Slashdot Mirror
Solaris: Another View
Fundamentally, it's about a man (George Clooney) mourning about his suicide wife (Natascha McElhone, best known from the incomparably better Ronin). The science fiction is there only to provide a mirror for Clooney's moping about his lost love. It could have been done with drugs, dreams, insanity, spirits, reincarnation, or any number of other conceits (and in other movies, it has been done, with all of those), but Solaris does it with a huge sentient planet capable of reading minds and reforming matter at subatomic levels. What does this stupendous cosmic power do? Create replicas of whoever the people on the nearby space station dream about. Like Clooney's dead wife.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The Jedi Knight and the light saber will definitely get the can, and get it open in a jiffy. But the contents are a mess. And one never seems to have a light saber around when one needs one. Much less a light saber attached to a willing Jedi Knight -- "Follow our mandate from the Jedi Council, we must! Mmmm!"
Like the light saber and the soup can, Solaris the sentient planet mostly just gets in the way of the real substance of the film. Solaris the planet looks pretty on the screen, but so does iTunes when you turn on the visualizations -- they've got about the same level of emotional content. We need clumsy faux-jargon exposition: "Are you or are you not made of sub-atomic particles?" (of course -- everything is made of subatomic particles, usually organized in the form of atoms, duh) -- to even know that Solaris the planet has anything to do with what is going on.
Comparisons with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey are as inevitable as they are inaccurate. Both films are set in space. And both films have a slow pace, driven largely by beautifully shot scenes of some space-scape. But that's the extent of the similarity. If this is Soderbergh's tribute to Kubrick, it falls short. Thematically, they have little to do with each other. Kubrick's long space shots establish tone and realism for a film shot before the Apollo moon walks. They are always placed to make a point relevant to the plot, whether it is the mind-numbing isolation of a long space journey or a parallel between the first bone weapons of proto-humans and the incomparably more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction of the near future. Soderbergh's long space shots show off some very pretty particle system effects and convince us, over and over again, that, despite all indications to the contrary, this film is taking place in a Strange Place.
What interesting shots Soderbergh does come up with tend to be film-studenty tricks like a dream-like tracking shot that suggests that there might be more than one replica of a particular character. Of course, by the point we start seeing these kinds of shots, we've already seen multiple replicas of the same character come and go. And he never goes anywhere with it. Even the supposedly trick ending is as obvious as the end of The Sixth Sense ("I see dead people" -- well, duh, we can see what the end is right there). Soderbergh brings this loaded gun on stage and never really fires it. The science fiction conceit of this super-powerful planet never goes anywhere.
Which just brings us back to the fact that this isn't really a science fiction movie. It's a character study. Unfortunately, I don't think Clooney's a good enough actor to really pull that off. He's got tremendous charisma and screen presence. But he doesn't do emotional depth well, and when he does, it either comes across as lust (the problem with his role in Out of Sight) or as bad melodrama (which is his problem here). The other actors are decent -- Jeremy Davies is good in a truly neurotic and twitchy role, but saying Jeremy Davies is good at playing neurotic is like saying that Jack Nicholson is good at playing crazy macho -- they can sleep through the role and still do it. McElhone is suitably cryptic, but again, it's something she does well. Viola Davis strikes me as perhaps the best of the lot, but I'm unfamiliar with her work, so she may be similarly snoozing through the role.
Soderbergh started his film career with a bit of sexual obsession, in the highly-regarded sex, lies, and videotape (yes, the title is all in lowercase -- never seen a satisfactory explanation for that little bit of conceit either). In the end, Solaris comes across much the same. Clooney sees McElhone on a train, they play a little eye footsie, and end up going to the same party at the home of a mutual friend. Breathy lines and bare butts soon ensue. Eventually, McElhone kills herself over a misunderstanding (Clooney walks out in a snit and she thinks he's not coming back). This is barely sexual obsession, and more like a pretentious drama student trying to redo the tragedies of Shakespeare. It just isn't compelling, and Clooney getting emotional distraught over it was silly (the New York audience I was with broke out into laughter -- maybe that's just New York cynicism, but I don't think so).
So in the end, what are we left with? Some pretty pictures of a purple planet. George Clooney's angst-ridden mug. A "trick" ending that is broadcast throughout the movie. And a conceit somewhat larger than a fully grown blue whale, lying in the middle of the movie doing nothing.
I wanted to like it, really I did. Soderbergh has done better, and we sure can use better directors on science fiction films than we usually get. Alas, this ain't it.
Slashdot welcomes reader-submitted features and reviews. Thanks to nellardo for this one!
I don't think LOTR had as many posts about it. What is the big deal with this film?
