*** Official "SOLARIS" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

Travis, I guess I would disagree with that heavily, especially based on the explanation of Lem's writing as cited by Rich on this page

then there's no real resonance for his pain, is there?

I think the whole point is that there IS pain for any visitor. Aren't the scenes with Snow and Rheya enough to show that the visitors have the EXACT SAME emotional needs as humans, to know their creator and understand their purpose, to justify their existence often in the face of guilt (original sin for example which Snow obviously had due to his Cane-like circumstances).


Again, I saw a different film than everybody else. Feel free to discount my opinion on the film as crackpot. But clearly I have no intent of changing it. I dug the film and found it very satisfying.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Well, another weekend comes and goes, and me and little wifey didn't make it to the theaters again. Mea culpa, this time. I thought about turning it around on you guys - after all, no one's really made a good case for seeing it - but I guess I'll shoulder the blame.
Still, I'm enjoying the discussion here, though I wonder about one theme that hasn't really been broached, and whether it received any shrift in Soderbergh's adaptation. In Lem's novel (presumably, and from what I've heard) one of the major themes is the inability or difficulty of humans to communicate with the Ocean, a sentience well beyond our notions of what a sentient creature might be like, and too far removed from known paradigms to even imagine what such communication might require or entail. Many have speculated that should we ever encounter another intelligent life in the universe, it would likely be so far removed from our notions of "life" that we may be unable to communicate with it at all, if we even have the wherewithal to identify it as a setience of some sort. Indeed, in Tarkovsky's film, the very question of the Ocean's sentience is a subject of early debate, and the visitors that begin arriving on the Prometheus are hypothesized to be the Ocean's attempted means of communication. This becomes an interesting theme throughout the film, compounded by the opportunities that the humans, especially Kelvin, see in these visitors. The subject of the Ocean's "mistranslations" come into play, with Gibarian, Snaut and Sartorious' visitors being less than ideal manifestations, whereas Kelvin sees in his visitor a possible means of personal redemption. He wants to be with her, to communicate with her, to protect her. In a sense, it would seem that the Ocean finally realizes this and plays to it, as though it were dangling damaged bits of Kelvin's past before him as a means to continue this interplanetary, inter-species communion. It finally coaxes Kelvin down to the surface, perhaps forever, with the odd promise of a true and final reunion with his father... or rather, a somewhat, though not entirely convincing simulacra of Kelvin's father, home, planet.
Does this remain well in the background of Soderbergh's film, or does it serve as a similar "dialectic" (if you don't mind me stretching that term a tad)?

I just wanted to say that I finally got through the Tarkovsky version of Solaris.

Got through? Got through? You mean like " I finally got through my plate of spinach and castor oil?
And remember: "SOLARIS" is likely Tarkovsky's most easily accessible, mainstream, and narratively-normal film (save "Ivan's Childhood"). I'd sympathize, but you must understand that Tarkovsky is among my top-five (consisting of the T-Man, Bresson, Bunuel, Hitchcock and Bergman). Even Dreyer, Fellini, Kubrick, Godard, Ford, [your sacred cow here] don't make that list. And frankly, Patrick, I hardly think you've received your necessary allotment of Vitamen T, your "finally got through" comments notwithstanding! My wife watched Tarkovsky's "SOLARIS" twice in the last two months, plus listened to selected scenes with commentary, and finally said: "You have to see his movies twice before you've really seen them at all."
But I disagreed with her. Twice isn't nearly enough. As for Soderbergh's "Solaris", I'm still holding to "at least once" despite all appearances to the contrary! :b

 

[Patrick Sun]

There is nothing about Kelvin's father in the Soderbergh version that makes an impact on Kelvin. It's all about Rheya. Even the mis-interpretation by the "ocean" of human thoughts of past demons/memories isn't really that developed, it's more of a human failing, not a communication failing, that drives the film along to its conclusion.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I understand that there's no "father" in Soderbergh's film (or Lem's novel, for that matter). It's been suggested by some scholars that it was Tarkovsky's own relationship with his father being depicted there.

But the theme I'm inquiring about is the one having to do with the inability/difficulty of communicating with such a sentience as the Solaris Ocean (or even recognizing it as a sentient being), with the visitors representing the Ocean's attempt to communicate with the humans. Is this not developed at all in Soderbergh's film?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Just go see the film. It's one of those YMMV types of films.

