Solaris (A.T.)

Finally sat down last night and got through Solaris Russian production. Just once. I’ll definitely be revisiting it though. Poll is live.

It was a truly magnificent film, though I find myself lacking both the energy and the necessary time to provide a proper, detailed critique at this moment...

l8r

"A good movie"??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

!?!?!?!?!??!

www.nostalghia.com

Maybe some actual conversation will finally break out in here...

I watched it without subtitles, and since I haven't studied Russian since elementary school, it was a massive struggle. Then I checked out the remake, which actually wasn't bad at all (surprise, surprise), so I went back to Tarkovsky. By the end, I finally realized just how incredibly good the film is 👍

Some thoughts on Solaris Tarkovsky: (Haven't seen Soderbergh's yet) After a decent enough prologue (which, considering how long it lasts, is incredibly thin and hollow), the movie just falls off a cliff. And it stays down there until the credits roll. The ideas are either way too on the nose—more often than not—or they're so abstract you start wondering if the director even knew what he was trying to say... Between those points, it's just one scene after another with zero purpose, just padding out stuff that was already covered at the start. The whole film is basically all plaster and no bricks.
Honestly, the lack of quality isn't on Tarkovsky the director (he’s got that Kubrick-esque style going on), it's on Tarkovsky the screenwriter. It sucks because even the beautifully shot frames get exhausting when there's no actual reason for them to be there. (Bonus points if anyone can explain why we needed a 5-minute shot of someone driving on the highway at the beginning...) It's such a shame, especially since the ending actually throws out some potentially interesting ideas... but by then it's too late. The previous 150 minutes didn't do anything to build up to it.
I have a feeling Soderbergh's version might be (slightly) better.

slyrider16 said:. The entire movie is essentially just a house made of plaster, with bricks appearing only in traces.
I would love to hear some theories explaining the purpose of that five-minute shot of driving down the interstate at the start of the film.

The comparison involving bricks and plaster—it sounds almost like something out of a sitcom script!
😉
Just kidding.
What else is there to say? Feel free to reach out via DM if you want to chat deeper..

By the way, Solaris, much like all of Tarkovsky's films, is incredibly slow... yet, I have never found them boring or monotonous. One simply needs to surrender to the experience.
His sense of rhythm, much like in films such as "Koyaanisqatsi," or the newer Russian film, "Return," is superior to most cinema being produced today.
Even though the pacing is deliberate, the rhythm remains sound; that highway scene is vital because it serves to introduce the viewer to a world of "extended time."
And that extended time exists so that one might better absorb the details of Tarkovsky's world...

Just as in his "Stalker" and "Nostalgia," those scenes that seem overly long or deceptively simple—which feel as though they ended prematurely purely for aesthetic reasons—usually begin to reveal their true meaning in the final scene of the film, or perhaps even in the very last frame!

All the pieces fall into place in "Solaris" during that final shot (a universe within a universe, sort of, with the house on the planet). It is quite similar to the Russian house inside the Italian cathedral in "Nostalgia," or the revelation of the psychic abilities of Stalker's child near the end of "Stalker"...

I've got this logical knot in my head regarding the movie, though I haven't actually sat down to rewatch it yet. Usually, I can just shrug off stuff like liquid levels shifting between shots or objects randomly appearing and vanishing from a room, but blatant logic gaps like this one are a harder pill to swallow.

Basically:

In the first part of the film, during that hearing for the unlucky pilot, they show the footage he recorded—the exact footage he expected would prove his story about seeing a massive "child." But there was nothing on that recording.

Later on, though, it turns out that these manifestations aren't just felt by the people they're coming from; they're physically tangible, visible to others, and even capable of being captured on camera, like in that message left by the guy who took his own life.

Is there some kind of logical way to make sense of this discrepancy?

First off, you have to remember this whole movie is based on the novel by Stanisław Lem. And if I recall correctly, there isn't even a child visible in any part of the footage.
Secondly, regarding Gibarian's suicide—he wasn't some random visitor or an outsider, he was actually a regular member of the crew.

Joshua Reed73 said:First off, the whole movie is based on an Isaac Asimov novel.

