Solaris

they're marketing this picture as a sort of "ghost, but in space" romance, which bodes ill possibly.

I don't think there was too much backstory. and surely a love story where the girl has severe doubts as to her personhood is not all that conventional?

Um, maybe it's just me, but wasn't that the whole (or hell, partial) "point" of the film, and it's best scene ?

I truly think the original Solaris was meant to be experienced only upon the big screen, as the aspect ratio of the televised adaptation is off; it doesn't come close to comparing with the fantastical, expanding images that envelop you in da theatre. Like with that last shot - wow. But the silent EIGHT minute shooting-the-car-driving-through-the-tunnel sequences are a nightmare to get through anywhere. Has anyone here seen Mirror ? I've heard it's worse - thank god I missed class that day

Yes, azz does indeed = ass, unless you can think up a better meaning and apply it to my question?

I like Clooney a lot too, but the head-waggling biz is disturbing - makes me think of David Gray...

cinist?

...
Solaris: what worried me initially was the casting of HeartThrob Clooney - I've since read that it does also have sex scenes in it (I've got this horrible feeling that they're going to 'sex up' and literalise the 'floating' scene in the original - yeah go on slap us on the head with that trowel - and I'll always suspect its part of a SEE GEORGE CLOONEY'S ARSE angle to get the punters in. I've also read that it ends as him having to choose between LOVE and SAVING THE WORLD - the latter a real shitty addition that isn't in the original atall....
-- Ray M, September 17th, 2002.

From anthony's description above it looks like my fears were well-founded.

The cinematography and sets were amazing. The world depicted in opening scenes matched Kelvin's mood perfectly. A perfectly ungimmicky realisation of the future. I think the shot with him sitting as his window in the evening light with the upper stories of the building opposite outside was my favourite.

In what way do people think the ending was unsatisfactory? I'm not saying it wasn't (I'm not sure and I'm in one of those 'Is it clear? Is it deliberately unclear, and if so why?' frames of mind) I just wanted to know what you thought.

I guess what I was most interested in, conceptually, was the meditation on man casting the world in his own image, and how it linked romantic/obsessive love with the dryer, philosophical side of this (referenced in the awful dinner party scene). And I think I say 'man' deliberately, because maybe it was trying to get at how femininity was some kind of escape from this (I'm thinking of Snow's ramblings on 'women getting together and coming up with some beautiful solution' too). I am confused as to what part Solaris played in this, or rather, what it represented. Whether it had any 'intent' as we understand, and if it was good, bad or something else. I tried to keep Gibarian's advice in my head, about how it didn't want anything, how it was all about choices.

Spoilers ahead. No really, don't read this until you have seen the film.

The final shots are awesome, in the pre-Bill and Ted sense of the word. I didn't feel a strong need to "understand" what had happened, in the sense of reconstructing a logic that would achor the final moments in the events of the film. I chose the simplest explanation (Kris had , whether by choice or not, joined with Solaris, which had created for him an error-ridden and incomplete simalcrum of his home and family) because it clarifies the allegory somewhat: memory is flawed, the only way we can ever know of someone is as a reflection of ourselves. When Kris drops to his knees and grasps his father at the waist, it is such a charged and ambiguous gesture: of supplication, grief, resignation, love, hopelessness, relief. I couldn't help but feel a little of all of those things as the lights went up and I got up to leave the theater.

Can you explain this? I see this all the time and think it's just about the most rubbish comment ever, insulting to both Tarkovsky and Kubrick. 2001 and Solaris have very little in common, as far as I can tell, except that, duh, they're sci-fi movies.

You're right to be skeptical though. I'm not sure Tarkovsky himself ever mentioned 2001 and if he did it may have just done so to encourage the aforementioned studio managers.

Tarkovsky's film is much more emotional, despite not being as focused on the love affair angle as Soderbergh's film. Tarkovsky's ending is spectactular, charged with emotion, conclusive in a sense. Soderbergh's ending (and the whole film) makes greater use of film's potential for ambiguity, for revealing and withholding information in careful proportion. But somehow the existential cry that is sounded throughout the Tarkovsky doesn't have a strong presence here. I was completely devastated by the former, and only mildly moved by the latter, but perhaps that's just a function of the order in which I saw them.