 

[Holadem]

Does anyone know if the Polish - French translation of the novel is good at least?
Patrick,
I find your comments about this film very strange, coming from someone who found a way to read more into Spy Game than it's already very obvious plot!
--
Holadem

 

[Seth Paxton]

There are only 2 communications issues breached in the film
1) Misunderstandings between humans in terms of how a person sees/remembers another vs. who that person really is.
2) The inability to communicate with or understand the "creator".
If Soderbergh intended to include the SF philosophical thought of the inability for one "life form" to understand, be aware of, and communicate with another "life form", even I missed it. Though of course even the humans do ask the question of "why is Solaris doing this?", but its the least pursued idea in the film. The film takes this point, shifts it to the Rheya creation and it becomes the expression of the human need to know and understand god instead.
Rich, obviously you don't take my word for it because I loved it. But it's not likely going to tax you to go see it since the running time is so much shorter. Maybe you won't love it, maybe you will see it as simple and flawed, but I don't think you will find it annoyingly difficult to sit through in a way that something like Rollerball (remake) would be. I'd call it a safe gamble based on what I think your tastes in film are. At the very least this is a film TRYING to be art, even if you end up thinking it fails miserably.

 

[DarrylWHarrisJr]

George and Steven = no talent. 3 remakes (Solaris, Ocean's 11, Insomina) and a couple of other films they've done together. Do they have any thoughts or ideas of their own. Derivative dribble.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Insomina? Wait, I'm an idiot, they only produced it though. Not really being that involved creatively.
I can't believe anyone can criticize Soderbergh after making so many good movies. Anyone see The Limey? What about Out of Sight? How can anyone call Ocean's 11 a remake? They're just two heist movies. Erin Brockavich wasn't a remake. Solaris was handed to Soderbergh by Cameron, it's not like he spearheaded the movement to get the original remade. He also made some original movies Full Frontal (although that wasn't very good) and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. His next film The Informant is original also I believe. The guy is the busiest director out there and he makes solid flick after solid flick.
There's no accounting for taste however.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Just let that threadpoop sit there and steam. It's not just stinky; it's self-refuting.

 

[teapot2001]

Darryl, you forgot Far from Heaven and Fail Safe.
~T

 

[Paul_D]

It's not just stinky; it's self-refuting.

 

[DonaldB]

Here's a review of it from Rosenbaum. I'm disappointed that his assessment confirms my own low expectations for the film -- it would've been nice to see Soderbergh pull it off.
(Admin note - the link is sufficient, reprinting the article in its entirety is just a bit too much w/r/t copyright issues).

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I knew there was something to those butt shots in Solaris but wasn't completely sure about it until now:
From Reuters:

Heart-Throb Clooney Bares Bottom to Promote Film
Wed Jan 8,11:26 AM ET
BERLIN (Reuters) - Hollywood heart-throb George Clooney (news) bared his bottom in the movie "Solaris" to stir-up excitement and promote the film, he was quoted telling a German magazine on Wednesday.
"If my ass helps the film, I don't have a problem with that," Clooney, 41, told the German edition of Playboy magazine in its February issue.
Clooney said the film's promoters found it hard to sell "Solaris" because it was a hybrid of sci-fi and romance.

There you go.
~Edwin

 

[Seth Paxton]

I think Clooney was being kind because I read elsewhere that he was rather pissed at how the studio promoted the film and their focus on the nudity, etc.
Anyway, the reason I dug this thread up was these highlights from an DGA magazine interview with Soderbergh available here. (sorry if you get a "no frame" error from the direct link, the link still works anyway)

Like Von Sternberg, Soderbergh is less interested in denouement and exposition than in experimental and avant-garde visual principles. There are perhaps two versions of Solaris by Soderbergh. The original version he made, he felt was too avant-garde for the average viewer. He recut it to make it more accessible, but he hopes to release the original version one day on DVD.
He also told Winick that when he read the original reviews of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, a sizeable number were mixed and negative, and yet that film is now acknowledged as a cornerstone of science fiction.

 

[Rich Malloy]

RESURRECTION!
I know I know, don't really have anything to say 'cept I hope the link to this jpeg works... (it's a neat little cartoon from today's New York Press about the differences between Tarkovsky's and Soderbergh's "SOLARIS"):
...well that didn't work...
Basically, it's a cartoon of a Kim's Video sorta clerk telling a customer "No, dude, you want the Tarkovsky version--it's all about whether the world is really knowable or just a projection of our psyches. Soderbergh's is just about relationships."
(And though I'm sure the cartoon is intended as a bit of a rip on snide, know-it-all video clerks, that pretty well sums it up.)
Here's the link to the front page of the NYPRESS so you can read it yourself: http://www.nypress.com/

 

[Alex Spindler]

Heh, not working. May want to upload to some place like imageshack.us