As any time I see something over advertised and the salesman yelling "Please, please, just take a look, oh PLEASE take a look, I BEG YOU", I run the other way, and FAST.
Subliminal advertising? OSDN invested in the film? Someone knows someone, and is trying to "help" spread the word? Whatever the case, it is too much hype for me.
It's turned me off. Sort of like when you see the same commercial 10 times in an hour TV show. It is usually the last time I buy that product (if I ever did).
He does take shots that pay homage to the 2001 movie. Albeit, like you say, he doesn't do a quality job of them. Like the shots where he in his suit, and they have a close up of his helmet. The lighting and pretty much everything in that scene matches up with another scene in 2001.
:-)
Other than that though, I was quite disappointed with this movie. Esp. considering I was waiting for it to come out. The book Solaris is far better than the movie. I just found the movie was trying to hit on far too many points to successfully get any one particular one well.
There is a discussion of the existance and substance of God throughout the movie (with Solaris being a "God-like" entity)
There is a question of nihilism that slides through, but really isn't hit upon well.
There are "Star Trek"-like scenes, where all of a sudden a buch of techno-babble is spouted that solves everything and advances the plot.
But overall, he seems to be trying to discuss the existance of love, and what love is... Personally, I feel he failed miserably, or his definition of love is quite shallow.
The book Solaris, written by Lem, a French author (Thus, you'd need to be able to read French or find a translation to read it.) is a good book, and I recommend that it is worth reading.
The movie on the other hand... Well... like the review says...
~ kjrose
sigh. looking at it from a sci fi perspective you're going to be disappointed. the sci fi element is just a vehicle for the philosophical questions the movie raises (and then doesn't really answer, leaving me pretty confused at the end as to the point.)
the film was an interesting "journey", but not one with a very defined destination. i don't think it needs to get rocked as badly as it has in these slashdot reviews
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
The criticism of the premise could as well apply to Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and every other episode of Star Trek. In fact, the characters explicitly question why Solaris would be doing what it is doing, why if it has such capabilities it didn't just destroy the space station or choose some other way to engage the characters. They are eventually left with the conclusion that there may not be an answer that they can understand, though they continue to struggle for understanding. That process of trying to understand is exactly the human dilemma that the film as art is trying to explore.
The role was a gutsy move for George Clooney and the subject matter itself was not the kind of thing someone would expect from a major director who is undoubtedly under pressure from the studios to provide the world with action-packed blockbusters. If you enjoy movies such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Being There" in which the subject matter and pacing is more about intellectual and artistic achievement than maximizing profits, you will enjoy this movie.
I think the reviewer entirely missed the point and recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thoughtful, provocative films.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The best Science Fiction, IMO, puts the familiar against a backdrop of the strange. How can we possibly understand the motivations of a planetary intelligence with this cosmic power? Maybe it's Solaris' idea of an experiment, or perhaps entertainment of some sort. I suppose our pets wonder why we use our cosmic powers to eat celery or watch TV. No, our pets are more sensible than amateur movie reviewers and don't bother to wonder at things they can't understand.
What is happening here is strange in the extreme and is just a given. What's interesting is how the characters deal with it.
Gee, maybe it's both a science fiction movie AND a character study? Are they necessarily mutually exclusive? What's the problem? Not the requisite lack of depth in the characters for a science fiction movie?
now, any seti grinder would tell you that one of the most intriguing aspects of space exploration is the possibility of encountering beings totally Other than ourselves. the book and the tarkovsky film ask whether we can really understand anyone or anything. it goes without saying that kelvin and the others have failed to understand and communicate with solaris. moreover, kelvin has failed to understand his wife in either incarnation. because he has failed in that most basic task, he loses his own moorings. in this sense, the psychological bits are absolutely central to the science fiction.
perhaps this sort of philosophical science fiction has more in common with other genres than more familiar science fiction tends to have. even if that's true, that's not a bad thing. how many times can you watch star wars? (which is just a recycled western anyway?)
nor does it mean that it's unlike other science fiction. look at 2001. in some way, all of the stories deal with human encounters with the non-human. there's a nietzschean thread running through 2001, but there's also a pessimism about the encounter with the Other. kubrick seems to be saying that when we do have that first encounter, we'll deal with it in the same way we deal with everything else: we'll send bureaucrats. in essense, kubrick is still operating in the satirical mode, and that is what makes 2001 most different from solaris.
Look, it's a YANSR -- Yet Another Negative Solaris Review. How is this 'another view', exactly? The first Solaris-related story (a few months ago) concluded that 'it'll probably suck'. The recent review proclaimed that 'it sucks' (in so many words), and now this 'new perspective' reveals that -- whoa there -- it _really_ sucks.
