• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solaris (1972)

Cordelier

Cordelier

18th Earl of Diddly
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
5,290
Location
Driving on the Parkway/Parking on the Driveway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Has anyone watched Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris? I've watched it a few times now, and I still feel like I haven't completely wrapped my head around it. I've heard it characterized as the Soviet version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but as great a movie 2001 was, I don't think the comparison does Tarkovsky's work justice. This movie haunts me.... it's so intricate and fill with deeper layers of meaning that every time I watch it, I see something new. Even when I'm not watching it... just out of the blue, some realization or hidden meaning of a scene that I thought was mundane will pop into my head, and change the deeper meaning of the movie in yet another subtle way.

So I figured I'd start this thread to see if anyone else has seen this masterpiece and possibly see if we can unravel one or two of it's hidden secrets. Hopefully then I can stop thinking about the damn thing so much. *L*
 
Cordelier said:
Has anyone watched Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris? I've watched it a few times now, and I still feel like I haven't completely wrapped my head around it. I've heard it characterized as the Soviet version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but as great a movie 2001 was, I don't think the comparison does Tarkovsky's work justice. This movie haunts me.... it's so intricate and fill with deeper layers of meaning that every time I watch it, I see something new. Even when I'm not watching it... just out of the blue, some realization or hidden meaning of a scene that I thought was mundane will pop into my head, and change the deeper meaning of the movie in yet another subtle way.

So I figured I'd start this thread to see if anyone else has seen this masterpiece and possibly see if we can unravel one or two of it's hidden secrets. Hopefully then I can stop thinking about the damn thing so much. *L*
Click to expand...

The way you describe it is actually how I feel about 2001. So maybe I need to give Solaris a try.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The way you describe it is actually how I feel about 2001. So maybe I need to give Solaris a try.
Click to expand...

If you liked 2001, you'll definitely like Solaris.... just steer clear of the 2002 Steven Soderbergh remake with George Clooney... it's a pale shadow of the 1972 movie.

Don't say I didn't warn you though.... this one will haunt your mind.
 
Cordelier said:
If you liked 2001, you'll definitely like Solaris.... just steer clear of the 2002 Steven Soderbergh remake with George Clooney... it's a pale shadow of the 1972 movie.

Don't say I didn't warn you though.... this one will haunt your mind.
Click to expand...

That's my favorite kind. :)
 
Skeptic Bob said:
That's my favorite kind. :)
Click to expand...

*LOL* I was thinking when I gave you that warning... it mirrors a scene early in the movie where Berton tries to warn Kris what to expect when he gets to Solaris and getting pretty much the same answer you just gave me.
 
Cordelier said:
Has anyone watched Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris? I've watched it a few times now, and I still feel like I haven't completely wrapped my head around it. I've heard it characterized as the Soviet version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but as great a movie 2001 was, I don't think the comparison does Tarkovsky's work justice. This movie haunts me.... it's so intricate and fill with deeper layers of meaning that every time I watch it, I see something new. Even when I'm not watching it... just out of the blue, some realization or hidden meaning of a scene that I thought was mundane will pop into my head, and change the deeper meaning of the movie in yet another subtle way.

So I figured I'd start this thread to see if anyone else has seen this masterpiece and possibly see if we can unravel one or two of it's hidden secrets. Hopefully then I can stop thinking about the damn thing so much. *L*
Click to expand...

Ive had it on DVD for years. I didnt think there was much of a secret to it- the plot is very surreal, as in an intelligent planet that can make your dreams/nightmares come through. I can just imagine millions of people with all sorts of mental hangups emigrating to it lol. If you liked it you ought to try Tarkovsky's other movie Stalker too.
 
PoS said:
Ive had it on DVD for years. I didnt think there was much of a secret to it- the plot is very surreal, as in an intelligent planet that can make your dreams/nightmares come through. I can just imagine millions of people with all sorts of mental hangups emigrating to it lol. If you liked it you ought to try Tarkovsky's other movie Stalker too.
Click to expand...

I've got to say I'm disappointed PoS.... as our resident author, I figured you of all people in here would have the keenest eye for the finer points of plot detail. :) Like the scene with Berton's car trip... what do you figure that was about?

I haven't seen Stalker yet.... It's definitely on my "to do" list though - I'll watch it this week sometime if you want to talk it over.
 