Give me a break, and here I was thinking it was moj Kapor Quote 🙄

Also, that suicide case, Gibarijan, wasn't some visitor, he was just a regular part of the crew.

Yr. point being?

driftingeagle27 said:Don't even get me started! And here I was actually thinking about moj Kapor Quote 🙄

Yr. point being?

I heard a rumor that Asimov actually lifted the idea from Aralica.

Look, I didn't mean to offend you; I was just trying to point out that the fact the kid doesn't show up on the footage
happens in both the book and the movie (since Kubrick changed the plot quite a bit compared to the original novel).
So, really, it was done intentionally to illustrate how disoriented Beronov is, which justifies the conclusions drawn about him in
by both the commission and Kelvin. Kelvin, basically, heads off to Solaris convinced that whatever
Berton is talking about is nothing more than hallucinations.

My other point touches on your observation that... "Later in the film, however, it turns out not only that the visitors can be physically touched and seen by others—not just by the one from whose 'mental content' they originate—but also that they can be captured on film (like the message from the man who committed suicide)"....
I guess what you're assuming is that if it's possible for him to be recorded (and according to you, he's a visitor), then the child should have been caught on the tape being watched at Kelvin's place. From that, you're concluding there's a logical flaw you just can't get past. But since your premise is flawed, I suppose your conclusion is too. A man who is caught on film isn't a visitor. And even if he were, he would have been filmed regardless. It doesn't matter.

It’s not even a debate that the guy who took his own life was caught on film; what’s actually messed up is that his visitor—a little girl—was the one watching it.

Well, I think I already mentioned that it doesn't really matter, I guess. If you look at the footage, everyone would be visible anyway—both the crew members and any visitors on board. I just don't know if you're absolutely certain it was actually a little girl.

Well, I already told you it doesn't really matter, I guess. If we had the footage, everyone would be visible anyway—both the crew members and any visitors on board. I just don't know if you're entirely certain it was actually a little girl.

And why on earth would everyone here actually bother showing up for a recording? (I’m pretty sure I’ve made that point enough times already.)

The Dude said:(Bonus points if anyone has theories explaining why there's a five-minute shot of just driving down the highway at the very start of the movie)

Here’s my take:
I think that segment is a parody of the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey (the whole film is somewhat influenced by that movie, which set a new bar for how serious sci-fi could be) and a jab at those psychedelic, mind-bending journeys where everyone's left wondering what the hell they're even watching;
I think the director just wanted to show a gray, mundane reality, far removed from (forgive my phrasing, maybe I'm exaggerating) all that pretentious fluff.

Actually, you should just compare the runtimes of both sequences—if they match up, then that's 100% it.

driftingeagle27 said:Later in the film, it turns out that these visitors aren't just tactile experiences; they're actually visible to others—not just to the specific person whose "mental content" birthed them—and they can even be captured on video footage. For instance, take the message from the man who committed suicide.

The thing is, those visitors might be tangible and visible, but only while you're physically on the station. I suspect the proximity to the Solaris ocean messes with human perception so much that the pilot's recording wouldn't show anyone on Earth; you’d likely only see them if you were watching the footage while stationed right there.

Just my own take on this logical inconsistency.

Man, you guys have really talked me into rewatching this one. It’s been ages since I first saw it. All I remember is—wow. I watched Soderbergh's version too, and it was obvious: way weaker and shallower than the Kubrick take. Still, the story is so gripping and the original inspiration is so powerful that it turned out to be a decent enough flick. It actually strikes me that the whole Solaris premise is incredibly similar to the idea in Forbidden Planet, isn't it?

By the way, while I was digging through that perpetually updated movie list (shoutout to our tireless moderator), I noticed stalker is down there with only a single post. That doesn't exactly paint a great picture of this forum, does it? Honestly, it's kind of embarrassing. This is exactly the kind of movie I want to dive into and hear everyone else's take on.

I'm going to go grab Solaris now and I'll check back in once I've got some fresh thoughts.

Good grief, how long does that movie actually run? I was expecting you to chime in with your thoughts by now!

😬