I mean, come on. Soderbergh guilty of being a film student (I guess I'll have to boycott Taxi Driver and Raging Bull from now on)? A 'trick' ending (I'd love to hear an explanation of what was so 'tricky' about it)? A cynical, jaded New York audience not giving George 'what a plebeian' Clooney the benifit of the doubt (SHOCK!! HORROR!!!)?
Granted, the movie does have some very real faults (hint: it's not the 'conceit somewhat larger than a fully grown blue whale'. God, that's the worst fucking simile I've ever had the misfortune to chance upon). Sadly however, none of them are addressed in this 'new review'. On the other hand, it _is_ so terrifically 'biting', 'cutting' and 'cynical' in that wonderful New York way we all know and love -- I should think that alone places it a cut above the sort of review that attempts to honestly 'discuss' the 'content' of the 'movie at hand'.
Perhaps 'Solaris bashing' should be added to the list of Slashdot topics. I can see it now:
Step 1: Bash Solaris
Step 2: Bash Solaris some more
Step 3: Profit!!
or maybe even
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Solaris bashes YOU!
P.S.
For a far more balanced (if not uncritical) perspective, you might try
the Salon review
It's wrong for women to feel offended if someone says "his", but it's equally fucking stupid for you to be offended that someone wrote "her".
If it's no big deal, why did you feel the need to post? There's nothing politically correct about using the feminine gender, just as their is nothing politically incorrect about male gender. The poster didn't make any sort of political statement, and (ironically enough) it wouldn't have occured to anyone if you hadn't pointed out that, proper English be damned, the male gender is the one you prefer.
So, take some solace, friend: you're both morons.
Incidentally, I'll agree that the PC and Solaris just shouldn't go together.
Apparently Neuromancer has a Sci-Fi setting but isn't Sci-Fi, because it makes use of a lot of philosophy. Apparently Stranger in a Strange Land isn't Sci-Fi either. Or Ender's Game. Or anything by Phil K. Dick. Or anything by Harlan Ellison. I mean, these aren't sci-fi...they aren't nonstop space battles and good-vs-evil. They're complex character and philosophy driven material. So I guess they're just not sci-fi, huh?
Truth is, Star Wars isn't even Sci-Fi by the general definition; it's a space opera. Sci-fi (with the exception of the original Gernsbackian stuff) has almost always had some degree of philosophy and exploration of the persona. So Solaris isn't Star Wars. Big deal.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
and it's for this very reason that i won't touch the new one.
andrei tarkovsky was an amazing, one-of-a-kind director. it makes me absolutely sick to see yet ANOTHER great foreign film being remade like this. they did it to "insomnia", too, which features the remarkable stellan skaarsgaard. it's one of my favorite movies, alongside many of the films of andrei tarkovsky and krzystof kieslowski. the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point. christ, robin williams is cast as the "villian"! i won't spoil the movie by saying why this is completely untrue to the original, but if anyone else here sees it/has seen it, you will hopefully understand what i'm getting at.
is it so hard for the average american to watch subtitles? is the reading ability of the average citizen so low that they can't quickly read a line of text, and still pay attention to what's going on in a film?
y'know, i'm sure soderbergh's intent was probably just to put out his own take on the original novel..but i can't help but feel it's just "another one". another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american. it really sucks to see films that i love essentially being reduced to just a watered down copy.
after working for a video store for 2 years, though, i'm not surprised. true to "clerks", most customers pick out the most intellectually devoid movies out there: "ooh, double jeopardy! ooh, the santa clause!" pff.
nonsensical
Not only that, it's just plain WRONG.
Fundamentally, it's about a man mourning about his suicide wife
No; it's not. The film is about IDENTITY. How we perceive ourselves and others. The vehicle is their relationship.
Anybody who missed that shouldn't be writing a review. Then again, I'm not surprised; most of the people in the theater were too distracted by what they thought the movie was about (ooh! Clooney!).
Don't get me wrong, this movie isn't great, but the concept is interesting. It requires a bit of thought OUTSIDE what's on the celluloid. People, I've discovered, are wholly incapable of that.
Sorry for the rant, I am.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
You are correct, but basically to make an accurate portrayal of the book would be extremely long and probably boring. This movie does the right thing - it focuses on one aspect of the book, and hints at the rest. If it did too much, it would surely lose focus.
I haven't seen this new version of Solaris, so excuse me for being somewhat off-topic. Why is it that 'Americans' automaticly use 'art house', to describe somthing that isn't Hollywood gloss?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Basically, this review tells us that the author expected something different from what he got. Perhaps he had the wrong expectations? Of course, this might also be due to the way the move is being marketed... It also seems like he couldn't imagine Soderbergh as a sci-fi director and went into it trying to see how Soderbergh failed. I haven't seen it yet, but this review certainly won't dissuade me.