I think it was very daring to re-adapt this novel, in the face of such a respected work as Tarkovsky's. J. Rosenbaum found merit in the film but ultimately seemed to dismiss it as some kind of travesty of Tarkovsky, which I think is silly.

get a room

xpost

There are worthier causes to get angry about than an obscuro Russian SF film.

I think Solaris, at least the Tarkovsky version, has kind of ruined 2001 for me (which I know is unfair, since they're such different movies).

― one way street, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

They are both in that 'philosophical SF' bracket and in that sense I prefer what Tarkovsky is doing and the way he brings so much of the material from the book. Its been a long time so I'm short on details. The look and music are quite incredible too.

Whereas the Kubrick I feel it would have worked better as a half hour piece of video art. Its possible to rescue it.

Solaris is being screened a couple of times at the BFI next month. Never seen it in the big screen - might have to.

I'd always watch the re-make: Natasha McElhone has amazing facial bone structure, science fact proven in this film (her filmograhy otoh looks terrible).

Solaris is being screened a couple of times at the BFI next month.

on for this – tho' it'll depend on December family/social stuff.

(just been checking the BFI calendar – FAP/Zardoz clash tomorrow oh no)

go to the FAP dressed like Connery in Zardoz

i don't think work'll mind

i'll just say it's a movember thing

the soderbergh one is good if a bit too tightly edited (but thats just SS in general).

i did see the original at the bfi a while back, and i think tarkovsky is just not for me (or maybe ive just not been prepared for his films, its not like im not into a 3 hour arthouse epic from time to time). there is something irritatingly sacrilegious about him/his films, and this one in particular, in terms of sci-fi, as if this is the ultimate benchmark of what sci-fi should be, when actually, im not sure this is a film that even needs to be set in a spaceship (or maybe, simply setting a film in space does not necessarily make it sci-fi, i just found it a distraction, maybe as it made me expect a few more genre elements). lovely shots of water and plants as the subconscious, tarkovsky is obviously beautiful with shot design/cinematography, and im sure his philosophical musings were once really profound, but i just found it kind of empty and as if the slowness wasnt all that well earned. when it comes to slow cinema, i think ill take hou hsiao hsien, tsai ming liang, or bella tar over AT. solaris is meant to be about humanity and existentialism but it has little humanity (or warmth) to it. it might be that i need to see it again, but im filing it as a film that was probably quite radical and oh-so-deep on release, but now just seems more than a little ponderous.

also, natasha mcelhone wasnt in the original solaris.

"Whereas the Kubrick I feel it would have worked better as a half hour piece of video art. Its possible to rescue it."

ive always thought the origins of mankind stuff should be edited out of 2001 but if any film would work better as video art, its solaris. the sound and production design are all amazing, tarkovsky creates endless moments for perfect stills, he doesnt care much for plot or narrative, analysis of his films are more rewarding than the viewing, i wish someone would make edited video installations of his work!

*xpost, i meant there's something sacrilegious about questioning his films in film-crit circles

I don't get why a film with focus on image and sound means that 'analysis of his films are more rewarding than the viewing' Like, stupid plot and narrative - and bloody acting! - is only good for discussing with your mates afterwards. Stalker on 35 mm was an overwhelming experience, have never seen Solaris on big screen. But the car-scene is incredible.

I wrote a 'political' analysis of Solaris some years back, though, if you really find that stuff rewarding.

i didnt say you couldnt talk about the great sound and visuals with your mates afterwards, you certainly can, but i would still put that under 'analysis' (of a sort)...

I was going to say I wish the original had Natasha in it - often happens when a story is made twice, you want that actor to swap versions. But I also like the actress in the original.

Annoying that NE has never found a series of good-to-great roles in film.

solaris is meant to be about humanity and existentialism but it has little humanity (or warmth) to it.

Another point in common with 2001 but 'space in no fun and not that exciting' must've been part of the point in the Kubrick at least, given all the hype around the space race and trips to the moon.

2001 is clinical and cold etc but it also has some narrative drive, and also some odd humour (mostly through the classical soundtrack), whereas solaris is technically fantastic but somewhat drab in terms of narrative and maybe even in terms of character. its more about concepts and ideas than anything else, apart from its style and visual and sonic sense obv, and nothing dates faster than ideas and concepts, apart from sci-fi and notions of The Future, so solaris, from my POV, is triply unlucky in all these departments. i would like to watch it again as i know AT says his films should be seen more than once, but yknow, lifes too short (i bought it on dvd too as i think film critics made me think it was one of those films that is Good For You and will make me a better person and all the rest of it, which probably hasnt helped me warm to it).

i recommend the clooney version.

