>I never create allegories. I create my own world. That world does not signify anything unusual. It just exists, it has no other meaning.What the fuck did Tarkovsky mean by this? Even if it wasn’t a conscious decision, I fail to see how something like the zone in Stalker isn’t some kind of broad existential allegory. I’m I just reading his films wrong or was he just annoyed with the question because of how much he’d been asked it and so gave an unusually dismissive answer? Because even if his intentions with his films aren’t explicitly allegorical, I can’t imagine he isn’t smart enough to at least pick up the incidentally allegorical elements of his films.
>>221015588>I fail to see how something like the zone in Stalker isn’t some kind of broad existential allegory.I think it stops being a clear-cut allegory when the stalker dude starts crying about what the zone truly means to him and directly addressing the significance of the zone existing and how it makes him feel like a special little boo-boo. Besides, wasn't the quote from, like, the broader discourse on how to interpret his movie, and he just hand-waved it? Supposing that anyone can interpret them anyway they want. At some point, saying that not everyone understands lyrics in the songs or their significance, but it doesn't stop people from enjoying the music, so why can't film be the same?
>>221015588While his work is worth experiencing, Tarkovsky was a major pseud.
he was a Christian in soviet russia, he couldn't come out and say everything. better to say nothing than to make something up
>>221015839True true, I genuinely didn’t consider this angle.
