September 8, 2003
-
Rented 'Solaris' last night. Watched it then, and then watched it with the commentary tonight.
I haven't read the novel, but I've seen the Tartovsky version once. Once isn't enough, and I'll probably rent it soon.
The point being, it's really good. It takes a lot of cues from Tartovsky without being a ripoff, and with pacing for a modern audience. It has huge, looming ambiguities and in some sections is downright opaque, and this is just absolutely fine with me.
So here come the SPOILERS.
One of the things I like about really good movies is that they prompt me to do a remix in my head. So if it was my job to polish 'Solaris,' I would have done the following:
Mostly, I'd have made Solaris (the planet) more ambiguous, except in one important way: The audience would understand that each crew member faced not only some part of themselves, but that they had the opportunity to befriend and embrace it. The realist woman, for instance, didn't need to fear and destroy her demons (whatever they were). She could have done the spiritual work necessary to find peace with it.
Because for me, that's the central theme of the story: Spiritual work. Kelvin has to come to terms with the truth that what he wants most is something that it's unhealthy for him to want. He has to find something else to want, even as the situation keeps handing him an easy solution.
What's interesting about the story is that it's a sort of rorchark test, not only for the viewer, but for the teller of the tale, as well. Soderberg chooses to latch on to the relationship aspect, whereas I'd latch on to the every-moment-can-bring-you-heaven aspect. Two radically different interpretations of the same basic story.
In this way, it's a mythic tale.
I hope we get more thinky movies from Soderberg, rather than caper flicks.
Comments (4)
Soderbergh CAN be a great director if he wants to - I absolutely LOVE The Limey - but I didn't want to see his version of Solaris. What's the point? Tarkovski already made a brilliant version of the book; why do it again for American audiences?
I hate that! Keep your paws off the classics is what I say.
watched this just a few days ago as well. Now I'm really interested in reading the book; it feels like the movie was only able to touch certain areas that a book would do a much better job of expanding. Have you read it? Any impressions?
I haven't seen it yet ... why do you suppose people disliked it?
I don't think people disliked it, so much as it wasn't what they were expecting. It's a romantic space adventue starring George Clooney, right? Wrong. It's an abstract, opaque, point for meditation on the meaning of existence. Starring George Clooney.
Comments are closed.