criterionforum.org

was curious about peoples opinions of solaris. I felt very bad about it on my initial viewing, like it was sort of rushed together quickly, cheap or something. It just seemed very shallow compared to its two sources. Small things, like, the woman who plays Hari/Rhea, the way she rushes up suddenly and screams when Kelvin starts to leave seems very unconvincing. The music and the beautiful shots of the ocean were really the only parts that really pleased me.

I am a bit baffled because I was very happy with most all aspects of Traffic.

As always, I am willing to learn and hear different opinions, and I always think good films need more than one viewing.

Steven Soderbergh's Solaris is my second favorite movie and the director's best effort to date. The film has one of the best endings in the history of cinema. There is nothing more pathetic, poignant, and human than George Clooney's decision at the end.

franco wrote:Steven Soderbergh's Solaris is my second favorite movie and the director's best effort to date. The film has one of the best endings in the history of cinema. There is nothing more pathetic, poignant, and human than George Clooney's decision at the end.

I also think this is Soderbergh's best film. I'm a huge Tarkovsky fan (Mirror is one of my all-time favourite films), but the original Solaris is my least favourite of his features, and I actually prefer the remake. I particularly admire Soderbrgh's narrative economy: look at how much he crams into the first ten minutes, all without breaking a sweat. From memory, we get the whole backstory and are already onto the space station. Sure, it lacks some of the grandeur of the Tarkovsky, but it lacks the longueurs as well.

zedz wrote:I particularly admire Soderbrgh's narrative economy: look at how much he crams into the first ten minutes, all without breaking a sweat.

Completely agree. I could watch these 10 minutes over and over again. =D>

Yeah, the opening is the part which stayed with me the most. Especially that scene with Clooney on the phone...which is absolutely heartbreaking through its everyday, almost routine simplicity, which you see is seriously starting to crumble.

This film has possibly one of the best and entertaining DVD commentaries between Soderbergh and James Cameron. The commentary actually helped me understand and appreciate it a bit more, after not being entirely impressed the first time I saw it.

I just finished the remake and I'm happy to say that it's really, really good. I might even like it over the first, but then again it's a different film entirely. Everything about the new one clicked with me, I think. The set design, the camerawork, George Clooney. Very good remake. I'm just gonna tell all those people who like the original to check this out, because half of them are probably reluctant.

Also, on the set design; this is the first time, I think, that they really got the look of "new futuristic" down incredibly well. The mix of glass and metal and fluorescents was perfect. Usually it sucks (Sunshine's set design was annoying for that reason).

Somebody mentioned that the new Hari didn't seem human, and while I don't think she was supposed to, I do think she had remarkably human characteristics, as well as an odd naivete. Also, what passion in this new one! I came close to crying when the first new Hari went into the space capsule. She looked so frightened.

Certainly on par with Tarkovsky's, but they really are completely different films. Tarkovsky's is weirder.

blindside8zao wrote:ugh... Soderburg shames a magnificent source novel and a magnificent film. I normally have no qualms about anyone remaking anything but this just seems like nothing but an unholy travesty.

you gotta be kidding me wrote:The best thing about the remake is the soundtrack.

Here is Lem's own view

Polybius wrote:If you haven't already read it, you should seek out our discussion of it here.

Henrik (dvdane) was on fire.

This is one heresy to which I can subscribe. Tarkovsky's Solaris has its sublime moments, and a mind-spinning, heart-stopping final shot(s), but I find it inflated well beyond the (modest) insights it has to offer. Soderbergh's version sacrifices some of the wonder along with most of the pretension, and is a model of concision. Just look at how sleek the exposition is in the first ten minutes. If only more contemporary directors coould take his lead (I finally saw Jackson's Kong remake recently - bozhe moy!)

I just watched both of these films back to back and I had the same reaction I had after watching Criss Cross and the Underneath: Neither film completely works for me individually, but together the original and the "remake" compliment each other to such a degree that each becomes better by virtue of their proximity in a strange kind of alchemy that I haven't encountered outside of these two Soderbergh examples. A truly wonderful experience, it's kind of like having two films debate each other and the winner is me, the viewer.

^ Except for the fact that I would say that both of them do work for me individually, you hit all the salient points. It's a great story, brought to life by two true artists.