I think Solaris, at least the Tarkovsky version, has kind of ruined 2001 for me (which I know is unfair, since they're such different movies).
― one way street, Monday, November 17, 2014 11:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

baffling comment that barely makes grammatical sense, probably just as bland and uninteresting as what I said, but still go fuck yourself and die last 2 posts.
― xelab, Monday, November 17, 2014 11:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I probably shouldn't bother engaging xelab, but since my post was ambiguous, my point was just that 2001 seems emotionally inert to me in comparison to Solaris, which is no less visually striking or meditative than 2001 but is more interested in its characters' longings and regrets than in the history of modes of consciousness, and feels less schematic in terms of narrative structure. But I also recognize that it's also unfair to Kubrick to judge his work by the criteria of an unrelated film (even if the comparison is tempting because 2001 and Solaris so often get discussed together as "philosophical sf," as xyzzzz__ put it). I also haven't seen either film in some years, so I could stand to reevaluate my judgment of each.

my point was just that 2001 seems emotionally inert to me

Do people not feel anything when HAL is being emptied? or for that matter, when Poole is cut loose? l'astronaut c'est moi

2001 is plenty interested in consciousness, just maybe not the human kind? in any case I take that to be what's addressed in Solaris as well, a sort of riposte to 2001 that there's no getting beyond human consciousness to grasp another sort. Solaris then being kind of humanist and anti-metaphysical to 2001's non or post humanism. I love both.

and yeah 2001 is filled with pathos, for me.

xxp Yeah, 2001 is plenty emotional, imo. Rage, love, fear, curiosity. (Is curiosity an emotion or an instinct?)

Do people not feel anything when HAL is being emptied? or for that matter, when Poole is cut loose? l'astronaut c'est moi
― things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:13 AM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

2001 is plenty interested in consciousness, just maybe not the human kind? in any case I take that to be what's addressed in Solaris as well, a sort of riposte to 2001 that there's no getting beyond human consciousness to grasp another sort. Solaris then being kind of humanist and anti-metaphysical to 2001's non or post humanism. I love both.
― ryan, Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Kubrick is masterful at handling the slowly growing tension between HAL and the crew; as I said, I need to revisit 2001, because there are probably subtleties to Kubrick's characterization that I haven't recalled (but ryan seems otm about why characterization would be less relevant to Kubrick's "non or post humanist" project.
xp

If I may state the obvious, I'm also not interested in trying to argue that other posters are wrong to find 2001 more emotionally engaging than I did.

favorite shot in Solaris gotta be that grass, like Tarkovsky thinking, quite charmingly, "you think space is far out? check out this grass!"

on later viewings I feel like that shot resonates more, knowing that it's the shot showing earth at its most natural, but how do I know this is Earth and not Solaris?

the shots of the water, grass, reeds, etc are all amazing in solaris. he should have made some nature documentaries.

solaris is meant to be about humanity and existentialism but it has little humanity (or warmth) to it

^^^this. the glacial pacing and stilted/near nonsensical dialogue and opaque characters all felt unearned - gestures at profundity that came across as empty to me.

fuuuuuuck humanity and warmth.

sorry i'm hungry

all about that grass

I thought the relationship btw the main male and female character was pretty full of pathos, don't get what you're saying

all about that grass

― linda cardellini (zachlyon)

uh, i don't know about "humanity and warmth," but this film makes me cry like a baby every time i see it. i don't know what you people need! it's about love and irretrievable loss.

also the unknowability of other people

etc.

Otm

people that see others as part of their own existence are psychotic but our perceptions of others are only what we can perceive of them as individuals. the idea of a simulacrum in Solaris is interesting because the characters either sense the simulacra as false because they know their beloved to be dead or they eventually notice that all their interactions are retreads of what happened before

how often do we expect something completely different from someone? could we live in a continuation of our past?

