Greetings gentle readers and welcome to another installment of the Sunday Morning Movie. Today it’s a psychological sci-fi masterpiece directed by Andrei Tarkovsky: Solaris.
and next week’s film: Chinmoku
Reviews of Solaris:
RogerEbert.com says:
I saw his 1972 film “Solaris” at the Chicago Film Festival that year. It was my first experience of Tarkovsky, and at first I balked. It was long and slow and the dialogue seemed deliberately dry. But then the overall shape of the film floated into view, there were images of startling beauty, then developments that questioned the fundamental being of the characters themselves, and finally an ending that teasingly suggested that everything in the film needed to be seen in a new light. There was so much to think about afterwards, and so much that remained in my memory. With other Tarkovsky films–“Andrei Rublev,” “Nostalgia,” “The Sacrifice“–I had the same experience.
www.scifidimensions.com says:
Admiration for the Artistic Vision: Many critics and viewers consider “Solaris” a masterpiece, praising Tarkovsky’s masterful direction, the film’s stunning visuals, and its profound philosophical depth. These reviews highlight the film’s ability to evoke a sense of wonder and introspection, contrasting sharply with the more action-oriented science fiction films of the time. They emphasize the film’s exploration of the human psyche and the limitations of scientific understanding in the face of the unknown.
Criticism for the Pacing and Ambiguity: Conversely, some critics find the film slow-paced, ponderous, and ultimately boring. They argue that the narrative is too vague and that the film relies too heavily on symbolism and philosophical musings at the expense of a compelling story. These reviews often criticize the film’s length and its perceived lack of accessibility to a wider audience. Some have even deemed it pretentious and self-indulgent.
Moviereviewed.com says:
Solaris isn’t just a science fiction film; it’s a philosophical meditation on the limitations of human understanding and the power of memory. The film follows psychologist Kris Kelvin as he’s sent to investigate a space station orbiting the planet Solaris, where the crew has been experiencing strange phenomena. What he discovers is a planet capable of materializing the crew’s deepest, most repressed memories, forcing them to confront their past traumas and unresolved emotions. This results in the blurring of lines between reality and illusion and forcing the characters to examine their past and present existence.
But why should you care about a Soviet-era science fiction film that’s over 50 years old? Because Solaris speaks to universal themes that are as relevant today as they were in 1972. In a world obsessed with technological advancement and the exploration of the unknown, Solaris reminds us to look inward and grapple with the fundamental questions of our own existence. It asks us what it means to be human, to love, to grieve, and to remember. These are questions that transcend time and culture, making Solaris a timeless masterpiece.
My take:
This is a beautiful, but perhaps ponderous, film. Clocking in at two hours and forty-seven minutes, it’s best reserved for a rainy Sunday afternoon when you don’t have any other plans. It wrestles with deep philosophical issues such as the nature of memory and what constitutes reality. It also presents a new vision of what an alien might be that hasn’t been approached again by any film I can think of off the top of my head. You’re going to have to fill in the blanks at times, as one of the reviewers said you can either be bored or you can use the time to reflect on what you have seen. I’m awarding it ⭐⭐⭐ because it’s rich enough to return to time and again when one is inclined to dig into some deep sci-fi.
Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
Writers: Andrei Tarkovsky, Friedrich Gorenstein
Adapted from the novel Solaris by Stanislaw Lem
Plot (Spoilers!):
Kris Kelvin has a mission. He is to be sent to a space station orbiting the sentient ocean planet Solaris. The station’s crew is reporting very strange visions. There are “visitors” wandering the halls, people the crew once knew.
Kelvin arrives to find the station in chaos. One crewmember has committed suicide, the other two are acting very strangely. Kelvin lays down to sleep and when he awakes, he is confronted by his deceased wife sitting in the room. After initially rejecting her as unreal, he comes to accept her presence.
Kelvin and the crew wrestle with the implications of what they are witnessing. His “wife”, unable to deal with the fact that she is some sort of facsimile, has herself destroyed. In an effort to communicate with Solaris, they send a signal of Kelvin’s brain waves down to the surface of the ocean. As a result, the visitors stop appearing and islands begin to form on the ocean’s surface. Two different realities are converging.
19 comments
Comments are closed.
The plot of this film sounded very familiar and when I checked found that it had been remade in 2022 being directed by James Cameron and starring George Clooney. Cameron spent five years securing the rights from the 1972 Russian film as well Stanisław Lem, the Polish author that wrote the original 1961 book that the 1972 film was based on-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(2002_film)
Here’s the first Solaris film I know of, Soviet Gostelradio’s 1968 production, which I watch alongside Tarkovsky:
Somehow the link didn’t post, here it is again:
Thanks for the pointer. I haven’t seen this but it appears to be a Soviet TV production:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1808482/
With apologies for being so late to reply, this also sounded very familiar to me. But, child of the 60s that I am, the bell it rang summoned a Star Trek episode: Shore Leave (Dec. 1966). In which many crew members, including (of course) Spock, found themselves engaged with memories or fantasies summoned from their own selves. When confronted — engaged with and played out — they resolved themselves. And then it turned out the whole thing was a sort of playground, for people to divert themselves.
Similarly, but not quite the same, the earlier “Naked Time.”
Roddenberry was very interested in such questions, which probably were the soil whence Spock emerged. And if, perhaps, in the winds and currents of cross-fertilization, Star Trek episodes inspired Tarkovsky, so much the better: so also rough ballads and coarse myths inspired great poetry. Because there was an underlying brief but cataclysmic vision shared by all.
