MovieChat Forums > Stalker (1980) Discussion > Explanation of the dog

Explanation of the dog

posted 9 years ago by Banaga
40 replies | jump to latest

I've seen people on this board make references about the dog or speculate on the meaning behind the dog or what it the symbolism behind it is. But is seems to me nobody really understands it, so here's my take on it.

The film is, simply put, about faith. What we see during the film is stalker's obvious belief in the Zone and the Room. It's what he lives for. To him life is in the Zone. He doesn't care if he ends up in prison again, because life outside of the Zone is the same as prison to him. This is why we see the scenes in the Zone in colour and outside of the Zone in black and white.

When Stalker takes Writer and Professor into the Zone we see two characters very different from him, and from each other. Writer and Professor get into an argument in the scene where the three of them are laying in the grass to rest for a while. While Writer and Professor are having this argument (or after) we see Stalker having some sort of a dream. It is here that the dog first appears (in his mind). The dog is connected to the argument (more specific: the beliefs) of Writer and Professor.

Later in the film we see the three of them standing before the Room, and Writer and Professor deciding not to enter the Room. They make it clear they do not believe in the (powers of) the Room. Before this scene we see the dog again, following them. After they leave the Zone it appears the dog has followed them out of the Zone.

At the bar the wife of Stalker asks the men if they are interested in taking the dog home. Writer answers: 'I already have 5 of them at home'. At this point you should realise that the dog is something of Writer and Professor that instills itself in Stalker. More specifically it is a doubt in his belief/faith that Writer and Professor instill in him. It first appears during the argument which irritates Stalker. It creeps up on him during that argument in his dream. Writer saying he already has 5 of them at home is like saying: I don't believe in the Zone at all (5 is more than 1, Stalker now has a little of Writer in him).

Back at home we see the wife giving the dog some milk. I am not sure but this may indicate that the wife will later feed these doubts, because it would be for the best (remember she doesn't want him to leave to go to the Zone at the beginning of the film). Here we also see the ending, with the daughter moving objects with her telekinetic powers. This is (as many have rightly stated) the proof that the Zone is real. Stalker's faith is thus justified. When the daughter uses her telekinetic powers we hear the dog make this noise (almost a high pitched sound) that I can't describe. The dog clearly doesn't like what the daughter is doing: that what symbolizes the doubt of Stalker in his faith, doesn't like the manifestation of Stalker's faith/belief as reality, as truth! This drives the point home for me. The dog symbolizes something negative that Writer and Professor (the non believers) instill in Stalker, the doubt in his faith/belief.

This ties back to the three of them standing in front of the Room, where we see a hopeless Stalker losing the physical battle against the two. Here we sense that he is starting to doubt himself.

I hope this wasn't too long of a read, I wanted to do this right. It's the least a masterpiece as Stalker deserves. If you can watch a film like Stalker I'm sure this too won't be too much for you.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

I appreciate your reaction and interpretation, but I have to say I don't agree with many of the points you make.

The first:
---
Or perhaps alternatively, as the dog first was just in Stalker's dream, then materialised and eventually followed him:
it symbolised that Stalker was the only one who got something out of the Zone, whereas Writer and Professor rejected the dog - or faith.
---

You should remember that the dog appears in Stalker's dream, right after Professor and Writer start having their discussion (an argument that was tiring Stalker) and after he has a (first) substantive conversation with them. The meaning of this, to me, seems that the appearance of the dog is directly tied to this argument: it is the first seed of doubt (or whatever negative word you'd like to insert here) that is planted in Stalkers subconscious. As for Stalker being the only one getting anything out of the Zone, I think you should look further back. As we see at the end, his daughter has telekinetic powers. I think that's what Stalker has taken out of the Zone, if anything (entering the Room in a previous visit). I should also note that neither of the three men went into the Room, so 'getting something out of the Zone' seems out of the question here.

The second:
---
I think the latter bar scene was their last chance for redemption, but they rejected it by rejecting the dog, as I said earlier.
---

As you state in your post, you interpret Stalker in a religious way, you acknowledge the Christian allegories. Yet you talk about 'a last chance for redemption'. This to me isn't in line with religion. Forgiveness and redemption are very strong things in religion, and as long as someone is alive, redemption is possible. All the more so when we're talking about religion. As long as a human being is alive, God would not reject his/her faith, if that person wants to believe. Therefore I think this understanding of the bar scene doesn't fit in with the religious themes in the film.

