Comments on: SOLARIS d: Andrei Tarkovsky

By: aleke

aleke — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:56:57 +0000

Your persistent characterization of Tarkovsky's set choices and some scenes as low-budget quality for it's own sake is misguided. Tarkovsky has talked at length in many interviews about his dislike of sleek environments in sci fi, he deemed it dishonest and not useful. Even the shot of Tokyo was purposefully made contemporary, not futuristic.

By: russ board

russ board — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:14:50 +0000

error: as per the DVD “Solaris – Criterion Collection” DVD released in 2002, the woman who watches the archival solaris film with burton and the kelvin clan is clearly described as kris kelvin's aunt, not his mother as written by schneider in an otherwise keen and insightful analysis.

By: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:33:40 +0000

Just watched the scenes and your quotes- excluding the ellipses, are correct. However, the imbuement is on the part of commenter Petrie. Watching Snaut's movements, it's not at all clear that he had a hand in her demise, and the emphasis on them- by Snaut, and in Russian- seems to impy an otherness, i.e.- the ocean. Sans the comment, and your mention of an earlier scene, nothing leads us to believe that the duo did in Hari.
One of the reasons I tend to find commentaries troublesome is for the fact of imbuement. This is a relatively minor case, but in relistening and esp. rewatching, my money says Snaut merely knows Hari is gone, not that he had a hand in it.
Bad point made by Petrie, and thanks for the clarification.

By: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:03:14 +0000

As for why she may have returned top Solaris, it is made clear that the ocean is sort of psychically sending the 'replicants', or whatever you call them, so her need to be annihilated seems a bit overkill since she might, simpatico w the ocean, simply be willed out of existence at any moment. Thus, stranding Hari #1 also seems an elaborate way to get rid of her.

By: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:01:14 +0000

Well, I'll accept your persistence in dictating the convo and comment, but your transcription still leaves it unclear. Perhaps because the book leaves it open I was not moved to accept wholeheartedly your version of her demise. Suffice to say, I still think it's an imbuement, either way.
However, the means of her demise is not as important as the demise/exit stage left.
As for this vs. 2001, I think 2001 has less 'fat', but both are leagues above other sci fi films in depictions of tueu aliens.
It's interesting, but while I get much bile and vituperation for reviews i do of poems or lit, those of film tend to bring out nitpickers and semanticists, such as my not caring about a minor detail deemed important, or the like.
I guess film, with its visuals leaves a deeper psychic impression. Interesting.

By: Winang

Winang — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:17:36 +0000

Dan, sorry to be nitpicky here, but I still think it is strongly suggested that she was destroyed by the Annihilator. I am referring to the DVD "Solaris – Criterion Collection" released in 2002, with commentary by Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie. Please carefully consider my comments below and see if you still disagree.

Below are direct subtitle quotes from the DVD.

First, there was a scene mentioning the construction of the annihilator:

Snaut: Kris, we're running out of time. Sartorius has proposed another project: the annihilator. Self-destruction of the neutrino systems.

Kris: What is this? Blackmail?

Later on, Kris awakens to find that Hari is gone, and Snaut walks into the room and hands a letter to Kris. The following dialogue ensues:

Kris: Where's Hari? What's that?

Snaut: There is no more Hari. (Reading the letter from Hari aloud) "Kris, it's terrible that I had to deceive you, but there was no other way. This is best for both of us. I asked them myself. You mustn't blame anyone.–Hari." She did it for you.

Kris: Snaut, listen.

Snaut: Later, Kris. Calm down.

Kris: How… how did it…

Snaut: The annihilator? A burst of light and wind.

The commentary to the DVD stated: "As Snaut begins to read Hari's letter to Kris, we found out that she no longer existed… Her elimination comes as a shock, both to Kris and to the viewer, since we witnessed a moving reconciliation after Hari's last suicide attempt. Why would Kris now attempt to explain her desire for self-annihilation, with the assistance it appears, of Snaut and Sartorius, by saying that they've not been getting along recently?"

Although it is not crystal clear that she was annihilated by the machine created by Sartorius, the casual viewer will naturally draw that conclusion. This is not "imbuing" on my part.

The only issue I have with your review was that this strong possibility was not mentioned at all, but you have instead chosen to say that she "perhaps returned to Solaris". I think this is misleading to readers. The desire of self-annihilation is certainly a very different kind of emotion than "returning home". It implies many things, that she experienced pain in her relationship, that the cycle of suicide (as with the real Hari) is again repeated. It suggests many different layers of interpretation which is one of the attractions of the film.

But I want to say that I completely agree with your conclusion that "Art is about ideas in motion, ideas put into the service of communication, and as such, Solaris succeeds about as well as any other film that's ever appeared onscreen"

This movie moved me both emotionally and intellectually, and I personally think it is better than 2001: A Space Odyssey, although many people would disagree.

By: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:49:00 +0000

Not in the film I watched, and even the commentary says that it is unclear as to whay she is gone. This is deliberately left unclear. You can argue with the choice for the lack of finality, but that does not mean it is not. Again, as many people do with art, you are imbuing. She may have been destroyed, but there is no evidence for it. In the Clooney version she may have been destroyed but it's been too long. I don't believe she's destroyed in the book either. Solaris may have simply reclaimed her.

By: Winang

Winang — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:16:59 +0000

The second Hari replica did not "leave, perhaps back to Solaris" as you said. It was made clear in the movie that she was subjected to the "annihilator" that the scientists created. This was also clear in her letter that she left to Kris, where she said that Kris should not blame the people who are involved in her destruction (meaning the scientists; the creators of the annihilator), since it is what she had wished. If I remember correctly, in the 2002 film version by Soderbergh, the replica also suffers the same fate. I am surprised that you made this error…