Read the book Solaris! That is, if you like 'thinking books'

The author didn't like the movie all that much and I tend to trust the author.
 
Mr Person said:
Read the book Solaris! That is, if you like 'thinking books'

The author didn't like the movie all that much and I tend to trust the author.
Click to expand...

*L* I don't think Lem liked too many things that weren't entirely of his own creation... I don't blame him, though - can you name me an author who ever gave a movie adaption of one his works a 100% endorsement?

The way I figure it... the book was a masterpiece, and the movie was a masterpiece - either of them can stand on their own merits. I just figured I'd get more people to actually talk about the movie than the book.
 
Cordelier said:
*L* I don't think Lem liked too many things that weren't entirely of his own creation... I don't blame him, though - can you name me an author who ever gave a movie adaption of one his works a 100% endorsement?

The way I figure it... the book was a masterpiece, and the movie was a masterpiece - either of them can stand on their own merits. I just figured I'd get more people to actually talk about the movie than the book.
Click to expand...

I think his books are generally going to be harder to translate to the screen than most, but if people like them..
 
Mr Person said:
I think his books are generally going to be harder to translate to the screen than most, but if people like them..
Click to expand...

They're harder to translate, period. But they're worth the effort.... Lem was truly a genius.

But so was Tarkovsky... they were both masters of their own art. Just because one took a work from the other and added his own spin on it doesn't take away from the fact that what we're left is a masterpiece that stands on it's own merits. I look at the movie as collaboration of two geniuses.
 
Cordelier said:
They're harder to translate, period. But they're worth the effort.... Lem was truly a genius.

But so was Tarkovsky... they were both masters of their own art. Just because one took a work from the other and added his own spin on it doesn't take away from the fact that what we're left is a masterpiece that stands on it's own merits. I look at the movie as collaboration of two geniuses.
Click to expand...

Well, it's more the so philosophical or quasi-philosophical musings that won't translate, unless one stuffs the movie with narrated monologues. His Master's Voice would probably be the hardest of the lot.

In the same way, only a fraction of Douglas Adams's comedy translates. They can do the absurdist plot, but they don't get all his hilarious paragraph or page-long asides that fill the books.




Well, I do have Netflix. Maybe I'll put it on the list.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, it's more the so philosophical or quasi-philosophical musings that won't translate, unless one stuffs the movie with narrated monologues. His Master's Voice would probably be the hardest of the lot.

In the same way, only a fraction of Douglas Adams's comedy translates. They can do the absurdist plot, but they don't get all his hilarious paragraph or page-long asides that fill the books.




Well, I do have Netflix. Maybe I'll put it on the list.
Click to expand...

Not being an author myself, I figure it's a mistake for any film Director to slavishly follow a book when adapting it to film. Even if you found a book where that was possible, to do so would leave little to no room for the Director's own artistic input. No matter how great the book, the film itself would be a complete hack job. That's why you'll never see a good film version of Dune, no matter how many times they try. A truly great Director takes a book as a starting point and then makes the work his own. Of course, the very nature of that creative process is bound to offend the Author... but when it does, I see the author as being a kind of "empty nest" parent.... the kids you created and raised aren't your's alone anymore - now they belong to the world. They're going to go out and find their own way - even if it isn't what you had planned for them.

Sure... give it a go whenever you find the time - I think it'd be interesting to discuss it with you.
 
Cordelier said:
I've got to say I'm disappointed PoS.... as our resident author, I figured you of all people in here would have the keenest eye for the finer points of plot detail. :) Like the scene with Berton's car trip... what do you figure that was about?
Click to expand...
LOL there's nothing subtle about that scene. Tarkovsky filmed it in Japan simply because he thought Tokyo was a futuristic city at that time compared to the USSR and the film was based in a future timeline.

Mr Person said:
Read the book Solaris! That is, if you like 'thinking books'

The author didn't like the movie all that much and I tend to trust the author.
Click to expand...

Lem didnt like the way Tarkovsky put in the love story and made it about Kelvin instead of Solaris. Lem always wrote about how aliens are so alien that they were incomprehensible to human perception.
 
