Calling it a miracle is because for me the film is no longer a film, a thing, but more of a belief. Every time I have a problem, the movie will always give me an answer, again and again, isn't it a miracle?
Kant believed that the fact exists in each object itself, or that the best definition of an object is the object itself, but without the definition achieved by contrast, the object loses its meaning. This fact is called a priori. Another object defined by the relationship between objects, such as spatial location, size, properties, etc., is called posteriori, or inferred facts. Inferred facts are the facts we see most often, defined by relative or similar connections between objects, properties, etc. This connection between objects also allows various interpretations of the logical relationship between objects. The definition of definition is thus simply the process by which we give meaning to an independent and meaningless object. The existence of film is very special, and its recording nature and human effort, whether it is the control of the camera, the arrangement of editing, or the shooting of the subject matter, are destined to make the film a contradictory body and individual that is always pulled between the objective and the subjective. The facts shown in the film are nothing more than the logical rationality of the story. Some people think that the film is still "spatial art", because the "materiality" of the film dominates the film's narrative style, Deleuze believes that this materiality allows the film's tightly logical narrative style, and makes it "guide" and "" The aesthetic approach brought about by domination is eternal. Some people consider film to be "time art" because the tilt to the camera "record" brings out more of the real-world fact that most things are poorly guided by one's desires and beliefs, and more by Inadvertent and accidental in life are doomed. This inclination to loose logic and surrender to tight logic leads to one of the main and eternal debates in cinema, which is, what is fact? Jean Rouch made a "Chronicle of summer" to discuss this topic, and finally borrowed Jacques Ranciere to say that "the truth no longer exists in the film, but in the formation of the film." The meaning of this sentence is that we no longer trust the information provided by the director. The influence of postmodernism has led all of us to habitually criticize and challenge the leader and creator behind the information. But when Ranciere says this, he has tacitly accepted that the director's point of view conveyed by the film is the truth, and the definition of the film is in one respect the carrier of this point of view. The definition of film as a carrier comes from the fact that film can create a mirror world, an object that carries our thoughts, it can be anything. This container-like definition comes from the autonomy that postmodernism has given to each individual in the masses. Everyone gets rid of the traditional art form as a carrier of politics or ideology, and the public has a more self-awareness and a tendency to define an object. Artists, too, such as Manet, began to challenge the conventional art world's definition of standards. Tradition holds that the facts of the film's content or the director's subjective facts, and the facts recorded by the objective camera, together constitute the facts of the film. But when the audience has self-judgment, the fact of the film needs another confirmation, that is the degree of empathy (identification) of the audience with it. The introduction of this spectatorship makes the film an entity rather than a carrier. But when we separate film, this kind of artificial art, from people, what is left is only records, without empathy, and this kind of artificial art loses its meaning when it is separated from people. Art is like this. Art needs to be with people. Without people, art also loses its meaning. The introduction of this spectatorship makes the film an entity rather than a carrier. But when we separate film, this kind of artificial art, from people, what is left is only records, without empathy, and this kind of artificial art loses its meaning when it is separated from people. Art is like this. Art needs to be with people. Without people, art also loses its meaning. The introduction of this spectatorship makes the film an entity rather than a carrier. But when we separate film, this kind of artificial art, from people, what is left is only records, without empathy, and this kind of artificial art loses its meaning when it is separated from people. Art is like this. Art needs to be with people. Without people, art also loses its meaning.
Stalker talked about a similar problem. When people are constantly trying to separate themselves from the group and slander authority, what they lose is also the connection between individuals and others, and for the advancement of nothingness, and awakening to death (meaningless). So Tarkovsky used stalker's mouth to express his dissatisfaction or even his disapproval of these actions, because they wanted to live and also wanted to die, but when they really made a decision, they chose to live, but this is consistent with what they preached The idea is contrary. Writers are afraid that what they really want is different from what they think they want, and scientists want to blow up the place because they are afraid it will be used by bad guys. It is nothing more than his own demons. And the stalker never wanted anything, because of the lessons learned, porcupine. This fear and awe of death is also what stalkers believe in, so the stalker's desire to live has become so pure and logical. This film forces us to think about a question, what is the meaning of life? From the mouths of scientists and writers, the meaning of life is to live in accordance with the mainstream. They think that pursuing the meaninglessness of the moment proves that they can live better than others, but the result is lost. Stalker cannot be regarded as a pure public class. As Tarkovsky's sustenance, stalker's definition of life is more about respect for life, fear of death, emphasis on the meaning of daily life, and the need for dependence. This can also be seen in almost all Tarkovsky movies, and almost every Tarkovsky movie has a special background, whether it's the bomb in Stalker, or the missile in The Sacrifice. But in all the films, Tarkovsky shows his hope for the current environment, and this courage in the face of hopelessness is also the part of Tarkovsky's films that I love the most.
Russia is an interesting nation that gave birth to Marx, Engels and socialism and changed the dictatorship of the monarchs as the ruling class and Chinese feudal society, especially in Western society, but gave birth to modern society. Beginning with Stalin, a series of dictatorships were created. ruling society. Fine line is difficult to grasp, but it has verified that the so-called democratic system in Western society is generally just a self-contradictory pseudo-regime based on pleasing and paralyzing the people. Isn't the current political correctness and freedom that Western society pursues the best example?
Personally, I think the miracle at the end of the movie is more of a fantasy. But I don't think that's a bad thing. The film's final miracle is a testament to Tarkovsky's distaste for excessive postmodernist propaganda and an attempt to justify religion's place in the present. Although religion represents supremacy, and it is shameless to govern its followers and elevate their status through unquestioned single logic, but in times of turmoil, the illusions offered by religions at least give people happiness, Even if this joy is false. But doesn't that joy come from self-deception and immersion? This belief that he wanted to be deceived even when he knew the truth finally came out through the mouth of his wife. But the essence of this film is not in Tarkovsky's final choice or Tarkovsky's courage, but in all the experience it has gone through to reach the height of the film, all this seemingly nonsensical experience, like throwing stones at random to determine the direction of their walk, It's a decision made in the moment when you are overwhelmed and scared. But this experience is a necessary experience for the unity of knowledge and action. Tarkovsky was undoubtedly great and extremely brave.
View more about Stalker reviews