Great movie! Your first Tarkovsky review of Stalker inspired my to go get a copy and watch it for the first time. This one, I already have.
I’ll just give a plug for Stanislaw Lem, the Polish scifi author who wrote the book the movie is based on. Along with books by Bradbury, Clarke and Asimov, as a teenager I read everything by him I could get my hands on. I will admit to judging his books by their cover – in the 80s there were very colorful and attractive editions of his books, with examples at the top of this post. Looking back on it, I really don’t know why so many Lem books showed up on the shelf of my rural VT bookstore – Lem never did achieve that much popularity in the US – but I bought them all. I think Memoirs Found in a Bathtub was the first one I read, and I was hooked. That one isn’t scifi so much as Kafka-esque mind[family blog] critique of oppressive political bureaucracy.
Highly recommend the movie and all of Lem’s works. Solaris is a thinker of a book, but many of his others are really quite funny, and probably even funnier in the original Polish.
As someone who read Roadside Picnic before seeing Stalker I have to disagree. Perhaps there were changes in the english translation that fundamentally altered the tone of the Strugastsky brothers novel, but I didn’t recognise much of it in the film. Red was whiny and pathetic in Stalker and it bored me. The philosophical elements to me were far better expressed and the forceful ambiguity of the ending was lost. A stunning critique of both the American dream AND the Communist ideal that made it past Soviet censors by virtue of being science fiction. Stalker is a pale shadow imo.
I don’t think I’ve mentioned this but you and I must be movie twins. So many of your posts are about movies I’ve either recently watched or was thinking about watching. I haven’t seen this since the VHS days and I’ve been itching to rewatch.
It’s probably sacraligious but I much preferred the 2002 remake (although apparently the source was Lem’s original novel, rather than it being a remake – pes se) which has is just as striking and poignant and much more succinct. Which one you like best probably comes down to personal taste but I find the 1972 one too ponderous for my taste, reminding me of the line from the excellent British comedy Black Books ‘“I’m standing in a little summerhouse in the rain…”’
You’re not the only one. I’ll admit that I might have a different take if I were to watch the Tarkovsky film today, but my first reaction on watching both versions was that the Tarkovsky version was literally twice the length of the Soderbergh version while saying nothing materially different.
The Tarkovsky version was a real drag, necessitating three sittings for me to get through, while the 2002 movie was all the more affecting for condensing the same material into a shorter runtime. Not that I don’t like slow and ponderous sci-fi, but as long as needed and no longer would seem to be a good rule to live by.
As for my other heresies, I also enjoy Blade Runner 2049 more than the original, but that’s another topic entirely.
I remember going to see this in the 1980s at an arthouse cinema on, when else?, a Sunday morning. It struck me as an almost religiously themed film, thus perfect for a Sunday. “Solaris” is proof that science fiction film does not have to be action oriented.
As the main character in “The Last Tycoon” supposedly says; “Here’s one for Art.”
Stay safe.
Actually that´s an adequate choice to get away from the other BS today…
Thanks!
p.s. The actor Donatas Banionis who plays Kelvin was Lithuanian which in the golden years was no issue. Back then USSR was a cultural empire in the best sense of the word drawing talent and influences from the entire gigantic territory with its 200+ “nations”.
It was claimed Banionis who was among the top actors also known in the West had been an informant to KGB.
While I swollowed that in the past today I would question it until I see the actual proof.
Another excellent not dissimilar piece with Banionis as the lead is the East German biopic of Goya (1971), directed by the great Konrad Wolf.
Here only available with original German sound and Spanish subs.
GOYA, EL DIFÍCIL CAMINO DEL CONOCIMIENTO (1971) ALEMAN SUBTITULADO ESPAÑOL
128 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8XQEsmzKHk
p.s. I think I already made the point re: STALKER – this might have more in common with going to a gallery and looking at a painting. It´s called cinema but it has only limited in common with what people mostly associate with that term today. Although the variety of what is possible in this business is much narrower now in places like Cannes or Rotterdam we still encounter this artistic liberty.
For this reason French director Robert Bresson in his “Notes” once I believe e.g. made the clear distinction that film was not deriving from theatre and the novel but poetry and painting. That has of course major ramifications…
Surely he meant his films.
Of course as Kael said taste is the great divider (sex the great leveler). She also said that she preferred the term movie to film because–as we amateurs who sometimes dabble with a camera know–movies must move. Paintings don’t.
Most films are based on novels or fiction with lesser numbers taken from plays. That’s because films share the novelist’s interest in “life itself.” Life is not a painting either even though many of the latter tried to tell stories.
The Russians had a great visual tradition and important silent film artists like Eisenstein. Personally though I don’t think that’s the be all end all of film/movies. And I’ve seen a lot of them.
‘…His “wife”, unable to deal with the fact that she is some sort of facsimile…’
Yes, at least the replicants in “Blade Runner” have actual memories, albeit implanted ones. The Solaris memory constructs are based on somebody else’s memories of them and apparently don’t have any of their own, even fake. Both are the victims of a monstrous existential hoax, but the Solaris constructs’ situation is the worse.
Yes, memory, and above all, the evanescence of memory. Haunting, the repeated appearance and inevitable disappearances. Last time I saw Solaris was at least a decade ago, but occasionally the images recur.
1968 CCCP Solyaris / Солярис, with English subtitles
And here’s commentary on how Soviet sci-fi films were received in the U.S.:
s
The scene in which the reincarnated Hari studies Bruegel’s The Hunters in the Snow is extraordinary.