There are many reasons for admiring and appreciating “Solaris”, but it is an imperfect work.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky ("Andrei Rublev") hated comparisons between his "Solaris" and Stanley Kubrick´s "2001", which he considered to be "cold". Ironically, "Solaris" is often thought of as a rather distant film, too, and the term "the Soviet ´2001´" has stuck to Tarkovsky´s space opus. The film won a Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival, but it is not universally considered a masterpiece.
Based on Polish novelist Stanislaw Lem´s novel of the same title, "Solaris" begins with a lengthy passage set on Earth, where Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) prepares for a voyage to the Solaris space station. The station, in orbit around a planet entirely covered with liquids, has been a constant source of problems--reports that ghosts, phantoms, and hallucinations have been driving the station´s scientists to distraction (and to madness) necessitate sending Kelvin, a psychologist, to determine whether or not the Solaris station should be terminated. Once at the station, Kelvin finds only 2 remaining crew members, Snaut (Yuri Yarvet) and Sartorius (Anatoly Solonitsyn). As disheveled and in disrepair as the station itself, Snaut and Sartorius act with both hostility and fear when they see Kelvin. Kelvin soon encounters what the others have been seeing--physical manifestations of other humans. Kelvin´s own phantom is Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk), his wife who committed suicide many years earlier.
"Solaris" polarizes viewers due to a number of factors. It is rather enigmatic, raising more questions than answers. To some viewers, the pacing could be described as poetic, but to others, the pacing is dull and deadening. Tarkovsky uses many single-camera pans and tracking shots that give the film its sense of stillness. It is also contemplative to the point of being an interior piece rather than an accessible work, despite the use of widescreen photography and epic-sized sets.
Why did Tarkovsky think that "2001" was "cold" while his own space station movie was not? The answer may be found in the movie´s second act. At its core, "Solaris" is a love story despite its philosophical musings about mankind and the nature of existence. Hari´s re-appearance in Kelvin´s life seems to give him the opportunity to correct something that has plagued his conscience. Kelvin has a chance to love again, and this second chance provides enough feeling for Tarkovsky to consider "Solaris" a "humanistic" piece. However, I wonder--if Kelvin really loves the Solaris-created Hari, then does he love the real Hari (the one who killed herself back on Earth)?
"Solaris" reminded me of Jean-Luc Godard´s "Alphaville", yet another science fiction movie made with a limited budget. Lacking funds to create costly props and costumes, directors Tarkovsky and Godard used common, every-day objects as a way of expressing alienation (the common as the unfamiliar). However, I´m not a big fan of this approach to science fiction--they simply don´t work for me. For example, there is a sequence in "Solaris" in which cameras move through some streets in Japan. Why is this sequence in the movie? It does nothing except to pad the running time. If Tarkovsky wanted to say something about the failings of technology with his scenes of cars in traffic...well, he makes that point in a more coherent fashion elsewhere in the movie.
Tarkovsky once said that his movies should be seen more than once in order to be fully appreciated. Personally, I don´t agree with Tarkovsky´s opinion. I think that people revisit great works of art because they want to re-live the enjoyment--be it intellectual or mirthful--that they gleaned from the original experience. To demand that viewers watch his movies again and again reveals a bit of arrogance on Tarkovsky´s part--especially since "Solaris" is the kind of movie that can be absorbed only when you´re "in the mood" for it. (To be fair, second and third viewings of "Solaris" do yield details that hint at the potentially horrifying nature of life influenced by the Solaris planet.) Also, I would argue that the movie is simpler than it seems/wants to be. Yes, the narrative threads that Tarkovsky shares with his audience can be interpreted in many ways, but going over and over an open-ended movie ultimately brings you no closer to solid conclusions. Finally, at 167 minutes, "Solaris" is much longer than necessary. Tarkovsky´s points are well-made long before the end of each important sequence, and the first third of the movie devotes too much time to exposition that explains nothing anyway. "Solaris" offers breathtaking sights, but it´s not necessarily the kind of thing that comes to mind when someone says, "Let´s watch a movie for a good time."
Video:
The restored 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen image looks very good considering the film´s origins (1970´s Soviet Union). On DVD, "Solaris" offers many rich hues even given the fact that some fading has occurred. You´ll be pleasantly surprised by the level of detail if you´ve only seen "Solaris" on VHS tape, and the DVD manages to re-create the film´s picture depth for the most part. Generally, the print looks pretty clean and sharp, though there are still a couple of scratches and hairs left on the negative. Some blacks are not as dark and deep as they should be, but that´s a minor cause for complaints.
Average user rating (1-5):
Not yet rated.
Not yet rated.
[release]10677[/release]