Solaris (A.T.)

I checked out Soderbergh's version and it’s alright, though I couldn't shake the feeling that the lead actress looks exactly like Celine Dion.

That five-minute driving sequence in the Tarkovsky cut—if you can even call it that—is honestly one of the most beautiful stretches of cinema I've ever laid eyes on. I caught a similar vibe in Stalker, specifically when they're cruising around in that rugged vehicle right before everything shifts into color. Plus, those sound effects are absolutely phenomenal; none of today's electronic music producers, not even Autechre, could touch that kind of atmosphere.

As for the Complicator's theory regarding whether the visitors are actually visible on screen, I'm totally on board. If I come up with a more convincing argument, I'll let you guys know.

I’ll keep this brief: visually, this movie is absolutely breathtaking—just stunning. As for the directing? Well, you can clearly see the sheer level of talent on display. The way Tarkovsky (that's his Americanized nickname, 😳) pulls off these stylistic choices just leaves you completely floored...

That driving sequence is easily one of the most hypnotic scenes I've ever witnessed in cinema; it’s almost meditative, serving as this slow, deliberate way to bleed into the repressed, painful memories that threaten to slip away at any moment—which is exactly what happens to Chris Kelvin on that planet... There’s also this really striking shot of a swarm of cars glinting in the night, all bunched up on a highway winding through the heart of some metropolitan area (the whole thing was actually filmed in Japan) that perfectly captures that friction between nature and technological sprawl... Between those sepia tones and those deep blue-black hues, man, I seriously need to rewatch this later this week.

lonelynx16 said:... there's also that interesting shot showing a swarm of cars flashing their lights at night, jammed on a highway winding through the heart of a city (the whole movie was actually filmed in Japan) which really captures that clash between nature and technological progress...

It's a critique of modern society... I saw this movie ages ago, but I definitely remember that scene. The cars just keep picking up speed and then, suddenly, you're cut to life in the countryside.

Is it actually possible that there isn’t a single thread on this entire forum about Solaris? I'm talking about the film by A. Tarkovsky, based on Lem's incredible novella that interrogates the very nature of life in space and the problem of consciousness... plus that constant parallel between Solaris and Earth—the idea that our own world might contain its own version of these Solaris phenomena...

Forget the tired tropes of Western commercial sci-fi writers, like Asimov's idiotic robot laws, Gene Wolfe's recycling of other people's ideas wrapped in high-flown quotes, or Clarke's obsession with technology. Here, we are dealing with the actual core of the human condition. That's why, in my view, Lem is one of the greatest pillars of core SF, alongside the underrated—yet cinematically more intriguing—Dick, who was also preoccupied with the problems of consciousness and simulacra. These are key unresolved issues that science hasn't managed to grasp satisfactorily yet, except perhaps unexpectedly in modern physics, where holographic universe theories and quantum phenomena regarding reality "rendering" only in the presence of an observer suggest more and more that we are living in a simulation, or at least that things aren't at all what they seem...

Of course, I'm referring to the Russian original, famous for its atmosphere and its three-hour runtime, which we were able to watch in its entirety tonight on PBS without a single interruption. That sounds unbelievable nowadays when everyone wants to sell you something; you can't even open a can of soup without some moronic commercial popping out at you immediately.

Admittedly, the film is much worse than the book for me, because it focuses too heavily on the protagonist's emotions and far too little on the underlying theory. It treats the viewer like an imbecile, much like those Hollywood blockbusters... However, you can't deny its atmosphere, nor the sheer inspiration of the work as a whole...
And then there's that famous ten-minute scene featuring a monotonous drive through a gray megalopolis, which feels to me like a mockery of Clarke's—or rather Kubrick's—psychedelic, euphoric wormhole travel scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968-2001: A Space Odyssey, 1971-Solaris)... Here, instead of euphoria and interplanetary space travel, we get ten minutes of grayness and driving from nowhere to nowhere within a single city, tethered to Earth. Tarkovsky's message is clear: Clarke/Kubrick—cut the bullshit.☕

urbanhawk28 said:there’s always this constant comparison to the Solaris-Earth parallel—this idea that our own planet might be hiding its own version of those Solaris phenomena...

Forget all that shallow stuff like Asimov’s idiotic robot laws, Gene Wolfe just recycling old ideas wrapped in high-brow quotes, or Clarke being obsessed with tech. This stuff actually hits the core of what it means to be human. That's why I think Lem is one of the absolute GOATs of hard SF. He's right up there with Dick, who's underrated and maybe more cinematic, but also obsessed with consciousness and simulacra. Those are the big unanswered questions science hasn't even touched yet, except maybe in quantum physics where holographic universe theories and how reality basically "renders" only when someone's watching suggest we might actually be living in a simulation, or at least that things aren't what they seem...

Elaborate on that. Interesting stuff.

I had no idea they were airing it on PBS yesterday; I honestly would have loved to catch that live. Well, I suppose I'll just track it down on YouTube later today if I can find a spare moment. Besides, isn't the very fact that we use the word "appear" a subtle hint in itself? It implies that what we perceive isn't necessarily the reality of the thing. 😛

urbanhawk28 said:Is it actually possible that there isn't a single thread on this entire forum dedicated to Solaris? You know, that film by A. Tarkovski based on the incredible novella by lemov. It really digs into the essence of life in space and the whole concept of consciousness. Plus, there’s that constant subtext—the idea that Earth itself might be harboring its own version of those Solaris phenomena...

Of course there isn't one... instead, we get endless threads and debates about the latest Superman, Batman, or Spiderman movies. And let's be honest, most of them haven't even hit theaters yet, and people are already acting like experts. 😁
That pretty much sums up our era and the current state of the collective psyche. 👎

Then you have that famous ten-minute sequence featuring that monotonous drive through a gray, sprawling metropolis. To me, it feels like a direct jab at Kubrick's psychedelic, euphoric wormhole journey in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968-2001: A Space Odyssey, 1971-Solaris). Instead of euphoria and interplanetary travel, we get ten minutes of gloom and driving from nowhere to nowhere within a single city, tethered strictly to Earth. Tarkovski’s message seems clear: Kubrick/Clarke—cut the bullshit. ☕ (I meant to quote that... my bad)

You really need to pay close attention to the OST during that specific scene.
I truly believe the legendary composer Eduard Artemiev delivered what might be the best soundtrack of his entire career right here.
It's hard to wrap your head around how he managed to pull off something so revolutionary for 1972—that incredible electronic soundscape that just drifts through the scene.