The third:
---
I'm not sure how my viewpoint goes with the girls telekinesis scene. It definitely shows that the Zone is real, and perhaps Stalker's faith or
the dog is a bit anxious witnessing such a demonstration of its power. Perhaps he was afraid he'd end up the same way as Teacher - well dead.
----

As we see various times, Stalker feels more at home in the Zone than outside of the Zone (he literally states this at the beginning of the film: 'Oh God, for me it's prison everywhere'.) When we see him arrive at the Zone the first thing he does is go somewhere to lie in the grass and 'embrace the Zone' so to speak. He is calm and relaxed, he's finally at home. This to me doesn't tie in with the dog (as you say symbolising his faith) getting anxious at the manifestation of that same fate in real life. It doesn't seem logic to get anxious when you see that what you already believe in manifest itself in reality. Remember, Stalker was avoiding some serious death traps in the Zone itself in a very calm manner. He understood the Zone completely and felt at home. Why all of a sudden get anxious? Furthermore if you say the dog symbolises his faith, his faith (the dog) is getting anxious because of a manifestation of his faith in reality. So his faith is getting anxious at his faith? This seems very illogical.

Perhaps most important:
When Stalker leaves his home to go to the Zone, without a dog in sight, he is calm and assured. When Stalker arrives back home, with the dog, he is in distress and uncomfortable. The dog is the only difference in the scenes. We need to ask ourselves this question: What makes Stalker uncomfortable at this point and is the cause of his distress? His faith? Again this doesn't seem logic to me. Someone who has faith should be calm and assured, just as Stalker was when he left his house. When he comes back his attitude shows that there's something not quite right with Stalker: His faith isn't as strong as it was when he left home. And it is in light of this that we should interpret the meaning or symbolism of the dog: it undoubtedly symbolises something negative, a crack in his faith/belief.

I'd say that when taking this film in, we should understand it as a whole, as one unit. It all fits in perfectly, that's part of why it's a masterpiece. As you can see I made my points with the film in mind as a coherent unit.

When I read your post I sense a need to understand Stalker in a positive way (correct me if I'm wrong). But assuming that I'm correct in my understanding of the meaning behind the dog, the ending shouldn't be viewed as a bad or negative one. The very last scene with the daughter establishes that the Zone and its powers IS real and Stalkers faith is justified. That is the important message the film tries to convey. Sort of a have faith type of ending/meaning. A pretty positive one.

Again I appreciate your views and respect your opinion, to each his own.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] craigbhill 9 years ago

Part of my dislike of this film is that Tarkovsky wrongly, and very Russian-ly, conflates the details he plumbs of a certain religion with spirituality, when the vebiage about religion in this film start with an agreement with the audience that basic tenets of Russian Orthodox christianity are all you need to realize the spirtual. The metaphors such as the dog are specific to monotheistic legend (the first instant i saw the black dog i thought, Here we go, it's the stand-in for Satan, or another monotheistically-based---Good vs Evil---negative meme) as if monotheism is real or relevant; one of the reasons so many people across the northern hemisphere, but also in Australia, who were raised in Western culture are abandoning Christianity is that line of thought has tapped out for its lack of relevance to spiritual realization. Every discussion in this film, religious or not, begins with such a (secular) Russian orthodox expectation too much of its audience has moved beyond. I found the majority of such discussion purile, irritating and often insultingly naive.

~ Native Angeleno

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

I don't see the problem here. Tarkovsky grew up in an orthodox society, thus the medium he uses to convey a spiritual message is that of his orthodox religion. This doesn't necessarily mean he's saying that the doctrine of orthodox Christianity is all you need to realize the spiritual. In my opinion, even though there are very specific Christian references in the film, it is made in a way that the viewer can interpret it according to his own specific beliefs or spirituality.

There's no need to criticise Tarkovsky for this, because every artist will work from his or her point of view/identity. Would you criticise Da Vinci for using a too dark palette when he painted the Mona Lisa, because you personally prefer bright colors? The colors don't matter, what matters is the fact that the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece, and you should appreciate it for being that. Mind you, I'm not comparing Stalker to the Mona Lisa or saying you should like Stalker. Just that this critique is kind of harsh.

