I can't say yes in good conscience. During these nearly three hours of viewing time, I have been trying to block the idea that ""Roadside Picnic" is one of my favorite novels", and I can't stop me from finally coming to the conclusion: Tower Kowski doesn't make science fiction.
A few thoughts:
1. On the surface, Stalker uses the full set of New Wave vocabulary and grammar. That is, there are a lot of big monologues or very dramatic rhetoric like "XXX is just XXX" "I see through you, you are indifferent to human beings". This can be put on hold for now, but from the reader's point of view, the result is that the humor of the original book and the speculativeness based on plain dialogue are lost. The most normal saying in the whole film is "I hope my boss is crushed to death by a car". Also because of this set of use, the change of the protagonist in the original book has no room for expansion in the movie, but obviously this is not the point that Tower cares about.
2. From the core, "Stalker" is a replica of "Fly to Space", but it is not an adaptation of "Roadside Picnic" in any sense. The original idea and world view of "Roadside Picnic" have been completely overlaid. The tower designed the "district" as a place of salvation for the desperate, which is almost a setting such as mind projection and spiritual communication - that is, the director and screenwriter can do whatever they want. type - and indeed it is. The fragility and cruelty of the entire human race in the vast and unknown space discussed in the original book is completely zero in the film, and it is no surprise that it falls into the desolate philosophical garden of Ta’s obsession and nihilistic speculation.
3. In terms of details, if you stand from the reader's point of view, it is "unrecognizable". For example: Tower took out the role of Stalker, gave him unprecedented importance, assigned him a professor partner and a writer partner, while omitting all the dramatic and rich background arrangements of the supporting characters in the original book, what do you think of the three? They are all very similar to huoxing (people who are repressed under the Soviet system and interpersonal, but like to think independently) isolated from the crowd, and staged inner drama and conflict drama. This is already a thousand miles away from the novel. The character "Stalker" is a character reconfigured after being gutted by the tower, and is essentially no different from the scientist in "Flying to Space".
4. Some other complaints:
Tower's films always remind me of Truffaut. Is it true that as long as it's a new wave, regardless of nationality, there is no sense of humor... When I watched it, I thought, Tower obviously doesn't care about the connotation of "Roadside Picnic". , Is it because Mao wants to adapt it because he likes its ruins too much? Maybe the tower just wants a lonely corner to think about his love and hate for all human beings, after all, the tower has always liked things that are decadent and beautiful... The long-term slow-motion is really too annoying, the quality of the viewers (if I have something to say) I finally didn't go to 1.25x speed, but I regret it after watching it...
The above is the author's complaints after committing the taboo of reading first and then watching movies. It is purely personal feeling. ,, Sincere advice: Do not watch movies when reading books, and do not read books when watching movies
View more about Stalker reviews
