In the first minutes of the movie, the Stalker wakes up but his wife hears him, and they have a fight over him going through the Zone again. The Stalker leaves her and she gets something similar to an epilepsy attack. I mean, I understood her crying after the husband, but why rolling on the floor?
That was one of the weirdest scenes from the movie, more than those from the Zone itself.
I thought her crying and rolling around and carrying on was a bit over the top, but who knows? When I was last watching this scene, I had a thought that maybe this sort of thing is practically a standard in Russian cinema (which I freely admit I haven't seen very much of, so I couldn't tell you for sure).
She's russian, that's why. They don't cry like others do, everything is simply EXTREMLY DRAMATIC over there (I'm Czech, so I know...).
And they never ever smile. And everything within Russian art has a bold, deep, dark, pessimistic meaning to it:
A snail sneaking up a plant for example is a synonym for the risks, dangers, all dark political epochs, the general inability to gain happiness, the death of every innocent female and male Russian, the suffering of every Russian child, the blindness of the blind, the sickness of the sick as well as the fact that everything will die sooner and later and also a synonym for the meaninglessness of any meaning in general.
A snail sneaking up a plant for example is a synonym for the risks, dangers, all dark political epochs, the general inability to gain happiness, the death of every innocent female and male Russian, the suffering of every Russian child, the blindness of the blind, the sickness of the sick as well as the fact that everything will die sooner and later and also a synonym for the meaninglessness of any meaning in general.
And sarcasm. Don't forget about that. Snails are very sarcastic. reply share
In the first minutes of the movie, the Stalker wakes up but his wife hears him, and they have a fight over him going through the Zone again. The Stalker leaves her and she gets something similar to an epilepsy attack. I mean, I understood her crying after the husband, but why rolling on the floor?
Err, no-- I simply wondered what was wrong with the husband at the beginning... (and it almost immediately obvious that HE is the one with the issues.)
I mean, when a husband continues to behave as if nothing is wrong when his wife starts to berate and even scream at him-- you know that that THEY have a serious problem they are not communicating/resolving... like the stalker leaving again to commit a crime for which he has been caught before.
If you thought she was being over-the-top, you've probably don't foresee any problems for a single mother raising the child of an absent criminal father.
It's one of the things I loved about this film-- despite having a sci-fi premise, the characters' behavior is pretty "ordinary/explicable"... down to the bored guy going into the zone for the heck/fun of it.
That was one of the weirdest scenes from the movie, more than those from the Zone itself.
Well, one of the things you need to do when watching sci-fi is to "re-calibrate" what constitutes "normality" in the movie's milieu-- the community immediately outside the zone is a crumbling society filled with people protecting, investigating and exploiting the zone; while the environment inside is kept almost "natural".
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care. reply share
Why so fanboy? She was obviously over-acting her role, and it has nothing to do with being a lonely mother (I assume you were a lonely mother at some point so you know better than me?) Up until the point when she sat on her chair, it felt completely natural. She was crying and she was in grief. Then she felt from her chair and started acting like she was giving birth.
Why so fanboy? She was obviously over-acting her role, and it has nothing to do with being a lonely mother (I assume you were a lonely mother at some point so you know better than me?)
Err, why so anti-fanboy?
I mean, you're so over-reacting your reply... you know, throwing labels around as if it would actually reinforce your point (I assume you were hurt by a fanboy at some point so you need to vent?)
OTOH, since Tarkovsky was made the husband the protagonist in the film, it is understandable that you might adopt the husband's POV and fail to consider or be considerate towards the wife's feelings or situation.
Up until the point when she sat on her chair, it felt completely natural. She was crying and she was in grief. Then she felt from her chair and started acting like she was giving birth.
Well, if it makes you feel better: taken OUT of the film's context, she would looked like she was having a fit-- except that she would not be crying like that in a fit.... And without the context of the entire film, you would have no reference to determine whether she was "over-acting", so I still don't think you made a good point.
But seriously, the mistake you made in identifying her "over-acting" comes from the mistake you made in identifying "her role" in the first place, aka her role WAS that of a long-suffering wife-- the fact that she "held it back/in" until her husband left doesn't really invalidate that.... I mean, 10 minutes with her character and you've already made up your mind as to what's "normal" for her role?
