Starting from this premise, it is worth noting that, although a priori it may seem that the film is based on Stanisław Lem's novel of the same name, the truth is that Tarkovsky simply uses it as a starting point for a philosophical meditation. The Russian filmmaker obviates any scientific inquiry and basis in order to invite the viewer to meditate on the human condition by taking advantage of the moral debate about the epistemological price of many scientific advances. The latter, for example, is reflected when we are repeatedly told that solaristics is a nostalgic science, a dead end, because scientific rationality fails to make its way in the face of new ontological frontiers.
Returning to the plot, at first, the primary idea that one concludes is that Kelvin, a dogmatic, skeptical and supposedly undaunted psychologist, will travel to the remote planet to impose order on the abandoned space station. However, despite showing a suspicious character and insisting on showing a rigid idiosyncrasy sparing in words, we soon see his human side, since, he is seduced by the recreation of his ex-wife, who died of poisoning a decade ago. It is at this point that a whole range of opinions opens up about what visitors are and how they should be treated. However, Tarkovsky plays his cards very well, balancing the plot like a tightrope walker between philosophy and metaphysics, and instead of positioning the plot towards one of the cosmonauts, he shows us how a communicative crisis is opening up between them, an open wound already well known since the beginnings of philosophy and that, even with technological advances, continues to cause many headaches for great thinkers.
The good thing about this film:
• The dialogues, that is to say, the script, has a very solid previous meditation that is perfectly seen in the film.
• The photography, even though it lacks great special effects, is very neat and conveys exactly what Tarkovsky wanted to say, nothing more, nothing less.
Downsides of this film:
• This is a rather long film, and while this in itself is not a negative point, this film requires two viewings.
• The lack of scientific data can cause a huge hole in the context if one has not read the book.
• The photography is quite confusing and the chromatic choice is very ambiguous. It's hard to determine what the director wanted to convey with the use of black and white, orange, etc., the first time around. I mean, it's a somewhat frequent resource in this film, however, from the time he uses it until it appears again, the plot has moved on quite a bit and it's hard to relate the events to determine the meaning of said color. Therefore, in my opinion, it requires a second viewing.
In short, Kubrick raised his head and set his perfectionist sights on the stars and the cosmos and conquered the universe with his magnanimous 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, Tarkovsky, plausibly and elegantly, managed to stop the Odyssey with this film, showing the hidden face of science. He takes advantage of the perspective that Kubrick's cold work does not contemplate, the human side, to ridicule also how insignificant we are within the infinite chaos we call universe.
A unique and cerebral film, with beautiful visuals, and an intricate plot, about self-discovery and existentialism.
A little slow and long but a very interesting sci-fi. Took me a while to figure out what exactly was going on but once I got it I really started to dig the movie.
I managed to appreciate it much more on my second watch. I was totally captured by the dialogue and the long takes, but be aware that it's quite boring in the beginning. A true science fiction classic that explores the nature of humanity.
We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror. We struggle to make contact, but we'll never achieve it. We are in a ridiculous predicament of man pursuing a goal that he fears and that he really does not need. Man needs man!
The original title of the film is Solyaris.
Mankind needs idealism – in the greater sense of the word. Yet, like vampires, when reflected, they disappear.
2001: A Space Odyssey meets Twin Peaks season 3. If you think that's a compliment you'll love Solaris. I think it's a strong recipe for boredom and pretencious nonsense.
I felt every second of this. It took 44 minutes and a 5 minute scene of just traffic before we finally get to space and I was happy for a second but then it's right back to the turtle pacing. There might be a great story hidden in there if you glue all the character interactions and story bits together but all the silences, slow talking, unimpressive visuals and slooowwwnesss in between ruins everything. It just couldn't keep my interest most of the time and never really earned it either.
The dialogue is well-written and profound but the character interactions are so weird, off, slow, like a fever dream. Ugly visuals whenever they show the water but the inside sets are nice and I like the variety of color and black and white filters they used. Good performances. Ok score. Incredibly long. Nice metaphor to the metaphorical metaphor there at the end.
Watch here: https://youtu.be/Z8ZhQPaw4rE?si=oPJROzs9b2WSt1vA
When scientists aboard an orbiting research station begin to lose their wits and drop off the grid, a psychologist is sent hurtling through the cosmos to seek answers. He discovers the vessel almost completely abandoned and manages only fleeting contact with the high-strung survivors, then sees and interacts with a vision of his long-dead wife. Convincing hallucinations seem to be a common trend here, believed to be an unorthodox method of communication for the sentient ocean on the planet far below, but the depths of its knowledge and the purpose behind its entreaties remain shroud in mystery.
I’ll normally go in for cerebral sci-fi, particularly films that deal with the unstable nature of human perception. Ghost in the Shell considers similar themes in a different context, and that’s one of my all-time favorites. It doesn’t move fast, but I’m never left wanting. Solaris, by contrast, bored me to sleep on three separate occasions. I think my biggest objection, besides the grueling pace, is how much metaphorical air is left in the room. There’s just one central question, left to linger throughout, and then a mild conceptual tickle at the very end. It offers a near-total lack of variety or plot progression. What atmosphere exists is left oppressively bare, bleak and sterile. God, it’s dull. Hopelessly, smotheringly dull.
Sometimes long, well-crafted films can feel much shorter than their run time. Alternately, a densely-packed short film will sometimes feel much bigger than its duration. Both circumstances can be attractive, if properly managed. This is a long film that feels like it runs for a century. It dwells, stares and deliberates for nearly three hours, poring over the same single, open question without interruption, then offers next to no resolution. Not my idea of a good time. Not at all.
One of the worst movies ever made in God's green earth. Death is better than this movie.
Yeah this ain't it chief, think I'll go watch the Star Wars Holiday Special instead.
The only thing left for me is to wait. I don't know what for.
Shout by AitorBlockedParent2019-03-17T01:21:00Z
A beautiful film with a background as human as vertiginous. The themes addressed in this film are philosophical, although the film is considered as science fiction. On the other hand, the essence of Tarkovsky is evident, as in "Stalker".
I would pay and give my life to be in Solaris and thus reach the highest level of emotional maturity.