Because Tarkovsky is ardent user of symbols, denying it later.
haha no, only kidding – please no recitations from Sculpting in time.
Humanistic values, but not embodied in an actual human, because the dramatic conflict needs to be universal. The stalker is an observer,a holy fool, not a moralist. He wants to see these values in others. (Just curious, someone needs to watch the film and tell me whether the Stalker is ever hypocritical.)
Anyway, the dog only represents one of those values, the way the different characters represent certain disciplines.
Okay, I see where you’re coming from there, and it makes some sense. My question, though, is what makes your interpretation more likely right (“right” here meaning more accurately approximates his intent)? What basis do you have to reject the God theory?
I’m not actually trying to determine Tarkovsky’s intent.
Specifically with Tarkovsky I prefer to avoid intent, because he likes to tells us “Don’t believe your own eyes, listen to what I say.”
My rationalization is based on the totality of the film. Working with totality precludes empty platitudes such as Dog is God spelled backwards or Accept the mystery!
Matt Parks
-You notice the dog shows up around the time the two travelers cause trouble by not following the Stalker’s orders . . . The film is mostly about humanistic values as such-Humanistic values, but not embodied in an actual human because . . .