Every time I watch a film by director Tarkovsky, I will have a doubt about myself, wondering whether the films or other forms of works I usually come into contact with are dominated by fun. In a fast-paced environment, whether a film is attractive enough to watch seems to be a dominant factor. It cannot be denied that such films have, or even very much, have their own space and market. The space is that they may not lack value for discussion, and the market is that we undeniably seek resonance, whether laughter, anger, sigh, sorrow. This Saturday, there was nothing to disturb, and the heat of the coffee was slowed down. As in this film, Tarkovsky uses slow camera movements and zooms, slow dialogue rhythms, to construct environments and convey ideas. Any utilitarian wish cannot be realized in the "room", how should we face up to our own pursuit? When desire and reason conflict, which is the id? Is this film, which has been used by a large number of netizens for boring and boring evaluations, worth two and a half hours of our lives? At least, these questions cannot be answered in Stalker. Not for resonance, not for acquisition, I occupied my own two and a half hours. I have a deep respect for this work of art, and I will never forget Tarkovsky's peaceful narrative and photography.
View more about Stalker reviews
