Three faggots do a pondering in a forest for 3 hours and millions of hipsters call it LE BEST FILM EVER !!!!

Le Stalkier

There is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment where a bird disappears in mid-flight in the building with the piles of sand (?) but yeah I agree.

Actually, if you skip the long train ride (I always do), and just watch it as a buddy flick where guys are bonding during a hike through industrial ruins, it's a good movie.

the phone at the Room was the only weird thing in the whole movie

Tarkovsky isn't hipster. He's for slightly more pretentious film bros. He's borderline entry tier.
If Stalker bores you, then you have a garbage attention span.
If this is a troll post, 10/10. If not, you're one of the worst posters on this board, and that's saying a lot.

Hard pill to swallow for some of you but Garland's Annihilation is a far better movie than Tarkovsky's Roadside Nap.

If Stalker bores you, then you have a garbage attention span.

Perhaps but I have a hard time imagining having such an inactive mind that wouldn't be bored by it.

I was so disappointed when it turned out soviet films werent about cool ivan drago characters doing kgb stuff, but they are about people walking around wondering about shit

If you want something sort of like that you need to watch more recent Russian stuff like Balabanov.

For an active mind, you've little imagination. I have my criticisms of Tarkovsky, but if you're just coasting by on "it's boring!" then you're probably just bored due to lack of conventional stimulation.

Only a midwit would prefer Sleeper over Lucas' glorious saga and TARTAKOVSKY's animated series.

Caution is no wars season

If the film itself can't hold my attention because it's not showing anything of interest then my mind will no doubt drift somewhere else and commit to imagination. But why would I sit down to watch the movie if I'm just gonna think about something barely related anyway?

Repeat that please but this time take the dick out of your mouth first.

the book is so much more kino, shame the only two adaptations it got are only loosely based on it

I think I need to come to terms that russia is not like soviet villains in cold war-era films. Maybe I should check out soviet war films or something.

Post Funko collection

Can't mean janny will be mean and petty, just dodge Lucas references

You sound like a precocious 12 year old with a lot of pretensions. Someone actually intelligent could still give something in terms of criticism.

Funko collection

I love how midwits always expose themselves by trying to paint their adversaries as the lowliest possible individuals. Who could possible feel inclined to go THAT low, you wonder. The one in the middle of course, the MIDWIT.

biggest problem is the "dialogue" which is just a series of ranting and pontificating about shit all in between nothing happening, it ruins the movie
reminds me of when you read a victorian or classic russian novel and a character just starts monologuing exposition or philosophy for pages and pages uninterrupted while the other characters sit and listen quietly. It's just not a natural way of conversation and books get away with it because it's not a visual medium. Stalker tries to gets away with it because everybody speaks Russian so it sounds cool and deep but if it were in english it wouldn't fly

just look at the cover photo in OP, prime example, what a shot, great set design, makes you want to see the film, then in the movie this entire scene is just one of the guys monologuing for 5 minutes about how shitty his life is and then one of the others recites a poem for some reason and then the scene ends with nothing happening

shills children's entertainment

gets insecure and acts like he's not the target audience for Funko Pops

O i am laffin

Wow you are such a smart boy for watching starslop past the age of 12

Thanks for revealing your hand. Total drivel.

Meh I get were they go with it, is not meaningless for the whole of the plot as figuring it out fills the big stretches of silence

Criticism like how Tarkovsky is too spineless to ascribe definite meaning to his works? How he loves to keep everything loose so he can wriggle himself out of having to take responsibility?

Thank you for reminding me why american films are trash
(Am American)

"""people""" who say meh should be murdered with hammers

Threadly reminder that I hate posturing midwits and that I can smell you through the screen.

You're smelling yourself, anon.

TRIGGERED midwit with the no u

Wow.

People who say ni should

You're literally seething at strawmen because anons made fun of you enjoying shows for kids kek

Genndy kino

for kids

You have no soul (and no brain either but at that point it doesn't really matter).

Every Tatkovsky thread people think we are talking about dexter's lab

children's cartoon

for kids

That's what I said. Do you have brain damage? What year is it? Who is the sitting president?

Faggot Dead fan

Bruce is a nigger and I hope this smug retard gets clipped by a bus.

Jim Carrey .gif

You have terrible post physiognomy, nigga.

Kek.

Don't you have a Bluey episode to catch, sonny Jim? Or are you going to sit here crying about the "midwits" who don't watch TV-Y7 shows lmao

Who is the sitting president?

Cheeto Part 2: The Unraveling?

sonny Jim

Is there anything more closeted homosexual coded than millennial big boy bravado? Rhetorical question.

tranime poster has an opinion

For one it's not meaningless
For two, just because cinema is a visual medium it doesn't mean it's about being "natural" and "realistic"

tranime

Boyo, you're outdated. Go take a nap in a coffin.

