Customer Reviews

Solaris (Criterion)

5 star:		(47)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

A frequent theme in science fiction is that humans have become so dehumanized in their devotion to technology that they have lost touch of their emotional capacities. In SOLARIS, the 1972 film by the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, this theme is given an unusually personal and emotional treatment. It is about an unhappy man who travels to space and finds the emotional closure and the spiritual enlightenment that he lacked on Earth. It has often been compared to Stanley Kubrick's cryptic 1968 film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. But while 2001 emphasizes the sterility and uncontrollability of science, SOLARIS deals mainly with the fragileness and preciousness of the human spirit. Unlike 2001, which ponders the vastness and infiniteness of space, Tarkovsky's film probes the opposite direction and reveals the inner dimensions of the human mind. The success of Tarkovsky's SOLARIS is that it offers a stark depiction of human emotions via the simplest and most austere means. Tarkovsky rarely uses fancy editing or elaborate camera angles, and prefers long takes and slow camera movements. Dialogs are softly spoken. He always chooses the least assuming way to present a scene. Such a style, of course, does not endear him to those who prefer a more dynamic and vibrant type of cinema. But one should note that perhaps the subtleties of human emotions demand subtler ways of filmmaking, which, in turn, demand our closer observations.

Criterion's all-region, 2-disc DVD version of SOLARIS offers a beautiful video transfer, the original Russian soundtrack in 1.0 mono, re-written optional English subtitles, and rewarding extra material. The anamorphic 2.35:1 video transfer was created from a 35mm positive made from the original negative. This is a newer, different transfer from the ones on previous DVD versions by other companies. Subtitles have also been re-written and, as is usually the case with Criterion DVDs, improved, with less paraphrasing and fewer untranslated dialogs compared to older video releases.

The first disc contains the 169-minute film in its entirety and a full-length audio commentary by two Tarkovsky experts, Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie. The scene-specific commentary provides good coverage of a variety of topics concerning the film, such as Tarkovsky's artistic style and thematic explorations, various contributions from the filmmakers, certain details about the making of the film, how the film deviates from the original novel by Stanislaw Lem, and aspects of Tarkovsky's personal life. But the strength of the commentary is its analyses of the film's characters, themes, and Tarkovsky's direction. And due to the length of the film, the commentators have ample time to allow sufficient elaboration on every thesis, making this audio track one of the more satisfying analytical commentaries I've heard. Major issues such as mortality, faith, and humanity, as well as minor observations regarding gestures, background noises, and other allusions are dealt with in great depth and competence. One fascinating comment regarding Tarkovsky's use of long takes is that it dilutes any sense of suspense that editing usually contributes, the result being a more immersive and meditative atmosphere.

The second disc contains almost half hour of deleted scenes and about 100 minutes of new interviews with the film's principals.

Most of the deleted scenes seem to conform to our expectations as to why scenes were deleted in a movie like this -- they are too explicit about things that are better left unexplained. The deleted opening sequence, for instance, is a didactic text prologue that is so out of character with the subtle approach of the rest of the movie. The deleted dream scene of Kris and his mother depicts their relationship more explicitly, thus lessening the dream-like quality of the scene. The most fascinating deleted scene is an expanded version of the scene of Kris in the "mirror room," in which the various reflections of the mirror reflect Kris' fragmented and fragile mental state.

The interview segments include a half-hour interview with Natalya Bondarchuk, who plays Hari. She recalls how she met Tarkovsky, how she was cast (with a little trickery on her part), her experiences on the set, analyzes the character of Hari, and praises the unique meditative style of Tarkovsky. In another half-hour interview, cinematographer Vadim Yusov talks about the many visual motifs in the film, how the special effect shots of Solaris were created, and even talks about his work on Tarkovsky's previous film ANDREI RUBLEV (a few clips also included). In a 17-minute interview segment, art director Mikhail Romadin discusses his various intentions in designing the sets for SOLARIS. Both Yusov and Romadin also mention Tarkovsky's strongly negative reaction to Kubrick's 2001 and Lem's insistence that the film should adhere to his book. Composer Eduard Artemyev, in his 20-minute interview segment, describes his background on electronic music that first attracted Tarkovsky, and recalls the challenges of translating Tarkovsky's unique demands into music.

Finally, there is disappointingly brief, 5-minute video clip of a Polish documentary about Lem and his struggle with Tarkovsky. The only thing relevant is Lem's only remark in the clip: "Finally I said [to Tarkovsky and his crew], 'You idiots!' I tried to soften him up a little. But he was stubborn, and so was I. So I ended up returning to Warsaw." There must be a lot more to the disagreement between the two men, but we get the picture. (I also posted an expanded version of this review at Epinions.com, under the account kevyip.)

