not sure how/if we're going to corral this discussion -- whether those who haven't spoken will come back here, whether those who've spoken here will check back but:
now that i've almost finished watching it a second time, i feel almost ready to contribute, and yet i'm still stuck. the analogies, the design of the whole, doesn't seem to me cohesive, consistent. i can't puzzle it together in a way that fits one vision. to wit:
at first blush, it seems that the sepia-colored film is used for the world outside the zone, just as kansas is in black&white for oz. but there are sepia parts within the zone -- and just when i'd developed a theory to explain that, there were colored portions in the outside world (when stalker's family leaves the bar to return home, when monkey sits at the table at the very end).
surely the sepia must signify something. it can't be completely arbitrary ("capricious")? does anyone following the discussion have an idea as to what? i haven't been able to work anything out beyond my initial assumption.
no subject
now that i've almost finished watching it a second time, i feel almost ready to contribute, and yet i'm still stuck. the analogies, the design of the whole, doesn't seem to me cohesive, consistent. i can't puzzle it together in a way that fits one vision. to wit:
at first blush, it seems that the sepia-colored film is used for the world outside the zone, just as kansas is in black&white for oz. but there are sepia parts within the zone -- and just when i'd developed a theory to explain that, there were colored portions in the outside world (when stalker's family leaves the bar to return home, when monkey sits at the table at the very end).
surely the sepia must signify something. it can't be completely arbitrary ("capricious")? does anyone following the discussion have an idea as to what? i haven't been able to work anything out beyond my initial assumption.