I feel like the book more thoroughly captures the horror and distress involved. Every conversation in the movie came across very disjointed and false - like a simulacra of conversation written by someone who had never had an actual conversation.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/tarkovsky/?utm_content=buffer2cf57&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebookbfi&utm_campaign=buffer

Watched Solaris at the BFI tonight. 2nd viewing after a gap of 7-10 years I'd say.

- I don't quite agree with the piece on the look of the station. I read it when you answer the following: so what is left of a place where once you had a hundred bright minds working and now only three are left (one of which commits suicide by the time Kelvin arrives)? A junkyard: that representation is tactically astute to me. otoh the 2001 look is too easily applauded -- isn't the future going to be this alienating humourless designer coldness huh? Its too obvious. That is not to say some things don't quite agree. That it has a library in the first place with old bound books is really not going to work (although it serves the arguments around how we've built and thought this stuff up but we can't save the people we love -- even when we have another chance!! -- but you are still jumping through loops to make that detail work). Later on, Hari smashing through the door doesn't quite agree with me -- although its a necessary scene its very creaky. Other than that I think Tarkovsky keeps the look of the station humble and small. Of course he knows more about making grass look like gold, not that he is not just all about nature - loved the drive through Tokyo, the tunnels and lights, the switch from B&W to colour as the day turns to night time. Its possible that LA has more futuristic looking roundabouts but Tokyo easily wins out.

- I loved the look of the ocean, its different shades, from black/greys to clouds and the tints of yellow. It really was this THING you looked at you couldn't grasp no matter how many times you looked at it. I loved how the scientists (although not Sartoris) would just stare at it from the window.

- the first time I saw this I was more into the look and the abstract ideas, this time around it really was the Kelvin-Hari disaster that was 'lived' through again and could've been an inferno if Sartoris' science hadn't come through to the rescue (or did it aha!) Like here you see what Tarkovsky took from Bergman, from the insides of two people that won't mend (really I wonder how it would look if you played bits of this back to back with Scenes of a Marriage) to feverish dreams where Kelvin's mother talks to him ("you could've called me more?" Of course I have to watch Mirror again). This is where "does it look like a space station would?" type questions becomes you know, besides the point. Leave the toys to Kubrick.

***SPOILERS***

I've now seen this movie (the original) three times, most recently with commentary by Tarkovsky scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, and I count it as one of my favorite films. However, there is a plot hole that has always disturbed me, and the fact that this plot hole went unaddressed in Johnson & Petrie's commentary makes me wonder if I'm just thick or something (they actually point out a few plot holes / narrative inconsistencies that are, imo, neither):

If all it took to get rid of Hari was to subject her to "the annihilator," why aren't the "guests" vexing Snaut and Sartorius similarly vanquished?

I think it was a combination of the fact she was the first to undergo that option -- the others disappear shortly after due to the other plot development -- and her recreation was drawn to suicide due to Kelvin's memories of her being suicidal.

Hmmm...OK, I'll accept that! Although, as you point out, the others disappear as a result of them broadcasting Kelvin's brainwaves to Solaris, which would seemingly make the two things unrelated. But I like the idea that no one / nothing had been subject to the annihilator before Hari, who specifically requested the, err, deliverance.

why does everyone say SOLARIS is boring

I can't believe that highway scene is EIGHT minutes

Indeed it is.

some dutty apostates on here prefer the Clooney version, in which one minute of his overweening smugness feels like a long time to me.

dis film is good but also slow an maybe not 4 everyone

Stalker is great but it's so ugly and dark, Solaris is beautiful and serene, I could look at those cloud shots of the planet for 3 hours

The concept art for Solaris is pretty interesting for suggesting directions not quite taken in the finished film:

I can't believe these actually exist. Original concept art for Andrei Tarkovsky's film SOLARIS (1972) from the archives of Mosfilm. They were created by Mikhail Romadin (1940-2012) and are not at all what you'd expect. pic.twitter.com/JIZ3tMcPYS

— ewan morrison (@MrEwanMorrison) November 20, 2017

whoa! very cool, glad they didn't take such a grimy approach in the film

the thing that struck me is that the art is really stylized in a way I'm not used to seeing for movie concept work, but the sets ended up being very close to the designs

https://boomkat.com/products/solaris-sound-and-vision

Deluxe 180g LP boxset. Includes CD, an exclusive, hardcover photo book with unreleased images and essays. BluRay version of the film. The set comes in a limited edition of 500 numbered copies.