As for your "attack" on monotheism, I don't really understand it nor the relevance of it. Whether monotheism is relevant or not doesn't matter. If a director wants to use monotheism in his work, what’s the issue? Moreover, monotheism seems very relevant to me, seeing as billions of people today are either Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

[–] Bowen4 9 years ago

Thanks for this, i had been wondering about the dog for a while and would never have gotten this on my own. There are some other things in the film that i never understood, like the significance of those two corpses that the professor was looking at, and all those miscellaneous items and the fish in the water. Maybe you could also explain those?

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

Tarkovsky's films are often abstract in a beautiful way, but this means that you'll have to stay focused and keep thinking during the entire film to understand as much as possible. Even then most of us won't understand every little detail. Tarkovsky himself once said that his films are meant to be felt and not necessarily understood in a rational way, if I remember correctly. Having said that I do feel that everything of what occurs in his works definitely has rationality behind it. As for the objects we see in the water and the corpses I've tried to tie some rationality to it, but I can't say I'm as certain as is the case with the dog, therefore I think my answer won't be as satisfying. All I can do is give you my views on these elements.

I believe that by placing these objects in the water Tarkovsky is trying to convey an abstract feeling to the audience. Stalker is in this almost paradise like place (Stalker at least experiences the Zone as some sort of paradise and it is definitely different from the rest of the world), and there we see these objects to remind us of the characteristics of the not so paradise-like world we live in: the pistol for example made me think of war/violence. I think this is to show a contrast between the peaceful and paradise-like Zone and the not so peaceful world (religious themes). Also, to connect this with the rest of the film: Stalker goes mad when the Writer pulls out a pistol, hammering the point home that a pistol has no place in the Zone. At an early point in the Zone we also see some tanks. These tanks should also be connected to the theme of violence here. Here we see the Zone's reaction to violence. These tanks went into the Zone and never made it out again. All of this is perhaps to show a contrast between the Zone and the outside world. These objects are there to point out this contrast and to make us think. Tarkovsky often has what you could call 'periods of reflection' in his films, periods of sometimes minutes long silences when we only see images. The sequence with the objects is one of these moments. Here I believe he gives his audience the space and time to soak up the images on the screen and to think about what they are seeing.

If I remember correctly we also see some coins in the water, maybe representing money/greed etc. It is important to understand the text the female voice recites at this point. This is a Biblical text describing (the beginning of) Judgment Day. I personally don’t believe there is a very specific meaning to this sequence. I think it is says something about believing (the beginning Judgment Day being recited) and shows us some earthly objects to contrast the words being spoken. The feeling when seeing this sequence depends on the viewer. People who read about Tarkovsky say that he wanted the viewer to engage with his work on a personal level and have an emotive reaction to it.

What also has some importance is the fact that these objects are placed in the water. Tarkovsky often uses water in his films.

As for the corpses, my best guess is that it should be connected to the meaning behind the dog. I don’t think the corpses were previous visitors of the Zone. The feeling I had here was that the dog was guarding the corpses. The black dog (not having faith) guarding the corpses to me is like saying that not having faith goes hand in hand with eternal death. Also note the door behind the dog and the corpses. We hear this door open and close repeatedly. Where does this door (symbolically) lead to? Hell? The underworld? The place of eternal death, wherever that may be? It is one of the elements in the film that captivated me the most, but at the same time I did not fully understand. That's Tarkovsky for you.

Like I said these are my views and not necessarily facts. Perhaps you can use these views, and (maybe with another viewing of Stalker) come to you own understanding of these specific elements of the film.

[–] Bowen4 9 years ago

Thanks.

[–] janmarcfurer 8 years ago

I think the objects in the water could also show us the perishability of human "things" like weapons etc. They don't stand the test of time. the gentleness of water "destroys" these items (the are rusty).

That would also go with the biblical text. on judgment day it is decided which "items" we can take with us and which we can not.

Also Stalker talks a few minutes before that scene about weakness and that weakness is somehow stronger than strength. The quiet water could be a symbol of this strong weakness.

Zizek also gives an interesting analysis of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBQOaQOpkx8

(sorry for my bad English)

[–] Banaga 8 years ago

Great points.