Cos, you know, she JUST woke up, didn't want to wake the kid, was still trying to talk the husband out of it, etc.-- and the "point of no return" at which she finally breaks down would obviously be the point when her husband goes out to re-commit a crime (and possibly leave her in the lurch again)...
Granted that this backstory is gradually suggested (this intro/prologue scene is some 10 minutes long) rather than spoonfed to the audience-- LOL, I suppose this is why some amateur critics complain about amateur storytelling in this movie.
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care. reply share
Really, watch that scene again: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4947870279914964017# (11:30 up to 12:25). If you can't still see what's wrong in there, I will just assume that you never actually left your home in order to actually see humans expressing emotions, of pain at least.
Really, watch that scene again: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4947870279914964017# (11:30 up to 12:25). If you can't still see what's wrong in there, I will just assume that you never actually left your home in order to actually see humans expressing emotions, of pain at least.
Again, the "sudden" outbreak is part of the wife's role/character (and is suppose to be sudden)-- it is only "wrong" if you insist pre-hysteria wife is the "correct" wife for the movie, as if you were somehow "know" her character better than the way she is written/directed....
Of course, that would be in line with the way you summarily assume extraneous things about me throughout this thread, just to post-validate yourself, LOL. Don't you know that next to reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem arguments are the most common and easist fallacies to refute-- in the sense that they actually do NOT add to your conclusion/arguments?
Here's how things really work in the real world: you simply say that it's your opinion, stop presenting it as fact or a logical conclusion ("really, watch that scene again"-- really, that's your best offense?), and just accept that there will always be people with different opinions-- cos you know, "over-acting" IS a matter of opinion/degree or style/context.
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care. reply share
I'm sorry, I can't speak robotish. And I'm not part of the biggest MMO from the internet of who's the better arguer either, so go play in this pool: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/threads/. They can't wait for you to refute their fallacies :D.
I'm sorry, I can't speak robotish. And I'm not part of the biggest MMO from the internet of who's the better arguer either, so go play in this pool: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/threads/. They can't wait for you to refute their fallacies :D.
Err, non-sequitur (ie. making much about having nothing to say)?
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care. reply share
The Stalker leaves her and she gets something similar to an epilepsy attack.
Hmmm. Looked like an "erotic" attack rather than an "epilepsy" attack to me. There's a very similar scene in Solaris. Maybe it's a trademark of Tarkovsky.
My impression was the wife was expressing (rather dramatically): "One part of me wants to leave this crazy good-for-nothing, but another part of me still loves him very much and keeps me with him - I'm being brutally ripped apart all the time, but I can't escape".
I am not a specialist on Russian traditional culture but I have a vague idea that wife's overly dramatic behavior had something to do with Russian traditions. I mean in traditional Russian culture women are allowed (expected) to behave like that in certain situations. The situations seem to include mourning for the death of a loved one, praying for god and asking husband for a big favour.
I assume she had plenty of angry built up, so she was letting it out, in a fit of rage. Her husband obviously keeps doing something that has caused some serious disfunction in their family. However, he just keeps doing it. I love the way Tarkovsky goes from the chaotic fit to Stalker walking, in an almost bored way. It seems like his way to escaping from family life, despite the impending danger.
I assume she had plenty of angry built up, so she was letting it out, in a fit of rage. Her husband obviously keeps doing something that has caused some serious disfunction in their family. However, he just keeps doing it. I love the way Tarkovsky goes from the chaotic fit to Stalker walking, in an almost bored way. It seems like his way to escaping from family life, despite the impending danger.
I figured this out before I ever read the novel it was based-- cos I'm use to movies/stories starting mise-en-scene "in the middle" where there has been a lot of water under the bridge...
But in the novel, she fell for the "bad boy", got pregnant and gave up the chance for any kind of life... but a home-maker for a smuggler-- so there was a lot of guilt, disappointment, etc. to go around between the Stalker and his wife.
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care. reply share
If they cut this scene down (ie cutting out her lying down *beep* that just looks extremely stupid) this movie would be a straight 10. Now its still suffer this "do they really know what they are doing here?" and it damages the film.