After-effects of watching "Stalker"

[touchedbytarkovsky]

I'd be interested to hear how watching "Stalker" has affected you.

What hooked me on the film was my experience after first watching it. My wife and I saw it at a theater on a spring evening. On the way home afterward, my wife and I were walking down a quiet dimly lit street. The air was fresh after a rain, and as a slight breeze flew past, rustling the leaves, I suddenly keenly felt that everything around me was alive, full of potent energy. My wife felt it too. This was a direct result of having spent a couple of hours in "the Zone" with the Stalker as a guide. Not many movies have that kind of after-effect, and I've never forgotten it.

[maiga]

When I was in Architecture school in '97, I was waffling on about post-apocalyptic railway shunting yards and so forth, and one of the tutors suggested I hunt out a copy of Stalker.

I did, and failed to get into it, giving up after about 25 mins. On the next attempt I managed to sit through it all, and the lingering menace of the film scared the sh*t out of me.

It was only when I saw it on the big screen for the first time that the beauty and peace within that menace became apparent to me. And realised that I'd dreamed elements of the film years before first watching it. I think that the after-effects of this film fluctuate, and draw one in different direction with the passing of one's life, and successive rewatchings... sound like a metaphor for anything?

[touchedbytarkovsky]

I agree about the lingering after-effects varying. Yes, a metaphor for life. Sort of like how books keep changing every few years when you read them again.

A nice thing about Stalker is the fact that it is dense enough that you have a difficult time exhausting its possibilities--unlike most movies. I think "2001: A Space Odyssey" is similar to Stalker in that way--repeated viewings keep rewarding you with new insights. However, Stalker seems to affect me on a more gut level, whereas 2001 affects me on a more intellectual one.

[tuco]

For me, the after-effects of watching Stalker last for several months; I use the film to identify and think over the recurring themes of my life.

[The Ferret]

tuco said:

For me, the after-effects of watching Stalker last for several months; I use the film to identify and think over the recurring themes of my life.

Can't agree more... its a "devastating" experience to say the least... from a positive perspective, of course. The best perspective possible in the universe.

My life has been changed and finally defined at the same time.

Hi, Tuco!

[MaKS]

I cannot remember how it was, when i saw the film for the first time; however, i think, there's an after-effect all its fans share: "Stalker" changes our idea of a great film. Forever.

[Pauk]

That's my homage to Stalker in an experimental short "Safari".

[dimilletronc]

I was 14 when i saw Stalker for the first time...
It just killed me, but in a good way. It was like an introduction to a real life, not junky stuff, like...you know what i mean.
Today I come back to this film each time that i feel bad about something: for me its the best cure against depression. It gives me stimulus to get through life and think in a more profound way. Like a Bible.

[MaKS]

Introduction to real life, I really like this sentance. Isn't that what is generally meant when we say about the deeper, more genuine reality the film reflects, or art itself is supposed to represent.

[The Ferret]

maks said:

Introduction to real life, I really like this sentance. Isn't that what is generally meant when we say about the deeper, more genuine reality the film reflects, or art itself is supposed to represent.

I see art as an introduction to our inner self, not as an introduction to life.

I think 'Stalker' fullfils both the needs.

[dimilletronc]

I guess that art is our self expression that can modify the perception of life of others. The only thing that distinguishes humans from animals, at least untill now.
But in general you're right.

[The Ferret]

dimilletronc said:

I guess that art is our self expression that can modify the perception of life of others. The only thing that distinguishes humans from animals, at least untill now.
But in general you're right.

Animals don't need to do "art". They are biological pieces-of-art by themselves.

You're a fantastic add to this forum.

[dimilletronc]

admin said:

dimilletronc said:

I guess that art is our self expression that can modify the perception of life of others. The only thing that distinguishes humans from animals, at least untill now.
But in general you're right.

Animals don't need to do "art". They are biological pieces-of-art by themselves.

You're a fantastic add to this forum.

Thanx dude ;D

But art must be created. So animals are God creation, right?
I don't think that this discussion must continue on this forum...
Cheers

[MaKS]

dimilletronc said:

But art must be created.

We use to think so, as "art" is derived from latin "ars" - a craft. But it doesn't always have to be this way. (Sense of intention is what makes art in our eyes, but it turned out to be this sense is mostly european invention. To understand Tarkovskiy better it's vital to overgrow some views. We got used to discuss an author's intentions (usually it works for euroamerican cinema), but for A. T. this obviously is not enough.)

Art is created to be perceived (even if by creator only), because its nature is beauty, and only perceiving makes things beautiful. We can perceive objects of nature as pieces of art because of that. Eastern teachings let us see and enjoy things as if they were of the same inner nature with all the other things, no matter created or self-evolved.

admin said:

I see art as an introduction to our inner self

I wonder if it fits.

However. Created or not, it doesn't affect the world's beauty.

dimilletronc said:

I don't think that this discussion must continue on this forum...

I'm sorry. -.-