I can recall the monologue you're referring to. You can find it in the quotes here on imdb:

Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world. And most important, let them believe in themselves. Let them be helpless like children, because weakness is a great thing, and strength is nothing. When a man is just born, he is weak and flexible. When he dies, he is hard and insensitive. When a tree is growing, it's tender and pliant. But when it's dry and hard, it dies. Hardness and strength are death's companions. Pliancy and weakness are expressions of the freshness of being. Because what has hardened will never win.

I'll definitely to watch the analysis you mentioned.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (30498379) 9 years ago

You're overthinking it. The dog symbolizes God's presence.

''You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star''

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

Seems very unlikely. If anything I think you're not putting enough thought into it.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (30498379) 9 years ago

And in no way does that affect my enjoyment of the movie. I like Tarkovsky's films just fine without over-analyzing them. You might want to read up a bit on Tarkovsky's views on art and his films.

''You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star''

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

Nobody said it affected your enjoyment of the movie. But since this is a forum and your opinion differs, why don't you elaborate on why you think the dog symbolises the presence of God?

[–] bopdd-2 8 years ago

It would potentially depend on Tarkovsky's awareness of English literature (James Joyce for example) and the English language, but for starters "dog" is "God" spelled backwards. Additionally, the dog appears around the same time that the stalker explicitly states that God will be walking among them and they won't really notice.

[–] Banaga 8 years ago

I don't think Tarkovsky would use a symbolism that simplistic. He even stated that he didn't like the use of symbolism. This is why I believe that he used more of an 'open' symbolism, that is more complex and depends on the viewer for it's specific meaning/interpretation. This quote might explain it better:

'Tarkovsky strictly refuted the traditional notions of symbolism and metaphor in art on essentially the same basis that he opposed dialectics and montage editing - he detested the idea of controlling or formulating meaning for the audience. He quoted Vyacheslav Ivanov’s statement that a true symbol is “inexhaustible and unlimited in its meaning,” and believed that the film image should extend beyond the screen and actively involve rather than impose upon the audience. Although Tarkovsky resisted interpretation of his films on a metaphoric level, he effectively admitted that they were not utterly free of symbolic content. More to the point, Tarkovsky perceived and rendered symbolism in complex, multilayered, and even inscrutable fashions, so much so that the audience finds the urge to explore meaning irresistible.'

Someone else in this thread interpreted the dog as the devil. I don't agree with that, because it's too simplistic and too straightforward. But what that person does understand is that the dog symbolises a negative element in the film. And if we apply the above quote to the dog in Stalker I can't even say that individual is wrong.

My interpretation (or rather what I think Tarkovsky might have had in mind with the inclusion of the dog) is that it symbolises the seed of doubt that the two other men instill in the mind of Stalker. In the scene where the dog appears for the first time it's obvious that it appears in Stalker's subconsciousness first. It is created in his subconsciousness. Later in the film we see that it has become reality and is following the three men (or rather following Stalker). So the dog goes from Stalker's subconsciousness to reality. Tarkovsky did this before in Solaris.
It wouldn't make sense for it to symbolise God, because this would mean Stalker creates God in his mind and then God becomes real. If God went from his subconsciousness to reality and is even in his presence when he returnes home, why is Stalker is such distress? Have you read my first post? How does the dog symbolising God tie in with my first post, how does it fit in with the rest of the film? Stalker leaves his home by himself and returns in the presence of God, but is in worse shape (mentally) than when he left? God is somehow unhappy to see the manifestation of the telekinetic powers connected to The Room?
Writer has 5 dogs at home and Stalker now has 1, while writer seems to be a disbeliever of The Room and its power?

There's no way the dog symbolises God.

[–] bopdd-2 8 years ago

I didn't say "all dogs" are God and I didn't say the dog "symbolized" God. If anything I'm saying that the dog was created by the zone (or by the interplay between Stalker and the zone) and that the zone as an entity has traits analogous to a broad, philosophical understanding of God. Your interpretation of why the dog can't be God is actually somewhat narrow in scope because you're defining God in a traditional religious context when the film is potentially leaving the definition much more open (even if it broaches the subject through religious iconography). You're thereby assuming that just because Stalker brings the dog home that it should bring him peace or something of the like. But being representative of a power that exists outside of morality or conventional wisdom, God does not always bring peace or even understanding in the same sense that having one's innermost desires granted doesn't necessarily bring happiness. I am quite literally suggesting that things like the Room and the Dog are manifestations of the Zone and that the zone is beyond human inventions like "morality" and "happiness". The term "God" here is practically in and of itself a placeholder because like "morality" and "happiness" the word/concept of "God" is a human invention.