Are people not tired of making the same fucking thread about how Stalker filtered them over and over and over? Why is it always fucking Stalker even? I mean I get that it's his most poplar film, but try something else maybe. Stalker starts making much more sense in the context of Tark's filmography, watch him chronologically.

I honestly think Solaris gets worse when he gets on the station. Too many unbelievable actions taken for me.

The best scene was the highway car ride.

If you think this is actually about Stalker as a movie and not about disgusting, self-insistent cinéaste culture then I don't know what to tell you.

It's still probably the most accessible of his movies in terms being actually follow the narrative, aside from Ivan Childhood.
You think people who get filtered by Stalker will be able to sit through Mirror or Sacrifice. Lol even lmao.

Get serious it has good pacing for a film about an existential crisis that meets a panic attack

Sir, you're on Anon Babble.

it's a zoomie

No wonder you got filtered by Tarkovsky movies. They didn't have enough animated lightsaber fights and ADHD editing jej

i like how they were actually in the room without realizing it

There is something about toxic radioactive places that just make you dizzy, the fact that it translates to film is amazing

The deeper you get into the farthouse the more meaningless it gets.

The only disgusting and self-insistent thing I see on this board is autists and social rejects desperately trying to pretend they're totally normal and better than other autists and social rejects. And people being mad about other people liking some artsy films is the most annoying example. You faggots are genuinely having your faces turn red when someone posts "filtered" on here? You really take that seriously?

zoomie

You're old, I'm young.

filtered

It's called a shit filter.

animated lightsaber fights and ADHD editing

More typical midwit behavior from you...

arguments: none

status: seething

eternally: filtered

You're going to age 10 more years and kill yourself at the first sign of your harline receding lel

Andrei Rublev is more accessible for sure. Mirror is actually pretty easy to get and it's not nearly as slow and minimal as Stalker, it's a patchwork of memories, a person trying to recall his life and filling in the blank with fantasy and dreams. Stalker is where Tarkovsky gets more depressed and slow, his last three films might as well form a trilogy, they're very similar.

Let them drown man, Ivan's Childhood is too kino to let the unwashed turboplebs ruin it.

Arthouse fans are always pedos.

The kino would be lost on them and they'd dissuade other plebs from watching it.

I'm honestly only annoyed with empty posts. Repeating the same meme a billion times isn't interesting. Posturing isn't interesting. There's too many old retards on here that haven't learned a single thing in the last 10 or 20 years and are clearly depressed and all they do here is cope with the fact they're complete losers.

This is a cute and funny board sir.

Unironically capeshit has more value than the average arthouse flick.

Trvth Nvke.

211123591(You)

Bait used to be believable.

Arthousefags are the male feminists of cinema. It's all about signalling sensitivity.

empty post

Andrei Rublev is more accessible for sure

Is it? I know people who don't understand 2/3 of it except for Bell making part.
And people might realize that Mirror is a stream of memories but it won't make them care one bit or even process any.

in two ways, really.
meta: they were
in film: the room they thought was the room that they were looking into had no roof; it was the room they were in that granted wishes.

Farthouse: low-T sensualism

Capeshit: analytical psychology

Most threads about Andrei Rublev are people liking it, while most threads about Stalker is the same shit where OP gets filtered and then feels personally insulted when someone says he got filtered and goes on a crusade against imagined version of "cinephiles" culminating in bait like Marvel is good actually and shit like that.
That's telling. Someone may not "understand" Rublev in some specific way, but I don't care if someone understands the themes or not, enjoying the film for it's formal qualities is enough, and Rublev is most of the time basically a pretty straightforward road movie where we follow travelling Rublev that takes place in an exotic time period and setting.
Stalker is also technically a road movie, but it's very minimalistic, the setting is almost completely unchanging and it's where Tarkovsky gets really slow in his pacing.

Exactly. This specific autist can't stand to see people discussing movies he doesn't personally enjoy, and samefags various threads with absolutely asinine replies trying to force a consensus. I've seen him do this in previous threads with the same images and typing style. Lolcow behavior in its purest form

gibberish

They knew they were in the room. None of them wanted to make a wish is all, since they were afraid what would actually come true.

Ivan Childhood is a pretty straightforward war movie that is 90 minutes tho. So I still think that one is the most accessible.

Where is the discussion though? What are the fruits? The only attempt at forcing a consensus I can see is your continuous posturing.

You better believe am better than you social rejects I belong to a better society to begin with

I drank safe tap water

Ivan's Childhood is his most accessible yes, that's why I recommend going chronologically.

Sam Raimi in general is for 15 year olds and mentally stunted sois

That's Bruce Campbell

For real.

I could point out various examples of discussion in this thread and you'll just dismiss them, because you're an inherently dishonest (You) addict. Everyone can see what you're blatantly doing here.

Who's the bigger fraud Godard or Tarkovsky?

