What it all meant?

he took a broader sci-fi concept and made it more about the human reactions to desire and want. with the way the movie is presented you're not even sure the supernatural elements of the zone are even real.

ask they actually care for what the characters say and not just if there are tits or abs in it.

Except for the fact that his goals and desires are never stated through the screen or dialogue. The reason we don't know supernatural elements of the zone are even real is because they were working with a soviet budget and were shit.
There's like 30 lines of dialogue for 4 hours of movie.

yeah, but there is some good monologue in it too
youtube.com/watch?v=gLN_UanuUTs

That was 90% vague unintelligible babble and 10% midwit faggot takes on life.

yeah thats what i was thinking too, it seems no one in this thread is able to distill this information

quality over quantity, there is less dialogue than in western flicks, but it brings some nice poetic reflection, but it seems to me that the topics are scattered all over the place with no unifying motif

Then explain you fucking midwit faggot. You won't because your a midwit faggot desperately trying to look deep and intellectual.

Quality over quantity? The dialogue is shit. Its not good. Maybe its poetic in Russia but I don't speak Russian and all the translations are shit an edgy 14 year old would write.

Also speaking of scattered topics, the monologue posted just above your post goes all over the fucking place.

This movie doesn't get shit enough for it's awful acting
I guess it gets lost in translation

>quality over quantity
Of which Stalker has neither. If it had quality dialog you wouldn't be here needing to ask "what it all meant." It's not deep, it's not intellectual, it's a movie a bunch of "cinephiles" desperately want to believe has more to it than it does.

That the person's inner desires are an enigma for even the person himself.
Hence the Porcupine story, hence why they never go into the room. They are afraid to look into their souls and find something ugly and they can't cope with.
Except for Stalker himself of course. He just loves to larp as messiah and bring people happiness.

this whole thread is just people whining about the movie holy fuck no one cares about your shitty opinion or how filtered you were that's not even the topic

i have a sense that you are clearly aware of the fact that tarkovsky is very respected in cinephile community, and so you're just trying to be edgy big dick boy to feel superior for not liking the thing that artsy hoes like

and when it comes to the explanation of the monologue - it is clear example of stream of conciousness, where the Writer, who is supposed to represent i think the general artist, goes through a series of self-realization, he touches on the purpose of the art he creates and how it affects his own life via the people who consume it and how the process of artistic expression itself is painful way of trying to know oneself. he also touches on the too much materialistic and technopositivist outlook on life itself.

go read a book and stop watching MCU so much imbecile

the unknown and mysterious can't be measured, parceled, or dissected by words. the human mind is unknown to us, shuttered behind the govts fences, minimized by academics, derided by writers and the bourgeoisie.
also psychedelics

Attached: 1617712188843.jpg (300x450, 23.42K)

pretentious bookfag
pretentious contrarian
they explain it in the movie you dumb fuck they have a whole speech at the end