Question about 'Solaris'

[TaylorTRoom]

The movie(s) sounds interesting. Which one should I see- the original Euro one, or the US version with Clooney (Soderbergh)? Is the Soderbergh a remake of the Euro, or an original adaptation of the Lem novel? Is the Euro version dubbed or subtitled? I can fight through the subtitles, but if the American version is good, and not lacking something from the foreign versio, I'd prefer it.

Given that the US version can be rented for $4, and the Euro is a Criterion release, if the US version is nearly as good, or better, I'd go for it. What are y'all's thoughts? Any help is appreciated.

 

[wolfman]

I started watching the original Soviet version once which was subtitled in English and thought that it was horrible. I couldnt watch half of it. It had nothing to do with it being in another language. It was just a boring movie to me.

 

[austintex]

I've only seen the Clooney version. I thought it was interesting. Definitely a cerebral flick, so if you enjoy that sort of thing and don't mind a slower pace you'll enjoy Solaris. It also has a good/unusual soundtrack.

 

[buckhorn]

Tarkovsky is, in my opinion, a clear genius. Solaris is one of his more popular films, but not because it is more mainstream. Cerebral is an accurate descriptor, as is deliberate. My friends that are particularly fond of the orginal are also fond of Jarmusch and Wenders, whose films usually seem to hover around non-events (I like them both in my own way, but they are not favs). I prefer the original but I never read the Lem novel, so for me the Tarkovsky version carries some of the weight of originality that might properly be assigned to the literary effort. I didn't find the Soderbergh version added anything important to the mix and it lacked some of the potent stillness of the original. That said, I don't know that I would necessarily recommend one over the other (I can't imagine that Soderbergh, being the film school guy that he is, did not lean heavily on Tarkovsky even if he did perhaps also resurrect lost aspects of the book). The special effects in the newer version are better, though the special effects are not really central in either and the low-tech effort in the original works well in that context.

Bottom line: not a movie I often recommend in either version.

I prefer Andrei Rublov and Ivan's Childhood where Tarkovsky is concerned, though that is not really germane here.

 

[TaylorTRoom]

OK, I'm a tightwad, and I was able to DVR the Tarkovsky version, and I've started watching (in spurts). Serendipitously, for other reasons I have been reading about David Hume (Scottish philosopher) as well. Hume's big idea, and it was new at the time, was that quality of info, or certainty of reality, comes in degrees. He speculates about whether we know anything is real, and that we are certainly more sure of things we sense than things we derive from conclusions. Anyway, this deconstructs classical philosophy and gives us the building blocks for modern philosophy.

Solaris seems to be a response (rebuttal? critique?) to Hume in some ways. I gather that the film is about the nature of reality and knowledge, using Hume's concepts. Anybody agree or disagree?

 

[stanhin]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[boon]

i prefer the original. i'll admit clooney bugs me.

i think what makes a movie great, like all art, is that there are many things you can take away from it, and like a shifting kaleidoscope, various aspects that appear when looking at the film from different perspectives. (on a side note, i think this is the genius of truly great art, and i think the artist is not wholly concious of all the facets of their work. They are able to show things and arrange things in a way that produces a kind of iridesence, but that is way off topic.)

anyhow, my point is, there are a lot of things you can take away from this movie, and the mistake some people make is that they lock themselves into thinking there is only one correct view, only one interpretation. But this is like thinking that light is white, whereas the prism shows us it is in fact made of an infinite spectrum of colors.

i'm running out of time. some things - our minds are sponges, and everything we take in cannot be destroyed. it may be forgotten and we may try to suppress things, but all of our experiences affect us every second in unconcious ways. also, communication and the nature of reality as you mentioned.

last thing - if you liked it, try "Stalker". Settle in though, it is long and very slow going.