Always the french one
the entire french film industry has exclusively been supported by retarded coomers since its inception
it's fraudulent

All of your so-called examples of discussion lack conclusions. None of the statements made are fresh or intelligent.

overextending his ideas

What ideas?

Stalker starts making much more sense in the context of Tark's filmography, watch him chronologically

How? Elaborate.

There is very little meat ITT aside from these underfed instances.

Actor whose only relevant work is with a capeshit horror director

My point stands

Tarkovsky actually aspired to a higher purpose. Godard was style over substance, sniveling irony and pushing whatever his politics were that week.
Go watch Le Cercle Rouge and Les Amants du Pont Neuf right now you pleb.

wtf why didn't the soviets view themselves through a western propaganda stereotype?

None of the statements made are fresh or intelligent

There is very little meat ITT aside from these underfed instances.

As if you're not guilty of the same sort of empty, nothing posts. If you actually cared about discussions of substance, you'd contribute with anything other than lazy bait or slapfighting. The (You) notification is clearly more important to (You) than that.

Idk what that anon was talking about with overextending of ideas, but I made the post about Stalker making more sense in the context of Tark's filmography, here's an explanation for you.
Tark has certain themes that repeat in his films, most notably his frustration with how Soviet society was abandoning faith and striving towards unrestrained technological development. This obsession with nature always popped up in his movies one way or another, even when it wasn't really a "theme". That's one thing. Another thing is how his visual language developed. From straightforward Ivan's Childhood with often obvious metaphors (Tarkovsky himself ended up disliking Ivan's Childhood because it had too many clear metaphors instead of intuitive abstract imagery) to something as obscure as The Sacrifice. You can see how themes of nostalgia/memory developed as Tark grew older, you can see how he came into that style of emphasizing long-winded dialogues / monologues. It's easier to notice all the stylistic cues if you have seen movies Tark made before Stalker.

But the thing is, I don't even have to explain this shit. If you were genuinely interested you would just watch the movies and see for yourself, but it's clear that you desperately crave spoonfeeding.

Tark has certain themes that repeat in his films, most notably his frustration with how Soviet society was abandoning faith and striving towards unrestrained technological development.

I'm surprised he got away with such messaging in his films, considering how much effort the bolsheviks spent trying to kill the Russian Orthodox Church.

Now this is better. Thank you.
What's the point of these threads then? Or any thread?

I was asking what's the point of this thread from the beginning. I literally asked why make the same Stalker thread over and over. Basically every thread goes the same way. If you watched Stalker for the first time just go to 4plebs and find any Stalker thread with enough replies to see answers to whatever you need. It's tiresome.

Nobody gave a fuck about this post 30s.
They stopped giving him money after Solaris anyway becuase he couldn't into budget and time so he we went begging around European countries and filmed there.

Stalin was a reactionary and tried to reconcile with the Church by the end. Khrushchev was borderline a liberal so even if not a fan of the Church he went easy on them, and then the Russian Orthodox Church ended up being intervened with the KGB and had all the protection in the world.
Tarkovsky still had an extremely hard time with the Soviets because even up to the early 80s his cinema wasn't really "soviet". There were other artistic filmmakers around him, but most of them either didn't go far enough or it was Parajanov and he ended up pissing off the Soviet government so much they sent him to GULAG (the pretense was that he raped some government official, but everyone who knew Parajanov said it was bullshit and the Soviets just seethed about his films, and some political presence in the dissident movements).
Tarkovsky himself was kept around to parade at foreign film festivals. He was tired of that and ended up fleeing the country after making Stalker. Nostalgia was made in Italy, The Sacrifice in Sweden.

We have to get the board culture moving forward somehow. Meme replies aside, there are interesting elements to his approach, concretely the idea of intuitive symbolism over fixed symbolism. I personally don't think his images are lavish nor plentiful enough to get a lot of said intuitive symbolism out of them is my gripe. His tackling the fantastical too subdued, too trivial.

Soderbergh Solaris shits all over Tarkovsky Solaris. At least he understood the basic themes of the book and didn't make a boring relationship movie.

If you were genuinely interested you would just watch the movies and see for yourself, but it's clear that you desperately crave spoonfeeding

This. Any resourceful internet user can read discussions/interviews dating back 20+ years to learn this and more.
The OPs of these sorts of threads don't understand because they don't WANT to understand. They can't set aside their initial bias and find more information to re-evaluate the films with. It is far easier for them to blame the director for their own ignorance. Sometimes, the real hack fraud is the viewer.

Sometimes, the real hack fraud is the viewer.

The real hack fraud is the one pretending he rejects pattern, actually.

t. anon who forgot to observe

Stalin was a reactionary and tried to reconcile with the Church by the end.

