This is a movie that requires thinking. In fact, thinking is what the film is about, and what the director wants the audience to do. He hopes that the thinking of the characters in the film can mobilize and inspire (not just guide) the thinking of the audience.
There are a lot of metaphorical images here. Three people: a writer, a scientist, and a "guide". Writers and scientists themselves are seen as the poles of sensibility and reason, what about 'guides'? It cannot be said that he is in between, he should belong to someone who is not too deep in either, or a bystander. What does the so-called "area" where the meteorite landed represent? I understand it as a condensed or internal or external macroscopic thing, such as life, such as the heart, or the whole world. The travel of several people in this "area" is just like the travel in the above-mentioned macroscopic things. What about the final destination "room"? It should represent a goal, a peak of hope that everyone desires. It may represent the goal of the inner spiritual world, or it may represent the requirements of the objective material. In short, reaching it means the satisfaction of the ultimate desire. And the black dog, I doubt the authenticity of its existence, is it living in the dream of the 'guide', or in everyone's dream?
Here, however, each image has complex contradictions. Sometimes it's sober and makes you feel like they're themselves, writers are writers, scientists are scientists, and sometimes they're not themselves. For example, a writer who is sentimental will also rationally deny the so-called "telepathy", "flying saucer", "Bermuda" and other illusory and unproven things to the lady. And what about scientists? He was also very emotional, especially when talking on the phone, and he was very angry. The 'Guide' was calm, and at times seemed to be playing tricks, but fears and fantasies never left him, including his dreams.
In any case, the arguments and doubts between the three of them have never stopped from beginning to end, which represents the confrontation of various ideas, which is the most attractive part and is naturally the core of the film. In addition to arguing about the "room" of the destination, and about the journey on the road, they will also discuss the meaning of life, art, science and technology, and more. Among them, the writer talked about the most, and he was the first to doubt and disobey the guidance of the guide (scientists also did it later). His skepticism is the most thorough, and therefore the most pessimistic, even a little nihilistic. For his own writing, for example, he reflects on what it means to arrive at the "room" to be a genius (being a genius is the reason he goes to his destination). He knew that a person writes because of pain and doubt, "Why do you write if you know you're a genius? Why?" Empty things are for less work and more enjoyment. These are crutches, prosthetics, and human beings exist to create.” He talks a lot about art, and thinks that the work of art, unlike other activities, is selfless, "a great fantasy, a selfless truth". This all reflects the author's strong and strong perceptual thinking, but despite this, we cannot deny the truth of his views. Scientists love to dismiss the writer's views and sarcastically, "Are you going to teach me the meaning of life and teach me how to think at the same time?" As a bystander, the 'Guide' senses the writer's emotional thinking and the potential to get caught up in it. Nothingness, also persuaded him, and proposed that "everything has its meaning". The writer himself is sometimes aware of his own contradictions, like looking from a shell on the outside to a shell on the inside, he said, "In my consciousness I hope that vegetarianism will win the world, but my subconscious wants to eat a piece of it. fat". He knows the situation in which he is writing, and thinks that he has long deviated from his original purpose of writing. He accuses critics and editors of controlling his writing. He concluded that the wealth of knowledge does not improve people's conscience, the two are not related. Here, the 'guide' is not always a guide, or he is a guide before entering the final pipeline (but has been suspected, and the writer and the scientist have turned away from him successively), after entering the pipeline (about to reach the end of the ), the 'guide' becomes fearful, and the true guide is the writer (of course, under the deceit of the guide). After this the guide completely lost his position and the trust of others.
The "area" is an unpredictable danger zone, and the travel in it is also unrepeatable, that is, a one-way line. As the guide put it, "it's a complex system, maybe a trap...and there's a mortal danger...if someone is there, it will move, old traps will disappear, new ones will appear...the original safe place It becomes impossible to pass...sometimes I even think it is naughty", he added, "Its state is caused by our own emotions, sometimes people have to go back the same way, and some people die at the door of the 'room'", I don't know if it was a scientist or a writer who asked him jokingly, "Leave the good and cut off the bad?" He explained, "It is not necessarily good to let go of those who have given up hope, but Unfortunate. But the most unfortunate people die if they act badly." That area is so dilapidated, doesn't it seem like this world? We human beings reproduce from generation to generation, and we live in this world again and again. It seems to be new to us, but to the world itself, to history, it has been vicissitudes of life. To describe it as a danger zone is itself a pessimistic description, and it is changeable and unpredictable, even "naughty". Isn't this what people think of as "the trick of fate"? Our life is an irreversible one-way line with no turning back. Just like Kafka's point of view, "How can you be happy in this world unless you escape into this world?" Here, for life and fate, it is a pessimistic view, close to the existential view, that people live in The world is an unfortunate encounter, a journey of suffering. But at the same time, there is still a glimmer of hope. Things in the area depend on people themselves, that is, the subjective initiative of affirmation, and people can control their own destiny.
However, when they were finally only one step away from the "room", they hesitated, and in the end they were not able to enter. We can understand it as their awakening, but it can also be seen as they jumped out of the original confusion and entered a new level of confusion. Of course, these are subjective, after all, the world will not change the slightest.
View more about Stalker reviews
