Solyaris (1972)

[Roland]

Solyaris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/)

To those who have both seen and contemplated this film: what do you think?

[jcs]

I have yet to see it, but Lem apparently disliked the film for two reasons:
-Tarkovsky explored human relations rather than xenobiology
-Tarkovsky reportedly said that the first part of the film was intentionally boring so as to get all the idiots to leave before the deeper parts began; Lem didn't like his 'snobbery.'

[Hakluyt]

It was great. Not aesthetically pleasing, but that's good because it allows for more abstraction.

The first part probably chased off a few idiots, but it was also slow to build contrast- between the natural environs and Berton's trip to the city, as well as between Kelvin's last days on earth and with the detachment of Space. It's true that Tarkovsky focused on human relations moreso than space itself or astrobiology, though it does touch on the importance of planetary roots; the theme of the film is more about psychological grounding (in nature and de-centralised society generally) vs. rootlesness, and the conditions under which reality can be imposed arbitrarily (the cosmonauts' hallucinations etc.)

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Only seen the modern version and I liked it.

[Roland]

It was great. Not aesthetically pleasing, but that's good because it allows for more abstraction.

This is interesting, for I found it aesthetically valuable. It was a nice change of pace from traditional media and traditional editing. Somewhat like a Terrance Malick film.

The first part probably chased off a few idiots, but it was also slow to build contrast- between the natural environs and Berton's trip to the city, as well as between Kelvin's last days on earth and with the detachment of Space.

I agree. I don't believe the only purpose of some scenes was to remove idiots; the "boring" scenes successfully built a mood that carried on throughout the film.

It's true that Tarkovsky focused on human relations moreso than space itself or astrobiology, though it does touch on the importance of planetary roots; the theme of the film is more about psychological grounding (in nature and de-centralised society generally) vs. rootlesness, and the conditions under which reality can be imposed arbitrarily (the cosmonauts' hallucinations etc.)

Yes, I belive that Tarkovsky could not have conveyed his message without the medium of space. The realities of space and Solaris confront the characters with questions of the nature of the metaphysics of "humanity." Kelvin finds love in a copy of his dead Ex, Hari; and later he appears satisfied by his father's Dacha reproduced on an island in the Solaris ocean. The father, like Hari, was certainly an imperfect copy of the Platonic original form that existed in Kelvin's mind (or else his form of the person in his mind was imperfect). Even though the "visitors" were different from their original forms (it rains inside at his father's Dacha instead of outside as in the beginning), Kelvin finds consolation and, as with Hari, love with these imperfect beings.

I believe this film is a masterpeice.

I have yet to see it, but Lem apparently disliked the film for two reasons:
-Tarkovsky explored human relations rather than xenobiology
-Tarkovsky reportedly said that the first part of the film was intentionally boring so as to get all the idiots to leave before the deeper parts began; Lem didn't like his 'snobbery.'

I've read this elsewhere. I plan on reading Lem's book too. This doesn't bother me, though, for the film is sufficiently rewarding.

[SteamshipTime]

A little too densely Russian for me. Being American, I liked the modern, Americanized remake and regarded it as true to the spirit of the original.

[Roland]

I heard horrible things about the remake starring the recent actor turned political activist George Clooney. However, upon further investigation, I realized that the poor reactions were, in the majority, from the gutters of American culture. These people were fooled by the form of the preview: a pre-packaged standard that contorts a film into a profit-seeking vehicle, denigrating the spirit of the film to street-level pop-themes. In the case of the new Solaris, I rember the preview touting it as a contemporary love drama arbitrarily set in space.

I am skeptical that this version will be better than Tarkovsky's (I enjoy films with dramatically long scenes, such as recent Terrence Malick works), but I will watch it as soon as I can.

[SteamshipTime]

I don't want to post a spoiler, and I'd be interested in reading your review. The remake is definitely Americanized but as a serious sci-fi fan I enjoyed it very much.

[Will Scarlet]

Good film, but as far as Tarkovsky goes, I prefer the film from which The Retard's current avatar comes.

[O'Zebedee]

I was always partial to Andrei Rublev.

Anyone seen Stalker?

[Will Scarlet]

Good film, but as far as Tarkovsky goes, I prefer the film from which The Retard's current avatar comes.

I was always partial to Andrei Rublev.



That's the one.

[O'Zebedee]

I don't want to post a spoiler, and I'd be interested in reading your review. The remake is definitely Americanized but as a serious sci-fi fan I enjoyed it very much.

SST - have you seen Casshern?

http://www.casshern.com/

[jcs]

What about The Sacrifice? Anyone seen that?

[O'Zebedee]

What about The Sacrifice? Anyone seen that?

Not yet - there's a ragged video copy I have access to, but I'm a slave to DVD.

Recommended?

[jcs]

Not yet - there's a ragged video copy I have access to, but I'm a slave to DVD.

Recommended?
I've only seen Rublev. I'm not buying any films from any directors but Tarkovsky until I own STALKER, Solyaris, and The Sacrifice.
But the DVDs are expensive :( :( :(

[O'Zebedee]

I've only seen Rublev. I'm not buying any films from any directors but Tarkovsky until I own STALKER, Solyaris, and The Sacrifice.
But the DVDs are expensive :( :( :(

Yup. The version of Stalker is $80 here, and it isn't even a Criterion.

[SteamshipTime]

SST - have you seen Casshern?

http://www.casshern.com/

No. Looks tres cool. I will try and find it down here in the lower 48.

[Helios Panoptes]

What about The Sacrifice? Anyone seen that?

No, but I will watch it this weekend, now that you've reminded me.

You should be able to buy the DVDs off amazon for under $30.

[The Retard]

Nostalghia is pretty good too.

[jcs]

You should be able to buy the DVDs off amazon for under $30.
$35.99 if I want it new, and I always buy DVDs new.

[jcs]

I bought Solaris, Stalker, and The Sacrifice last week. I finally had a chance to watch Solaris today--and it was brilliant. I don't understand why he didn't return to Earth, though? Was it because, having loved something he knew was unreal, he became more attached to the illusion than reality?

[Péter]

I bought Solaris, Stalker, and The Sacrifice last week. I finally had a chance to watch Solaris today--and it was brilliant. I don't understand why he didn't return to Earth, though? Was it because, having loved something he knew was unreal, he became more attached to the illusion than reality? The differentiation between what was real and what was illusion no longer mattered. His illusion became his reality. An outsider could say that eventually, his death became his salvation, but for the protagonist, his "illusion" contained more meaning than any "reality" ever could.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Stanislaw Lem has just passed away. :(

[Ahknaton]

Solaris author Stanislaw Lem dies at 84 (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=peopleNews&storyID=2006-03-27T153537Z_01_L27734087_RTRIDST_0_PEOPLE-POLAND-LEM-DC.XML)