Though it suffers from a maudlin and morbid fascination with negative emotions, Solaris is a tremendous achievement. The achievement is in the extreme physical beauty of the film itself and the challenging intelligence of the ideas raised but not always explored. At issue is nothing less than the nature of humanity. Is a human defined by its conciousness, its memories, its emotions, its senses, its history, its origin, its desire to live or some combination of all or some of those traits. Be forewarned, the film is extremely slow and deliberate & its lacks any real plot. We americans tend to like our movies with plots. It many cultures, the ideas are more important than the plots but in America the plot is generally more important than the ideas. Consequently, idea driven movies like Solaris are seen as dull and boring because there is no forward momentum. Here in America, it is considered acceptable to respond to movies like Solaris by saying, "I don't watch movies to think. If I want to think, I'll read a book." This is what happens when you raise millions of people on television and fast food.

I was dissappointed that the sound track to the new Criterion edition of Solaris is not balanced, making it impossible to hear all the elements in the sound track comfortably.

The movie begins in a rural setting where the camera focuses on a variety of spaces in the environment. To hear the sounds of the natural environment, and the Bach music added for mood enhancement, I needed to turn up the volume on my t.v. to full capacity. Then, when the dialogue starts, I needed to turn down the volume to 45% capacity to avoid the blare.
If I leave the t.v. set at a comfortable volume to listen to the dialogue, what am I missing from the other elements in the sound track?

I've watched this dvd edition a few times and a couple of scenes appear to have missing frames or skips(skips might be due to my dvd player).

By comparison, I own a Fox/Lorber vhs cassette edition that I use as a reference for this movie and none of what I describe above is present in that edition. The picture resolution is not as good, but I could argue that the colours seem less flat, more vital on the vhs edition.

This transfer is Criterion's second of the same movie(I have not seen the first) and, in my opinion, serves notice that they are not infallible.

Tarkovsky's interpretation of S. Lem's novel on a far-off planet inhabited by a sole sentient being in the form of an ocean is both intellectually stimulating and moving. It depicts how a psychologist tries to find explanations for the strange suicide of his friend and mentor on Solaris' station. After decades of attempting to communicate with the ocean, humans are faced with a being whose means of communication have a destabilizing effects on them. Longer and more detailed than the Soderbergh version, Tarkovsky's exploration requires patience and a greater sense of wonder.

Although the two DVD set is well presented, accessing its additional documentary material is needlessly complex.

Think will not lie if say that it's one of the best (if not the best Tarkovsky movie). As a director he have very unusual vision of things.
He can show you a scene of ten minutes, where only rain falls and you will watch it as charmed, cause there is smth in it, but it's almost impossible to understand what.

The biggest difference between Solaris of Tarkovsky (1972 year) and Solaris of Soderbergh (2002 year) is that in first one the movie is more about person and a planet, about feeling of simple human being. In Solaris from 2002 the film is more about relationship between man and woman (and according to book it was not the main line in the book of Stanislav Lem)

Solaris of Tarkovsky was, is and always will be one of the best russian movie's, cause this film is rightfully is Classic of Russian Cinematography. And 5 stars is even too low for this film.

I had all the reasons to dread this movie. After all, *everyone* has already praised it, it is a movie of my favourite sub-genre (not just science-fiction, but "hard" science-fiction, of which 2001:ASO is the acknowledged flagship), it is routinely called "the Russian answer to 2001", it is made by a director who is acknowledged widely as a master (Andrei Tarkovski), and so I was afraid of getting dissapointed. It couldn't be as good as I imagined, right ?

Wrong. Very wrong. Solyaris *is* a masterpiece, although the resemblance to 2001:ASO fades away after a deeper appraisal. It definitively stands alone. I am not sure which one I like most (Solyaris currently rests third on my top 20 while 2001:ASO is fourth), but this should not influence one's appreciation of Solyaris.

Solyaris is about many things : the limits of science and unrelentlessness, our tendancy to reduce everything in our own terms and being unable to open ourselves to the different, free will, guilt, and perhaps personal identity, and love, too. With such wonderful setting and material (notably in the form of the book "Solaris", by Stanislaw Lem), we would ask for nothing less. But when Tarkovsky does it, well, it's even better. But it's a movie made in his style : and if you don't have the attention span to watch a movie that lasts three hours, too bad. But you're missing out.

How, then, to describe the plot ? Because I have to try. The human race is now united and exploring space, but it falls upon an epinous problem : Solaris, a planet whose mysteries remain intact after dozens of years of study. Not only is it composed only of one all-encompassing Ocean, but this Ocean may be sentient. At any rate, the three remaining occupants of the Solaris station are going insane, and cold-hearted psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is dispatched on a mission upon which the fate of the station, the study of Solaris, and perhaps even Solaris itself, depend. But as Kelvin uncovers the true nature of the madness that strikes the stranded scientists, his mission takes second place to his own psychological turmoil.

I'm afraid that's as far as I will tell you, but that's already a half-hour. Solyaris is a three-hour visual fest. It has minimal special effects (with the notable exception of Solaris itself), and minimal music, in keeping with Tarkosky's style. They are not missed, of course. The acting is competent, when needed (as in 2001:ASO, there isn't a lot of it, but there is a lot more dialogue). The script, direction and visuals are sublime.

This movie has been praised as Christian, and Tarkovsky himself was a Christian mystic, although he was more of a mystic than a Christian. I have seen it twice already and I can testify there is not one trace of religion in Solyaris (not that his Communist masters would have allowed such anyway). There is a resurrection, however, but to associate it with Jesus would be hackeyned at best.

There is also not a lot of technology. In fact, we only see the station for a few seconds, and we don't even see Kelvin's capsule (except in the deleted scene). This is on purpose. Tarkovsky is not a science-fiction director, and only liked the story for its psychological aspects, not its technological aspects (indeed, according to biographies, viewing 2001:ASO cemented his idea of going away from a special effects fest and into the kind of movies he liked to make). He was forced by Lem to make a movie that stayed closer to the original story, and thus we got the best of both worlds.

If you like science-fiction, especially hard science-fiction, you would be the king not to see this movie.

'Solaris' is a great movie that has, in my opinion, been overlooked in the mainstream as a milestone epic in the SciFi genre. If you're not a fan of the genre, however, do not allow the SciFi label to scare you away. 'Solaris' draws on many other genres as well, including drama, mystery, and psychological thriller, to create a movie that is more philosophical in nature than your run-of-the-mill scifi flick. Although slow paced and long, the style is very suited to the movie, and you're left knowing that every moment was necessary. If you're looking for a guilty pleasure movie that allows you to sit back and rest your mind, then save 'Solaris' for another night; this is the type of movie that will have you thinking about it while watching it and long after you've turned off the DVD player.
It is also important to note the quality and bonus features of this particular edition. I've viewed another, earlier, DVD of this, but it lacked both of the aforementioned extras that you'll find here.

if you only had the chance to wacht Solaris on video before (in my case on a non original, low quality video), then you really haven't seen this picture, or any other Tarkovsky picture, for that matter. i rest my case simply in the first image imediatly after the opening credits. there's no point for me to try to explain what i mean, i suggest you just wacht it and then you'll "feel" what i mean. i won't even mention the expectacular bonus material that the criterion collection has compilled. don't miss also the other tarkovsky film in the version release by criterion, Andrei Rublev

Solaris is sheer brilliance in every meaning of the word.
Stop feeding on drivel and watch this artistic masterpiece.
Your mind will thank you for it.

This magnum opus of metaphysical proportions is only strengthened in appreciation by the catastrophe of Steven Soderbergh's Hollywood puny attempt at a remake. It just goes to show that talent is a gift and not something that can be developed by throwing money at it.

No one, no director, no production team, could handle the subject of Stanislaw Lem's incredible novel except for Tarkovsky who is a shining example of a director who has enough emotional clout inside of him to bring the unfilmable to the screen. There is very little doubt that the man is a vessel of questions and has spent much solitary time pondering over them. Solaris is the eventual produce of a mind that has interrogated itself right down to the very last atomic particle.

2001 by Kubrick had an amazing impact on Tarkovsky's vision and gave him the inspiration to put together this sci-fi under Soviet rule with a miniscule production budget to work from. It is like a kid in Africa building a home computer in the recesses of some unknown jungle outpost. The objectives are colossal, almost unobtainable, but the will is there and the payoff is on the screen.

The premise is not simple. A planet called Solaris is being studied by a tracking space station. On board the orbital there are problems as the crew experience abnormal psychological conditions. Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis), a psychiatrist, is sent to the space station to find out what is going on. There he encounters ghostly phenomena where thoughts and dreams appear to realize themselves into reality as a direct result of Solaris's impact on human beings. He finds himself confronted with his dead wife and many philosophical questions rupture the core of his very existence. The shock twist ending only deepens the metaphysical quarry that Tarkovsky has unearthed here.

Unmissable.