As an example, we watched Tarkovsky's Stalker (1979) on the big screen together; it was my first time, his first time, and we both came out thinking it was fantastic. I connected with its existentialism and the cinematic shaping of that philosophy, whereas he openly admitted, "I don't have a clue what they're talking about, but it was fantastic." He liked the scenery, the depressing setting, the generally slow pace and consistent rhythm of the film.
I haven't seen the film, but I will hazard a guess and say that Tarkovsky might have had both the factors in his mind while filming it, i.e. existentialism as the theme and the cinematographic aspects. Because of your academic background you picked up the existentialism philosophy and because of the non-academic background, your father picked up the ambiance part. Maybe the appeal for that particular setting has something to do with his current state of mind? Do you think that is likely or do you feel that his good response to that setting is purely based on the director's work?
Quote:
I've been considering lately whether the most valid (or raw) response to a film might be from somebody such as Herzog's mysterious hero Kaspar Hauser, who, in The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974) is locked away in a tower all of his life, and then released into society with absolutely no education as to what he is, or what the world is. He's old enough to move, eat, and his five senses are intact and sharp, but he hasn't communicated to anybody in his whole life. He has never seen beyond the stone walls of his cage.
No, I disagree. Since that person has not had any social interaction, he will miss out entirely on several themes that a director wants to explore through a film. That is like asking a small kid to appreciate a complex film like Godfather, for example. Your hero is identical to a very young (and crudely put, unprogrammed) kid.
