So, I finally finished Solaris this morning. I'm generally not one for hyperbole, but the term "masterwork" should be reserved for films like Tarkovsky's science fiction opus. As I watch more and more films in the collection, it seems to be working its way into my lexicon with greater frequency.
I don't really know how to describe it. It's a study of contrasts: stylistically, the stark, dilapidated space station hovering over the vast ocean of Solaris serves as the perfect counterpoint to the beautiful imagery Tarkovsky uses to illustrate life back on Earth. The juxtaposition of the two settings is striking, as is his occasional use of different film treatments; black and white, and sepia tones are used to great effect. From a pure aesthetics standpoint, it makes the serenity provided by the billowing reeds in the water all the more hypnotic. The film is generally slow in its pacing: there is no action to speak of, which could provide problematic for the majority of film goers today. But making it through the entire two plus hours is rewarding. Solaris achieves one of films' greatest allures: it makes the audience think.
Solaris is just as much a study in psychology as it is science fiction. After troubling transmissions have been received by the Russian military, questions arise as to the emotional state of the three Cosmonauts operating the scientific research station; psychologist Kris Kelvin is dispatched to the station to ascertain their well being, and critically judge the continued viability of the Solaristic program. Kelvin arrives to find one of the three has committed suicide, and the two remaining men suffer from cognitive impairment, seemingly as a result of nuclear experiments conducted by the crew above the ocean's surface, experiments which had been expressly forbidden by those in charge back on Earth. Kelvin begins to suffer the same impairment, a form of psychosis manifesting itself in illusions so believable, he encounters his wife, though she has been dead some ten years. He tricks her aboard an escape vehicle, but the apparition later reappears, unaware of her past, or her death. Over the course of the next few days, he and Khari, his beloved, undergo a strenuous mental exercise; she attempting, in vain, to reconcile her existence with the knowledge of her death; he, trying to cope with freshly opened wounds, and the realization that he might be able to live with his wife again, in perpetuity, if he remains aboard the station.
The vast majority of films coming out of the Hollywood system are predictable tripe. Formulaic, and relying on shock value, or million dollar special effects to divert viewers from the realization that these films are, in fact, staid from a writing standpoint. But Solaris is not of this system; it came about during a brief Russian cinema renaissance. And Tarkovsky's film forces us to examine both our rigid definition of life, and the mysteries of the heart: how much would we be willing to sacrifice for true love? Would we turn our back on the world we know, ignoring convention, and the orders of our superiors, if only to experience, once again, true depth of emotion, even with the knowledge that those feelings were the result of an illusion?
Solaris is not an easy film to get through; it is plodding, much of the time, again, by modern standards. And, it asks much of the viewer: we are forced to suspend knowledge of what we have been taught in order to critically examine the lives of these men and women. But this film excels precisely because it challenges convention. And, considering both the era in which it was produced, and the amount of oversight coming from Moscow, Tarkovsky's work is not only a rousing success, it clearly belongs in the pantheon of great science fiction works.
The vast majority of films coming out of the Hollywood system are predictable tripe. Formulaic, and relying on shock value, or million dollar special effects to divert viewers from the realization that these films are, in fact, staid from a writing standpoint. But Solaris is not of this system; it came about during a brief Russian cinema renaissance. And Tarkovsky's film forces us to examine both our rigid definition of life, and the mysteries of the heart: how much would we be willing to sacrifice for true love? Would we turn our back on the world we know, ignoring convention, and the orders of our superiors, if only to experience, once again, true depth of emotion, even with the knowledge that those feelings were the result of an illusion?
Great review. Vis-a-vis your Hollywood remark, If you haven't already I also recommend you check out Steven Soderbergh's film adaptation of the novel. It runs half the time of the Tarkovsky version but IMO does an excellent job of evoking the themes you speak of. The film, produced by James Cameron cost about 47 million USD to make and was a colossal flop at the BO (making less than 30 million worldwide, and only half of that in the US), which is why Hollywood prefers to make dumb expensive movies as opposed to deep expensive ones.
When I saw Tarkovsky's original film, I felt absorbed in it, as if it were a sponge. It was slow, mysterious, confusing, and I have never forgotten it. Soderbergh's version is more clean and spare, more easily readable, but it pays full attention to the ideas and doesn't compromise. Tarkovsky was a genius, but one who demanded great patience from his audience as he ponderously marched toward his goals. The Soderbergh version is like the same story freed from the weight of Tarkovsky's solemnity. And it evokes one of the rarest of movie emotions, ironic regret.
Sadly the film, which has gained a cult following over the years, has no blu-ray as yet, but there's a fine DVD from Fox. Hopefully someday either Fox or some good boutique label like Criterion will see fit to put that film out in HD.
