The crown of thorns.

[MaKS]

SPOILERS are meant in this thread.

Somehow the crown of thorns wasn't mentioned before, so maybe we should exchange our views on that particular scene, in the room with the telephone.

Professor leaves the room.
WRITER: Besides I fully understand that all these poetry readings and going in circles is nothing else but a certain form of apology (leaves the room). I understand you. Difficult childhood, social environment... But don’t you get fascinated. (Writer until now had in his hand something like a branch or a piece of wire; now he has bowed it and put it on his head like it was a crown of thorns) I will not forgive you!
STALKER: You should not do that, please... (leaves the room)
(Taken from the transcript)

So... it's most possible Stalker's feelings were hurt by Writer's imitating Christ on the first place, while the Writes only playing with it. Further interpretations of this scene may vary greatly. Has Writer shown his ability to redeem his sins or even to become a savior of sorts; or it shows his indifference in spiritual matters, maybe even leaning into false-prophet attitude? Some other ideas?

[The Ferret]

Interesting threat.

I think he suffer the "cospiracy theory" and feel to be a pawn, a victim. So I tend to agree with the second interpretation, he's mockering Jesus Christ.

[Pauk]

Perhaps a perfect anti-Jesus:
I will not forgive you, and you know what you are doing.

[dimilletronc]

I tend to disagree about the "anti-Jesus"
The Writer does indeed mimic Jesus. Remember, when he sits on the edge of the well, in room with sand, he says something like: "i wanted to change people, but instead they changed and crushed me!" So, just before entering the Room, which he never entered however, he imitates Jesus, as if his wish could redempt his and other's sins.
One of the deepest moments of the film.
You see how religion is important in A.T.'s movies. It is present in each of them, and not just as a secondary theme. I was always wondering how Soviet censors let A.T. do it. Religion was prohibited in USSR... But people believed.

[Pauk]

Anti - because he says> I will not forgive you.
While Jesus forgave his torturers, etc., Writer will by no means turn the other cheek. His reasons for this has already been discussed elsewhere.

In the hall of barkhans Writer interprets the story of the creation of the man, acknowledging he had been removed from the role of the Creator to the role of the created, thus the certain incompetence of the Creator (masses) results in a creation of somewhat awkward Jesus Christ. The doctrine Writer tries to push forward, is that of being the smith of your own fortune. Again, that is in contradiction with the capricious Room, that has its own rules and is supreme in its own divine way.

[MaKS]

malishas said:

Anti - because he says> I will not forgive you.

He says it in that very moment. This certainly makes much sense.

malishas said:

In the hall of barkhans Writer interprets the story of the creation of the man, acknowledging he had been removed from the role of the Creator to the role of the created, thus the certain incompetence of the Creator (masses) results in a creation of somewhat awkward Jesus Christ. The doctrine Writer tries to push forward, is that of being the smith of your own fortune. Again, that is in contradiction with the capricious Room, that has its own rules and is supreme in its own divine way.

You probably meant "creation of an antichrist" (because Jesus is the Nazareth-born person's name, and Christ wasn't created at all). I find it difficult to interpret things this way, but this creation motif in Writer's speach is very interesting. I can add that inability to create and envy towards the Creator traditionally characterizes Satan himself.

But i'm not sure, what do you mean by "being the smith of your own fortune"? o.o

[Pauk]

I meant Jesus Christ in the most common sense, without going deeper into the religious aspects (I am aware of the differences).

I would not treat it as Antichrist, more in a postmodern way - as a variant.

Smith of his own fortune means that one creates his own future (anti-fatalist).

[MaKS]

malishas said:

Smith of his own fortune means that one creates his own future (anti-fatalist).

I tend to believe, anti-fatalism certainly does not characterizes "an antichrist" - only few protestant branches actually teach of God-determined destiny, while the rest of christian world confesses free will. Before "Stalker" Tarkovskiy already created his brilliant "Andrey Rublyov", and it's highly possible that he was aware of things like that.

dimilletronc said:

You see how religion is important in A.T.'s movies. It is present in each of them, and not just as a secondary theme. I was always wondering how Soviet censors let A.T. do it.

It reminded me of what actually happend on the important "Stalker" test screening for the cinema-related officials. In the test cut A. T. replaced the whole scene, where Freindlich reads from Apocalypse ("Revelation of the snail"), with black screen and no sound. For the first seconds the viewers stayed silent, wondering if it is some artistic trick, for Tarkovskiy have already made himself a name of one eccentric film director. But after some uncomfortable period of time, one of them asked A. T., what actually happening? Tarkovskiy explained, that he was rather unhappy with how this particular scene was appeared, so he finally decided not to include it in the film at all. He knew what he was doing, because the officials immediatly started to reassure him: "Don't we all know what a brilliant director you are, for you it's virtually impossible to shoot a bad scene," et cetera. They started to insist that he must put the scene back - without actually seeing it and having no idea what the scene is about, - and A. T., of course, had to follow this recommendation. ^^

So, officials knew very well who Tarkovskiy is, and he was relatively free as an artist. There's another well-known example, when they gave additional fundings to reshoot "Stalker". Most problems were appearing on another level of hierarchy, where they decided whether to release the already made film or keep it away from public, or whether to approve another A. T.'s film request or not.