It should be noted I'm not disagreeing with your assessment. If anything I'm saying that treating the dog as "God" is not an overt play on symbolism as much as it might be a play on mankind's understanding of what "God" is or what the zone does to the "symbolic importance" of our internal frames of mind. In this broader interpretation there is no such thing as a "devil". There is just God and God is not a positive or negative force (i.e. God does not necessarily have an intrinsic will) in the same sense that mankind may not be inherently "good" or "bad". Furthermore, if Stalker has "doubts" and those doubts become real, that doesn't somehow negate the dog's function as a product of the zone itself. The underlying suggestion here is that the zone and the things manifested by the zone are frequently determined by what resides in the (sub)conscious realm of man--God in this sense is more of a conduit or catalyst than an active participator with a concise will. In essence, the dog might "symbolize" doubt but it symbolizes doubt because it's a manifestation of the zone's ability to turn symbols into flesh.

I think a good follow-up question to ask is what is the significance of the dog as it pertains to Monkey? Is the implied take-away that the scientist and writer (who try to control or distort "God" for their own purposes or for the sake of knowledge/curiosity/exploration) have planted the seeds of doubt in the Stalker and those seeds manifested as the dog, which followed Stalker out of the zone? Is the final scene intended as a foreshadowing of the apocalypse (note the conjuring of an "earthquake" from the approaching train and how that plays into the Book of Revelations as quoted earlier in the film)? Is Monkey a manifestation of the zone turned to flesh and by moving the glasses she's now demonstrating a clear sense of will? Was that sense of will provoked by the journey her father took with the writer and scientist? Questions like these are in part what make this such a mind-blowing film in my opinion.

[–] gabirol 9 years ago

What struck me about the dog was how elegant it was. Aristocratic. Long ears, long neck. It almost looks like ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

Interesting point you make. Might not be entirely a coincidence, since the dog is guarding the corpses and Anubis is the god of death.

This would also fit in with my first post, because no faith leads to (eternal) death.
It's almost like the dog follows Stalker home and hangs around waiting for his faith to disappear, in order to claim his soul or guard his corpse just like the two corpses in the Zone.

[–] svalinanikola 9 years ago

Didn't Tarkovsky said that the dog is just a dog?

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

This, to me, shows that the dog doesn't necessarily have 1 simple, obvious meaning, but more of an abstract meaning in a certain direction.

For example if you replace the meaning I gave to the dog with let's say depression, this would still fit pretty well. It could go hand in hand with my interpretation or be part of it: they both go in the same direction, if you understand what I'm trying to say.

I suppose a director like Tarkovsky might even be feel a bit insulted by the suggestion that he applies simple symbolism in his films. By saying the dog symbolises a dog, I think Tarkovsky is saying that the dog is a means of conveying a feeling, something greater (and more abstract) than simple symbolism. But (almost) every feeling can be rationalised and explained.

[–] svalinanikola 9 years ago

Or it just means that there's no symbolism. Wouldn't be the first time some director made people look for symbolism which isn't there. Ever seen Exterminating Angel?

[–] Banaga 9 years ago

It would be very strange if the dog didn't symbolise at least a 'feeling'. If you look at the way in which Tarkovsky makes his films they are full of things that compare to the dog, and some of them are recurring in other films of his (water for example). If this was the case it would mean that Tarkovsky was just messing around. Using very specific elements in multiple films that have no meaning whatsoever, just because?

I've never seen Exterminating Angel, but it's not a Tarkovsky film. I'm more than willing to believe there are directors who work in that way, but I strongly believe Tarkovsky is not one of them, regardless of what he himself has said. Remember that if Tarkovsky would just simply explain why he used the dog in Stalker it would take away the 'magic' so to speak and you and I would probably not be discussing it. He has his reasons of keeping the mystery alive. The art has to speak for itself, and different people can see different things in it. That doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

[–] moonbus69 9 years ago

Fascinating theories on the meaning of the dog - Thanks! for sharing them...

