Discussion on Moral Issues in Stalker

Kacie 2022-03-20 09:01:34

Although it's a sci-fi movie, it's mostly about morality: the guide is a truly selfless man, he's like a messenger from God on earth, and the 'district' is everything he lives - dignity, meaning, and hope, he The only mission is to bring despairing people to the 'District' and let the 'District' realize their deepest desires, and they have nothing to do with the 'District' except to charge them a meager salary to live on. . But the people he brought to the 'district' -- professors and writers -- became suspicious of the 'district' as they approached the 'room', until their belief finally collapsed. In the professor's eyes, the 'district' is a major hidden danger in human society and a breeding ground for evil. Once the 'district' is used by evil people - and this is something that will happen sooner or later in the professor's eyes - help them achieve If he fulfills his innermost desire, the world will also fall into darkness, so instead of using the 'district' to fulfill his desire, he wants to blow it to ashes with a bomb. The writer's doubts mainly come from moral considerations. Since the 'region' satisfies the deepest desires of human beings, and they are often hidden and unknown to the owner, then satisfying them is not necessarily a matter of fact. Good things, on the one hand, the satisfaction of these desires is often at the expense of the misfortune of others; on the other hand, if the satisfaction of these desires makes oneself see clearly the filth and despicableness in the depths of one's own soul, it will also make one's own soul suffer. He also refused to step into the 'zone'.

In the reasons why professors and writers refuse to enter the 'room', it can be seen that they have a common assumption - that human nature is inherently self-interested, and all morality and education are only to suppress the self-interested impulse in human nature, but cannot really to eliminate it, so once human beings can use the 'zone' to fulfill their innermost desires, the result will only be destructive. But the guide didn't think so. He regarded the 'district' as the last hope of the unfortunate, and this hope was far more valuable than the substantial help it could bring to people. In the modern society where the soil of religion has been completely destroyed, the 'district' is equivalent to God, only it can provide people with spiritual refuge, and when people fall into despair, it can give people hope to continue living. But he also knew clearly that he couldn't expect the 'District' to fulfill his promise, because once it didn't work, all the value in his life would disappear. So at the end of the film, when the guide's wife asks him to take herself into the 'area', he flatly refuses, "What if it doesn't happen?" Then he has nothing left.

I think that in the end, the professor did not choose to destroy the 'district' and also understood this truth. Instead of destroying a tool that does not know whether it can really satisfy human desires to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, it is better to save it and leave it to the desperate as the last faith in their lives. Faith is the most missing thing in this age.

s[4]��C�7

View more about Stalker reviews

Extended Reading

Stalker quotes

  • Stalker: There's no going back. Nobody goes back the same way they came.

  • Writer: Forget your rucksack. What's in it? Diamonds? You'll lose your way. The Room will give you all you desire. It will snow you under with rucksacks.