I watched this today and really enjoyed it. I've seen Tarkovsky's film and felt glad that there's no comparison between the two works. Soderbergh's vision is so complete that I can't say I even thought of the earlier film. I will say that Clooney easily blows away Banionis. Clooney brought so much more emotion and pain to the part that I totally saw it through his eyes. I can't always say the same about Banionis. This element doesn't make either film superior than the other, but it did make me like Soderbergh's somewhat more. The concision of the film helped as well, obviously. I also loved the cutting and sound design which really helped build the mood for me. The sets really breathed better because of this. Cliff Martinez's score was the perfect icing, though. Easily one of the best scores I've ever heard. (As an aside, why ICP in the film? Does that song really have any meaning? Domino, do you have any clues?) Getting back to the concision of the film, I was happy with how it was laid out. Clooney was so good that too much time might have weakened the spell. He suffers so much that after awhile the film might feel like a downer, but instead it drew me in and made me care about his decisions and hesitations more. I was very happy to see Clooney work so hard for such great results. Everything in this movie came together for me. The beauty of the film really impressed me. Even if it lacks Tarkovsky's philosophical edge, it has its own take and I thought that the movie was intelligent enough anyway. I think of the end. In the last scene where he asks, "Am I alive or dead" and she replies, "We don't have to think like that anymore. Everything is forgiven" - which was a lovely scene and for me more emotionally devastating than Tarkovsky's ending - I wondered if the film was actually about anxiety over the afterlife. I put the thought away because it sounded crazy, though. Then I listened to the commentary and they mentioned that the scene taps into the human hope that we meet our deceased loved ones again. I found that interesting and it was an idea that made me appreciate the film more even if beyond that intellectual concern the emotional impact made by Clooney was evidence enough of how moving the film was. It really is wonderful to have a gorgeous sci-fi film that concerns itself with humans rather than rockets. I really need to get this now and try pairing it with Blade Runner.

Since this thread has been resurrected, I'd like to add that I find Soderbergh's film to be one of the best remakes yet attempted, for all of the reasons Jean Luc Garbo mentioned. Its philosophical angle is complimentary to Tarkovsky's film, but wholly unique. As a huge fan of Tarkovsky in general, I was wary of any attempt to "Hollywood-ize" his work, but Soderbergh's SOLARIS is a beautifully crafted and finely-acted film. Clooney is at his absolute best here, but everyone delivers performances that are immediately gripping and hold-up under repeat viewings (yes, I even like Jeremy Davies' affectations). The themes are less heady than in the 1972 version, but not at all lightweight.

Sure, ICP is an odd choice, but after being lulled into a meditative state by Martinez's exquisite score, the sudden appearance of the "horror show rap" of ICP is quite unsettling, which must have been Soderbergh's intention.

Have I entered Bizarro world/April Fools Day? I don't remember ICP in this film, where are they played?

The scene where Kelvin meets Snow. The song plays during the whole scene, which confused me as I thought Snow could just turn it off.

zedz wrote:Soderbergh's version sacrifices some of the wonder along with most of the pretension, and is a model of concision. Just look at how sleek the exposition is in the first ten minutes. If only more contemporary directors coould take his lead (I finally saw Jackson's Kong remake recently - bozhe moy!)

In the wake of James Cameron's Avatar it is a shame he didn't take more tips from his producing role on this film. Though I vaguely recall from his commentary track with Soderbergh that he dishearteningly describes Solaris as being an obviously uncommercial project, so maybe he learnt his lesson all too well!

Both versions are excellent and I like domino's idea of the films 'debating' each other a lot. The Soderbergh feels 'safer' (or at least more accessible) narratively in a way (but probably stands out as 'arty' in a time when, Moon apart, mainstream sci-fi mostly means laser action space battles), and is apparently more faithful to the novel (in the commentary the Tarkovsky is briefly - very briefly - acknowledged, but much more time is spent on discussion of adapting the Stanislaw Lem novel), but still creates a powerful emotional effect. The characteristically Soderbergian elliptical 'mood and memory editing' is put to beautifully evocative use, though not to such a radical extent as on The Underneath and The Limey. And I prefer the beautifully understated 'home is where the heart is' ending revolving around Clooney's cut finger much more than the raining indoors and "ta-daaa!" pull back of the Tarkovsky (the frozen landscape is Tarkovsky's great element of his film's final sequence).

The Tarkovsky feels much more insular, specific and willfully obtuse almost to the point of incoherence, causing obvious flaws in character motivations, editing mismatching and general issues with the narrative, though in the process (and often as a result of these issues) it creates so many stunning moments and sequences that just wouldn't have properly fit into a 'normal' film. For me the Tarkovsky is endlessly repeatable since the story isn't really the biggest draw, but instead the mesmerising digressions are (yes Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, even the driving scene!) The Soderbergh doesn't really have that aim, though it is admirable film in many other ways.

colinr0380 wrote:much more time is spent on discussion of adapting the Stanislaw Lem novel

Though I have the disc, I don't think I've ever listened to the commentary. Do they discuss the novel's translation at all? From what I've heard, the only English translation of the novel that's been published is actually quite inaccurate. Obviously, Tarkovsky would have been working from the original, and I wonder if particular differences in the film versions are based in the differences between an original source and a translated source, or if they are just the filmmaker's departings from the source.

