the poem (we discussed earlier that it might be a trigger). Compare how he deals with those problems along the way - casting metal thing after Writer, spilling out his drink, lecturing them on the manners of the Zone, etc. and how he speaks to them after the poem. He achieves the supreme weakness, also reminding of the Good Shepard.
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 3, 2006 10:50:27 GMT -5
Thank you for your answer.
Speaking of the verse trigger (somehow I missed this discussion), maybe not the verse itself was the trigger, but the fact they actually reached the safe place, the very threshold of the Room; no more traps, Stalker relaxed... And in this rather peaceful surrounding Professor's effort seemed even more shocking for him...
BTW, i turned images loading on and found out now you got very nice avatar. i like it.
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 3, 2006 11:07:14 GMT -5
Thanks The discussion involved the last poem, read by Little Monkey. So that Stalker's poem could be an attempt to achieve the state of mind perhaps similar to that of his daughter's, to get into a trance. And it is a shocking turn of events in the background of the clash between the ultimate extremes: the weakness in spiritual peak and the complete hardness of the pure science.
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 3, 2006 11:29:52 GMT -5
Two saviors, and between them there's the Writer, who doesn't know anything... (another theory? i sort of tired of them multiplying in my head like roaches >.< )
The verses, they're like tuning forks for soul. (I doubt they read verses intentionally, though.)
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 3, 2006 11:59:53 GMT -5
Monkey is a natural phenomenon, let's say, like the Zone itself. Stalker's poem - in the same line as two equal matches.
Yes, in a way Writer combines both extremes, that's why Stalker thought he was a good man, seeing in him what he expected to see. And that lack of the other extreme in Professor probably caused that rather quick change of mind (i.e. if Writer would have come to destroy the place, he might have found it much more difficult to decide, finding arguments for and against in both poles). Furthermore, the change that seems to happen in Writer is a shift from one balance to a new balance (all the traps working as triggers?). So Writer has both changed and stayed the same.
|
|