Last edited:
Cordelier said:
Has anyone watched Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris? I've watched it a few times now, and I still feel like I haven't completely wrapped my head around it. I've heard it characterized as the Soviet version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but as great a movie 2001 was, I don't think the comparison does Tarkovsky's work justice. This movie haunts me.... it's so intricate and fill with deeper layers of meaning that every time I watch it, I see something new. Even when I'm not watching it... just out of the blue, some realization or hidden meaning of a scene that I thought was mundane will pop into my head, and change the deeper meaning of the movie in yet another subtle way.

So I figured I'd start this thread to see if anyone else has seen this masterpiece and possibly see if we can unravel one or two of it's hidden secrets. Hopefully then I can stop thinking about the damn thing so much. *L*
Click to expand...

I've seen it twice and I didn't get it whatsoever. I also thought 2001 was an overwrought piece of poop, and I adore Stanley Kubrick's work.
 
I get the idea to make 2001 less sterile, but creepy and borderline horror in a quest to explore scientific ethics is not that.
 
PoS said:
LOL there's nothing subtle about that scene. Tarkovsky filmed it in Japan simply because he thought Tokyo was a futuristic city at that time compared to the USSR and the film was based in a future timeline.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the setting, though... I was talking about the scene as it played into the plot. This is from a Director that was so meticulous that there was a back story and hidden meaning to every painting on the wall. Yet he devotes an entire scene to a secondary figure just driving a car through a "futuristic" city. Didn't you ever wonder what the heck it was about? Why did he pack up a whole film crew and fly to Tokyo and chew up what had to have been a big part of his budget for a scene that seemingly adds nothing to the film? What was the significance of Berton's drive? I know I sure did the first time I watched it.... What the hell was that about? Until I eventually figured it out - this is one of the things that hit me out of the blue that I talked about in my OP. Here's a hint - It wasn't about the city... and it wasn't even about Berton. And that's just one scene... if you look at the movie closely and pay attention to the details, there are stories inside of stories going on there through the whole movie.

PoS said:
Lem didnt like the way Tarkovsky put in the love story and made it about Kelvin instead of Solaris. Lem always wrote about how aliens are so alien that they were incomprehensible to human perception.
Click to expand...

I'd say Tarkovsky accomplished Lem's theme brilliantly (even with the love story).... and here's the proof.... you didn't comprehend the significance of Berton's drive.
 
Kobie said:
I've seen it twice and I didn't get it whatsoever. I also thought 2001 was an overwrought piece of poop, and I adore Stanley Kubrick's work.
Click to expand...

I can see how you'd think that... but I look at it like modern art. You may not get it first, but if you look at it long enough and put some thought into it, it starts to reveal it's secrets.

This is nothing against you, Kobie, so please don't take it that way....I think Hollywood has made us lazy in our viewing habits... especially in the last quarter century or so. We get spoon-fed story lines that are about an inch deep spiced up with a bunch of glossy CGI special effects and it has gotten us to the point where we don't dig deep anymore. We just take what they show us at face value, because that's all they show us. There's nothing deeper than the crap that's on the screen whereas a movie like 2001 or Solaris has a whole story buried behind the scenes. Kubrik and Tarkovsky don't spoon-fed us anything... if we want to figure out that inner story, we have to work for it.
 
Cordelier said:
That's just one layer, though.... dig deeper - you'll find another one. Like a Matryoshka doll.
Click to expand...

The symbolism was clearly overdone. A concession to the masses in Soviet style. Look at the sets. 15 statues in a foyer? The long camera shots remind one of a daunting passage in Zhivago. I understand I suffered cultural translation, but still underwhelming. The Cliff Notes for Tolstoy was nice.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
The symbolism was clearly overdone. A concession to the masses in Soviet style. Look at the sets. 15 statues in a foyer?

The long camera shots reminded one of a daunting passage in Zhivago.

I understand I suffered cultural translation, but still underwhelming.
Click to expand...

*LOL* How many statues are in your foyer?
 
Cordelier said:
*LOL* How many statues are in your foyer?
Click to expand...

Only 6. And my dining room has but 14.


I added a note about Tolstoy in edit. Those Cliff Notes? Also a concession to the uneducated masses. That didn't add anything for those versed.
 
Last edited:
I wanna say one more thing about the Cliff Notes. It was like Schoolhouse Rock in the middle of the movie. And I'm American. How could a Russian not think, "duh, why are scientists discussing Tolstoy like they just read a short story".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom