 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.37.240.251
I hate Clooney and I did not want to see his (and Soderbergh's) Solaris... first on my hunch, and then based on some reviews by the people I respect.But a couple of days ago it was on a cable, so I stayed with it for a while.
It was immediately obviously that the direction was getting in the way of the story. It was cutting in the flow, the flow I grew up remembering, ever since reading the novel when it came out. Seeing the Tarkovsky's film later did not produce such a consternation - it seemed to retain the general idea, the mood of the book, even though some here would argue it had "distorted" it - I do not recall any such distortion... by heart... To me the most important element in such things is the mood, which as I said was preserved... the tension, the melancholy, the insightful self-examination... the terrible mental anguish associated with "visitors" and memories... I thought it was all extremely palpable in the first version.
Much to my surprise I got caught in the story again. Quickly the poor directing stepped aside, and Clooney's wooden delivery did not matter any longer, as the story and the emotion, helped no doubt by great dose of familiarity with the work, took over.
I was surprised how fresh and piercing emotions even this botched up presentation could produce, its main achievement perhaps being in not destroying the fabric completely... the rest still popping through and grabbing the viewer.
I do wonder, however, how would this film resonate with someone not familiar with the original work? Would it simply be just another lame sci-fi movie?
One could keep commenting on this film for a long time, comparing the directing, and - extremely importantly - actors... as the distance between the two acting crews is measured in light years... but maybe all this would be like shooting fish in the barrel.
Am I mad at Soderbergh for giving us his rendition? Hardly. It was his right, and even if he did not succeed, he became the proverbial stone in the swamp - sending waves though the viewing public... short lived ones, but still, I welcome any such event.
Follow Ups:
I thought the new one was haunting. I agree with your conclusions that it missed the mark on direction and perhaps editing. Cluny was stiff. But they were trying to add tension without going too deep. I thought this new version was much more watchable than the old. I saw the old one 2342342562 years ago and then tried a couple more times to get through it without avail.The premise of the story is very inriguing but neither movie captures the spirit of the book.
The interminably overindulgent tunnel sequence in Tvarsky's, excuse me, Tarkovsky's version is snore inducing enough (one wonders if the film was originally intended as a travelogue, gone awry). But the remake, in spite of it's shorter comparative length (at least it "feels" shorter, because my wife and I were able to stay awake through it) doesn't accomplish that much more than it's predecessor by eschewing the long contemplative nature shots, tunnels and talking heads sitting around a living room trying to discuss or rather avoid discussing (I couldn't figure out which) the unusual events relating to the space flight.> > > "Seeing the Tarkovsky's film later did not produce such a consternation - it seemed to retain the general idea, the mood of the book, even though some here would argue it had "distorted" it - I do not recall any such distortion... by heart..." < < <
This isn't to take away from the author's work, but writing is a different medium; sometimes the written word doesn't translate to the film medium unless interpreted in a manner inconsistant with the author's original vision. Then again, some great works may never translate to film well.
> > > "To me the most important element in such things is the mood, which as I said was preserved... the tension, the melancholy, the insightful self-examination... the terrible mental anguish associated with "visitors" and memories... I thought it was all extremely palpable in the first version." < < <
"Mood" is an apt description of both of these Solaris films, ...but I don't mean that in a good way. Mood is all these films have to offer, no involving story per se, no grand revelation, no deep meaning; it's like watching paint dry. One verion, the original, is quite literally sleep inducing; the other, is a claustrophobic hodge-podge of uninvolving pretentiousness (Alpo masquerading as liver pate).
> > > "Would it simply be just another lame sci-fi movie?" < < <
Look, my grey poupon snorting friend, I doubt that you would know great SF fare if it came up and bit you on your Napoleonic arse, but believe me there are plenty of fine science fiction films out there for those who appreciate the genre. OTOH, one might conclude that you are just a lame viewer-reviewer; have you ever considered that, m'bucko?
AuPh
.
No.
NO!My comments were in response to Victor's poetic wax job of Solaris; we've debated the questionable merits of this film before (check the archives) and he knows exactly what I mean.
Are you sarcasm challenged (lacking sufficient irony in your diet)? Do you require a linguistical lexicon or prefer a more conventional road map? ;^)
Concerned,
AuPh
..bores the kaka out of me.
Heavy, ponderous, pretentious constipation.
That first long shot in 'Mirror' (I think it was..)where it takes 10 minutes to get to the guy on the cliff?
Yawn...
There, I've said it.
First, two caveats:
1) I've never seen Tartovsky's version;
2) I've only read the book in English, which I believe was translated from Polish, which was translated from an abridged Russian version (maybe the abridged version was in Polish or English - not sure).Anyway, when I read the book, it seemed to be something almost impossible to express in a film, especially the science and philosophy.
When I saw Soderburgh's film, despite the changes to the story, I thought it expressed well the element of the book that could be expressed in a film: heartbreak and guilt so palpable to the person that they become a physical presence.
Back to your more intelligent opinions...
Doug
Hi,
I read the book a million years ago. The idea behind it is great; and I think you are cutting both movies WAAY too much slack because of the plot.We could easily run into an alien that we could never communicate with.
It's a popular scifi theme now, but that's the first instance of it I am aware of.The problem was that this gives the plot nowhere to go. Things get weird, and then you leave. End of story.
I see the two movies as equal. The low budget costs the a point, and
mediocore execution costs the new film even more. But I wouldn't give either film 2 out of 4.There is a nice moment in the tv show Babylon 5 ( another Russian )
where G'Kar picks up an ant and says that we had as much in common with this race they had run into as the ant had with us. All we could hope for was to not get stepped on.
especially the Tarkovsky version.
The sci-fi stuff is a vehicle for probing into the human conditon, iow.
.
.
the first time one savors it but actually puzzles one long afterwards: why do I continue to dream of this not altogether pleasing experience?
The answer is the complexity and uniqueness cannot be appreciated in one "tasting" but only reveals its gifts with the patience of several or many visitations.
It's time for me to view Solaris, again. It was one of my favorite movies when I was a young guy. In fact, it was hailed as the Russian answer to 2001 and for a time I considered it far superior.
Now, off topic: you mentioned Outskirts. Which one? I imagine you mean the newer one and not the Barnet film about the villagers in WWI?
...had been in being his younger contemporary. So I was usually not mature enough to appreciate his early films as they came out.I was 12 when Ivanovo Detstvo came out... and at that age who cares about fine movies? All I remembered was some war...
Same was true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Andrey Rublev. Solaris was different, as it fell on a soil ready for it, and the Mirror in 1975 was perfect - the juices were brewing at that time full bore! The discussions about that one were everywhere, in our department a day would hardly pass without some heated debates between the intellectual cognoscente's and the more grounded people, who all wanted clear explanation of who was who in each shot. The cognoscente's mostly smiled, of course...
I had to revisit most of his work later, to fully appreciate the depth of them. I have not seen Ivan in many years, though, so I should definitely take another look at that one.
Here is the Outskirts I was talking about - the 2003 film
asd
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
