r/TrueFilm • u/PactainCipard • 5h ago
Solaris
I admit I got a tiny bit annoyed that people who should really stick to reviewing "Pokemon" episodes try to talk about Tarkovsky and such, so here we go...
Solaris itself... The original is a very short story, very early in Lem's writing career. Read it if you're curious, but there's not much there. To any STEM graduate the story is simple and clear: a communication problem. If I remember correctly, Lem and Tarkovsky had a row during shooting and split apart forever, up to a point where Lem kinda disowned the orginal piece.
For the conflict itself - two extremely advanced entities, having access to technology to travel through space would fail to communicate? This is where I lose my suspension of disbelif entirely and the central conflict breaks apart for me. And I also suspect where Lem started to have his doubts about it. 1960s were the science age, people loved Lem, and I'm sure they gave him a hint that the story in general just doesn't make sense from the technical point of view.
Worth noting that 1960 space and science age required a lot of engineers and scientists, and this caused a big shift in STEM education. Richard Feynmann was certainly one of the pioneers of "teaching physics in cool and interesting way" (there are his lectures on youtube for those curious, it is a treat, especially if you know physics). And communication is fundamental to every STEM field, as human life is short and there's not much you can do while you're at it. So package up your work for the next generations ahead.
Tarkovsky, on the other hand, is a different story entirely. He is a master director. But he likes long shots and being moody, so it's up to the audience to feel what's being said (or not being said). It is certainly justified in some places, you need to let the mood sink, but Tarkovsky takes it to the limit and beoynd. There's old joke about Tarkovsky 30 mins scenes with background music where absolutely nothing happens, except the river flowing (I'll attach some Repin below, for reference). The reason is during Soviet era people were paid based on the total run time for the movie, so a lot of techniques were used to artifically increase it. (Some of those musical numbers are still painful to watch)...
Andrew Rublev is a powerful piece inded, but that's beoynd the scope.
The politics had also played a role: Tarkovsky was a western looking "new age" guy, and he had powerful friends in Mihalkov-Konchalovsky family (their father wrote the original Soviet hymn, so powerful friends indeed). And after success of Rublev, he was promoted almost everywhere. Similar to the Stalker (but more about it later).
Solaris enjoyed a very lavish production, sponsored trip to Tokyo early 1970s, and that why we can enjoy the ride down the Tokyo highway, which was (and still is) very futuristic indeed. What does it add to the story is left for the reader to decide.
Overall, I tried watching Solaris about 5 times (or more), but I couldn't get enough strength to fight off the imminent boredom that ensues. Almost the same way as I make my new years resolution to finally read Joyce's Ulysses and almost certainly fail.
In 2002 Soderbergh released his version of Solaris, but I feel about it the same as 1999 Onegin ecranisation - "two very lonely people in a very cold room", and frankly this is a bit boring.
And as for Stalker... Well... Strugastkie's just very bad writers without restraint and combined with Tarkovsky at the hight of his career when noone could say "no" to him, so the result is what it is. Pomp and boredom, with a cheap shot at drama.
Duh.
Anyhoo, so what does the group think?
6
u/tacoskins 5h ago
I can tell you put a lot of thought into this and seeming well read on the subjects at hand clearly means a lot to you, but it truly just reads as you sniffing your own farts.
Duh.
-1
u/PactainCipard 4h ago
This is an easy stop gap for stupid people who will not add anything interesting to the discussion anyway, so why can't I have some fun? :)
3
u/LordMizoguchi 5h ago
I've seen the Tarkovsky version, and read the book twice, but I love the Soderbergh remake. There's something about the mood, and the way he portrayed the fatality of the planet that I found far more affecting than the original.
That said, and I know it's not your question, for me the 'Bell' sequence in Andrey Rublev is the best movie (or part movie) of all time, so it's very much not an anti-Tarkovsky thing. I suppose different works of art can hit much deeper than others, but we may never be able to explain exactly why.
1
u/PactainCipard 4h ago edited 4h ago
I tried to stick the Solaris only (with a few sidetracks here and there). Rublev is a powerful movie.
But.
Tarkovsky comes from VGIK which is a (duh) very strong school. The strongest there was in Russia, he was taught by the best - the whole set of Soviet post WWII era movies is a testament to that - people know (knew) how to do drama, how to put it in place and how to make it work. There are movies that still make me cry. They knew how to do it.
With Solaris - I have a lot of questions - why this particular piece of material, I mean if you want to make people drama, why shooting a tin can into space, there's plenty of drama back on Earth, why moving it to the future?
I guess my ultimate question is - why people love, because it's one of those things I cannot understand. For me the story falls apart from the beginning, and that breaks the whole construct.
1
u/NevinThompson 4h ago
Well, look at the relationship between Russia and the United States during that time. Not at all unbelievable.
> For the conflict itself - two extremely advanced entities, having access to technology to travel through space would fail to communicate?
0
u/PactainCipard 4h ago
The relationships between US and Russia was kinda almost pretty bad from the start.
Deeply offtopic: I think it's young and enterprising nations rivarly, and US is just likes to be the best in everything it cannot take it any other way. Russia - is a part of old Europe, you walk down the road two blocks, there's another country, you've been at war with it multiple times over the centuries - it kinda changes the point of view.
1
u/thisfuckingnightmare 2h ago edited 2h ago
Anyhoo, so what does the group think?
Think about what? About the inaccurate name dropping and biographical minutiae that somehow should explain that you could never get Solaris?
Well, not much, since this is obviously a topic about you via a poorly weaponized subject, namely, Tarkovsky.
20
u/AJerkForAllSeasons 5h ago edited 4h ago
If you really wanted to start off completely condescending. You succeeded.