The dog in some scenes was just pitch black as a silhouette, almost appearing like a 'shadow creature', and really added to the atmosphere of the story and The Zone. Truly a 4th member of the Stalker's little group, even though he has no lines, he adds a lot to this amazing film!

I liken 'Stalker' to a mix like that of The X-Files and The Wizard of Oz. Maybe the dog takes the place of the Cowardly Lion (an animal). The writer and scientist sure look a bit like the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman, and for the Stalker (like Dorothy), "There's no place like home" (his family)...

"Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery..."

[–] Smurfsarebad 8 years ago

Well, Tarkovsky stated that he hated symbolism, and he is known for putting stuff in his movies without any meaning, but just for imagery.

"Mysterious elements in my films? I think people somehow got the idea that everything on screen should be immediately understandable. In my opinion events of our everyday lives are much more mysterious than those we can witness on screen. If we attempted to recall all events, step by step, that took place during just one day of our life and then showed them on screen, the result would be hundred times more mysterious than my film [Stalker]. Audiences got used to simplistic drama. Whenever a moment of realism appears on screen, a moment of truth, it is immediately followed by voices declaring it "confusing." Many think of Stalker as a science fiction film. But this film is not based on fantasy, it is realism on film. Try to accept its content as a record of one day in lives of three people, try to see it on this level and you'll find nothing complex, mysterious, or symbolic in it."

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

"Wouldn't be the first time some director made people look for symbolism which isn't there".

How does Tarkovsky make us look for that? The dog is just there, being a dog, running along; it's never been given any extraordinary significance. There are, however, things one naturally associates with dogs - domesticity, loyalty, normalcy... I can only suppose these are the emotional cues Tarkovsky wants to hit by including these animals in many of his films.

"Ever seen Exterminating Angel?"

Funny you should choose this particular film as an example, considering how starkly allegorical/symbolic it is. Now, surely, a flock of sheep running into the church at the film's end isn't just... a flock of sheep running into the church? Like, not representative of anything at all?

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] t-viktor212 8 years ago

There can be numerous explanations to the dog, I suppose, as I see a lot here, and maybe Tarkovskij pretended a meaning for the dog aswell, but I remember reading somewhere that the dog randomly showed up on set and they decided to include him. I think the main basis for its inclusion was because it came there, and then, after they filmed him, Tarkovskij came up with a meaning for him. Sounds a little insulting, but I think that's the reason. Personally, I think he's some sort of projection of the Stalker's mentor, wich had a nickname with the term "Wolf", and the dog has some wolf-dog resemblances.

[–] Banaga 8 years ago

Interesting.
If I recall correctly Stalkers mentor was named 'Porcupine'.

Might be mistaken though.

[–] slitor 8 years ago

The dog is God, its christianity, its communism, liberalism, social democracy, every *beep* string of nationalism in a country times that for every country on the earth, its the prolatariat, the invisible hand, Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha, HAH! even atheism and rationality, revolutions and the dreams of a better tomorrow...

For me its ideal that Mankind is *beep* so can I face that and alliviate the misery and hubris by only a millionth of a fraction.

Its Porcupines brother...

[–] Fearnotthezone 8 years ago

I always saw the dog as the eternal eyewitness who is searching always for signs of something done wrong on the part of humans going there and/or lack of faith on the part of the stalker himself. I felt that the stalker has only one alternative of making his journey successful and the dog is there to make sure that is what actually happens.
Your idea, however, that the dog is their doubt in flesh is a very amazing one! Kudos!!!

[–] Banaga 8 years ago

Thanks! I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed the movie.

[–] Fearnotthezone 8 years ago

I have projected it countless times on walls silently as well as watched it. I must have gotten my idea of the dog from reading the book as well as watching the movie (although there is no dog on the book). Tarkowski is an amazing director!

[–] Banaga 8 years ago

Tarkovsky is one of the greats, if not the greatest. Reading the book is something that's definitely on my to do list, I'm sure I'll enjoy it thoroughly.

[–] Ricc0 8 years ago

your explanation and responses helped a lot. thx.

[–] Banaga 8 years ago

I'm glad I was of some help. Hope you enjoyed Stalker.