I actually have Soderbergh's version on my DVR, where it has awaited my viewing. I just needed to watch the original to completion first. I actually enjoy watching certain films and remakes in this way; I did Insomnia a few weeks ago. Two different perspectives, from different parts of the world, on the same script. Stellan Skarsgård, Al Pacino and Robin Williams are three of my favorite actors, so it worked out quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenus
Great review. Vis-a-vis your Hollywood remark, If you haven't already I also recommend you check out Steven Soderbergh's film adaptation of the novel. It runs half the time of the Tarkovsky version but IMO does an excellent job of evoking the themes you speak of. The film, produced by James Cameron cost about 47 million USD to make and was a colossal flop at the BO (making less than 30 million worldwide, and only half of that in the US), which is why Hollywood prefers to make dumb expensive movies as opposed to deep expensive ones.
Sadly the film, which has gained a cult following over the years, has no blu-ray as yet, but there's a fine DVD from Fox. Hopefully someday either Fox or some good boutique label like Criterion will see fit to put that film out in HD.
Eww.
I had the same thing happening to me when I ordered a used Criterion disc for "Traffic" on ebay once. That guy even went so far to cut some of the top part off the cover to make it fit into a regular case (he also folded over the front to make it fit length-wise).
I was able to return it and get my money back but it still hurt to see a criterion disc being treated that way
Great review. Vis-a-vis your Hollywood remark, If you haven't already I also recommend you check out Steven Soderbergh's film adaptation of the novel. It runs half the time of the Tarkovsky version but IMO does an excellent job of evoking the themes you speak of. The film, produced by James Cameron cost about 47 million USD to make and was a colossal flop at the BO (making less than 30 million worldwide, and only half of that in the US), which is why Hollywood prefers to make dumb expensive movies as opposed to deep expensive ones.
Sadly the film, which has gained a cult following over the years, has no blu-ray as yet, but there's a fine DVD from Fox. Hopefully someday either Fox or some good boutique label like Criterion will see fit to put that film out in HD.
And hopefully the Soderbergh-Cameron commentary is retained - one of the best tracks I’ve had the pleasure to listen to, supremely insightful!
If we can have 2 Weekends, 2 Something Wilds, 2 (technically 3) The Killers - criterion can certainly manage 2 Solarises
Eww.
I had the same thing happening to me when I ordered a used Criterion disc for "Traffic" on ebay once. That guy even went so far to cut some of the top part off the cover to make it fit into a regular case (he also folded over the front to make it fit length-wise).
So, I finally finished Solaris this morning. I'm generally not one for hyperbole, but the term "masterwork" should be reserved for films like Tarkovsky's science fiction opus. As I watch more and more films in the collection, it seems to be working its way into my lexicon with greater frequency.
Beautiful write-up, Theater. I'm probably going to give this a second viewing soon, seeing how my Tarkovsky fix more than likely won't be fulfilled with a Stalker upgrade any time soon. I've been taken by every Tarkovsky I've seen, to some degree, even if I can't always quite articulate the reasoning for the reaction. I do have an understanding that his films will reveal themselves to me more with subsequent viewings and age.
I wonder if we might get a Criterion for Paper Moon. I hope so.
Oh man, I would love that. Funny you mention that as I almost imported the U.K. blu ray until I realized it has the same extras as my DVD which looks fine. So I thought to myself, I will just hold out for a Criterion release. They should release What's Up Doc and Mask as well. I wonder why they don't release more Peter Bogdonavich? I was hoping they were going to release his stuff like they do Wes Anderson or Terrence Malick. His stuff is a perfect fit for Criterion. Hell I would even buy Nickelodeon or At Long Last Love if they put it out !!
Oh man, I would love that. Funny you mention that as I almost imported the U.K. blu ray until I realized it has the same extras as my DVD which looks fine. So I thought to myself, I will just hold out for a Criterion release. They should release What's Up Doc and Mask as well. I wonder why they don't release more Peter Bogdonavich? I was hoping they were going to release his stuff like they do Wes Anderson or Terrence Malick. His stuff is a perfect fit for Criterion. Hell I would even buy Nickelodeon or At Long Last Love if they put it out !!
Yeah I'm really hopeful on that since it doesn't seem like Paramount will ever do anything for it like any of their catalog titles. I'm very close to getting a region free player but I've been reading they have some issues.
I used to hold a similar opinion but then I saw Murmur of the Heart. It’s wickedly hilarious and innocently depraved coming-of-age film that brilliantly succeeds in keeping things non-judgemental inspite of its controversial subject matter. I think along with Au Revoir les Enfants it’s Malle’s most personal work. And I say this despite my fondness for all things noir.
Agree.
I like Elevator but prefer all 3 films in the CC Malle box set over it.
Every review I've read for this has made me so giddy.
Me too. I've tried to skip the plot details, but the desciptions of its style have me so excited. Long takes, 4:3 aspect ratio, unexpected tonal shifts, etc.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