Stalin had to reconcile with the Church because of WW2, and then he just never persecuted it again because there were other, more pressing matters.

the point isn't that it's meaningless the point is that it's unearned, unprompted, and unending. Scene after scene is just monologue after monologue and it doesn't even try to organically fit it into the movie. There's no setup, someone will just arbitrarily launch into diatribe or deep reflection that lasts the entire scene while the other two just sit there and then everyone moves onto the next scene and never brings it up again. It's so bad to the point it's ridiculous. The entire premise of these three guys each with their own motivations venturing into the zone to find the room (which is a great premise) becomes completely subjugated to exposition and philosophy. It should be the other way around.

Nostalgia was made in Italy, The Sacrifice in Sweden.

It is funny, because I like Nostalghia and dislike the sacrifice... and I like Italian cinema, but dislike Swedish cinema. I know that it is just a surface level observation, but it feels strange nonetheless.

Kills everyone involved in Stalker, including himself, to make a kino film

Based

Tarkovsky wanted money, he wouldn't give the interview for free, he wanted 800 Swiss francs. I didn't have the money so a friend helped me out. I flew to London and arrived behind schedule at one of these terraced houses in the suburbs of London.

A man of short stature opened the door, very unfriendly and covered in a blank, telling me he didn't expect me and wasn't interested in talking to me. So I took the money and put it on a table. He became very irritated, telling me he didn't want anything to do with journalists and that journalism itself would soon be a publicly loathed profession.

He then asked me why I didn't stay at home by my husband's side, as it would befit any decent woman. I attacked him and said: "In your films the woman has no momentum, being just a satellite of the man. She has no right to exist for herself as a human being, but merely by virtue of her love for the man." Then Tarkovsky started exclaiming his radical, patriarchal ideas, telling me that a woman has no personal inner world and shouldn't have one either, and that her inner state of being should dissolve entirely in that of a man.

Its just not good and not worth talking about. Answer the question, "What is good about it?" I bet you can't answer that.

Would Tarky even entertain such a patterned notion?

Its what lazy directors do.

Secret third option: Denis Villeneuve
His use of negative space reflects the state of his soul

Godard secretly wishes he was Tarkovsky

Unfathomably based.

Just watched a filmmaker react to Stalker and it really helped me see how cool some shots are

black filmmaker

i'm one of those tards who only understands the bell making part

Denis Villeneuve

I've come to appreciate him more over time. Not so much his visual style but his treatment of unborn life and his repeating the common mistake that is trying to make fascism look anything other than cool. He's tall too and has good taste in breeders IRL, so I can't even call him a canuck soicuck.

imagine being black and having been told you have to compete with Whites and Asians intellectually

Pity.

sees crow disappear

AYO IS DIS SHIT FO REAL? IT BE TRIPPY AS FUUUUCK MAYNE

watches the glass move from train vibrations shaking the table as the child watches

SO SHE BE SOME KIND OF UH, UH, PSYCHIC OR SUM'N? DAYUM...

movie ends

DIS NIGGA TARKOVSKY MUST'A BEEN SMOKING SOME REAL SHIT, SOVIET UNION PACK FO'SHO!
BE SURE TO LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE AND HIT THAT NOTIFICATION BELL, FILM SENPAI!

Never watching a reaction video again.

people died for filming this boring piece if shit three times.

I have the theory that Soviet Russia had like 5 movie directors in the 1970s and Tarkovskiy was the one that didn't shoot outright propaganda. So his films were deemed "masterpieces" by default.
I watched "Solyaris" two weeks ago and man was it boring. They spend over half an hour at that datcha, watching the pond, watching the rain fall on the tea cups outside, watching the horse. And when they get to the space station, it's not about the mystery of Solaris, but about the affair between Hari and Kris. No wonder that Stanislaw Lem hated the movie. (The book is very good btw.)

The key about Tarkovsky is he was a manlet. Small people try create a big impact to create worship. It is all a scam. Bergman was over 6'4, his art was that of a tall man with little to prove. Tarkovsky lived to be worshipped, Bergman was non-pretentious. He even praised M Night Shyamalan toward the end of his life. It was Tarkovsky shit talking directors like that in all his books with his manlet rage.

But Bergman was 5’10? Are you thinking of someone else?

Bugman was a wuss who cried after reading Tarkovsky's scathing remarks towards his filmmaking peers, yet he still praised Tark's films. An emotional cuckold with a meek streak. Very transparently a creatively stunted man who failed to discard patterns for the sake of observation.

Pretentious turds who probably never even watched the entire movie lol

Bless CGI.

I saw Andrei Tarkovsky at a grocery store in Moscow around 1965. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for a Polaroid or anything.

He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”

I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen turnips in his arms without paying.

The babushka at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took the turnips and started counting them, he stopped her and told her to tally them individually on different pieces of paper “to prevent any redundant markening,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she tallied each turnip and put them in a box and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by reciting Dostoevsky really loudly.