It has been years since I last listened to the remake's commentary - I'll have to give it another listen at the weekend. But some things from the Criterion commentary on the Tarkovsky might be interesting - such as the comment that the wife and mother seemingly vying for the attentions of the hero is a kind of staple element of Russian film (such as in Ballad of a Soldier for example), compared to a more Western kind of love triangle situation that we might expect from just being tangentially introduced to the two women's pictures. The commentators on the Tarkovsky also talk about the basic premise being used to spin off into far more personally interesting, and personally relevant, territory to Tarkovsky (though they take issue with those that suggested that Tarkovsky wasn't interested in sci-fi), sometimes to the detriment of the narrative itself. For example the exploration of the paintings in the library, sort of echoing and expanding on the end sequence of Andrei Rublev.

The much abused thread of the Lem story running through Solaris which acts as a kind of narrative and genre safety net for an audience is then the element that gets removed from Mirror, where these free associating digressions and movement between memories become the entire driving force of the film.

So it would have probably been impossible, not to mention inadvisable, to recreate the Tarkovsky version even if the filmmakers had wanted to.

Matt wrote:

colinr0380 wrote:much more time is spent on discussion of adapting the Stanislaw Lem novel

From what I've heard, the only English translation of the novel that's been published is actually quite inaccurate.

Nothing to add other than to say that the current English editions of Solaris were translated from a French translation. Michael Kandel has created authoritative English translations of many of Lem's other works, but he never did Solaris (perhaps a "rights" issue or something).

Keep in mind that Lem was not particularly happy with the liberties Tarkovsky took with his material and disliked how the emphasis was shifted to Kelvin's emotional detachment from his mother and father instead of just the deceased wife. Given that Tarkovsky would eventually start focusing more on male/female relationships in his later work, starting with STALKER and continuing with NOSTALGHIA and THE SACRIFICE, I wonder if he would have approached Lem's novel more like Soderbergh did if he directed the film a decade or so later. Either way I like the way the two versions approach the subject matter differently: Soderbergh focuses on the husband and wife element along with finding a definition of "God" that will suite both of them; Tarkovsky takes on the whole history of man's relationship to his fellow humans, his family, his art, his aspirations and his identity.

Matt wrote:Obviously, Tarkovsky would have been working from the original, and I wonder if particular differences in the film versions are based in the differences between an original source and a translated source, or if they are just the filmmaker's departings from the source.

Did Tarkovsky speak Polish? I would have thought he'd be working from a translation, too. In any case, the English version is indeed notorious for not being a direct translation, but actually a Polish-to-French-to-English translation. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to put the major differences in the two films down to Soderbergh and Tarkovsky simply taking it in different directions. Both of them hone in on different aspects of the novel for their adaptations; when you read it, you can easily see where both of them are coming from (aside from the endings, both of which are inventions of the respective filmmakers). In fact, after seeing the films (I read the book first) I came to feel that neither Soderbergh nor Tarkovsky spend much time on the most significant parts of the novel, which was apparently part of Lem's displeasure with both of them as well, though honestly I think Soderbergh at least drops a couple more nods in Lem's direction than Tarkovsky does.

By the way, was anyone else here aware of the 1968 TV movie? I was just informed of its existence by Wikipedia, and it looks interesting.

Kirkinson wrote:

Matt wrote:Obviously, Tarkovsky would have been working from the original, and I wonder if particular differences in the film versions are based in the differences between an original source and a translated source, or if they are just the filmmaker's departings from the source.

Did Tarkovsky speak Polish?

Whoops. I had forgotten that the original novel is Polish, not Russian. That complicates things even more, then, if neither filmmaker was working from an unmediated text.

First Russian translation of "Solaris" has been published in 1962 in a truncated form in magazine publication. Same year another translation, by Dmitry Bruskin came out, and this is the translation most likely known to Tarkovsky. Bruskin's translation was a lot more fateful to the Lem's original than the Polish-to French-to English version, available today in the English-speaking world. Alas, Bruskin's translation has been heavily censured in first publication, loosing most of philosophical and theological conversations of the book's characters. The last chapter "Old Mimoid" has suffered most. Tarkovsky started his work on "Solaris" in 1970, so he most likely had to do with the censured version. Complete text of "Solaris" was published in Russia in 1976.

I will say that Soderbergh's version moved me much more than Tartovsky's. In fact, I taught Soderbergh's version with the novel in a "Film and Literature" class rather than Tartovsky's (just because I thought S.S. would probably be more accessible to a general undergraduate audience). The scene in which

Spoiler

Kelvin sends the first version of his reincarnated wife out into space and he watches her confusion and horror as she floats away

? Devastating. I teared up the first time I saw it in the theater. Tartovsky's version of the scene seems much more emotionally removed -- which match Lem's narration better, incidentally.

What I can't believe is that Soderbergh still hasn't managed to get his long cut released. I assume that evidences a lack of interest on his part to re-visit it, though I'm sure Fox isn't all that interested either. Nonetheless, it remains one of those elusive Holy Grails for me as I really wonder how a more languorous pace would effect Soderbergh's narrative technique.