# Solyaris (1972) and Solaris (2002)



## Tabitha (Jun 23, 2002)

*Solaris 2002*

Anyone else excited about this film?

I know next to nothing about it, what I have read from its IMDB ENTRY gives little away in the form of storyline, but I can't wait to see it.

Directed by Stephen Soderberg, produced(?) by James Cameron, starring George CLooney.
Roll on December!

You can view it's teaser (and when I say teaser, I _mean_ teaser) trailer at the apple website, http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/solaris/medium.html

I believe it might be a remake?  Anyone got any further info?


----------



## Tabitha (Jun 25, 2002)

Harry Knowles offers us up some speculation and information from Aintitcool:


> Monday, June 24, 2002
> Regarding the titanic pairing of Cameron and Soderberg on SOLARIS
> 
> Hey folks, Harry here... With the release of the SOLARIS tease and the upfront promotion of the teaming of Academy Award winners Steven Soderberg and James Cameron, I was curious about Cameron's involvement so I contacted a 100 ft tall boy floating on the surface of Solaris' ocean to see what I could find out.
> ...


----------



## Dave (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: Solaris 2002*



> _Originally posted by Tabitha _
> *I believe it might be a remake?  Anyone got any further info? *



The novel 'Solaris' was originally made into a film in the Soviet Union in 1972. That version was directed by Andrei Tarkovsky from the adaptation by Tarkovsky and Fridrikh Gorenshtein.

I've not read or seen either, so I don't know anything except that it is about a mission to a oceanic planet, a waterworld called Solaris, with which contact has been lost.


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 23, 2002)

Here's a fansite up and running already:

http://www.k26.com/solaris/About_Solaris/welcome_with_layers.htm

It has info about the Tartovsky version also.  Some nice pics made by the site author.


----------



## Dave (Jul 29, 2002)

*Solaris Launches Early* 

Steven Soderbergh's SF movie Solaris will get an early launch date of Nov. 27, Variety reported. The Fox space movie, a remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's classic 1972 Russian-language SF movie of the same name, wrapped principal photography three weeks ago and had been set for a Dec. 13 release date. Like Tarkovsky's film, Soderbergh's Solaris is based on Polish author Stanislaw Lem's SF novel.

The date shift places Solaris, starring George Clooney, two weeks ahead of Star Trek: Nemesis, which opens on Dec. 13, the trade paper reported.


----------



## Dave (Aug 10, 2002)

*Cameron Previews Solaris*

SCIFI WIRE -- James Cameron, producer of Steven Soderbergh's upcoming SF remake film Solaris, screened a first-ever look at the unconventional movie, which stars George Clooney, to an audience at Comic-Con International in San Diego. The clip, which ran more than five minutes, depicted a spacesuited Clooney following a trail of blood through a deserted stainless steel space station, entering what looks like a refrigerated morgue and opening a couple of body bags.

Audience reaction to the moody clip was muted, but Cameron told the crowd that he agreed to the project because it was "too intriguing a possibility to pass up to see what Steven would do with that material. ... He's done something I think is pretty phenomenal."

Soderbergh (Ocean's Eleven) is helming the remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's classic 1972 Russian-language SF movie of the same name, based on Polish author Stanislaw Lem's SF novel. Clooney plays a psychologist who arrives on the troubled space station Prometheus, which is orbiting the planet Solaris, and encounters mysterious phenomena. Cameron said that Soderbergh has "made a film where you go to the edge of the known universe and confront yourself." Solaris, which also stars Natascha McElhone, is slated to open Nov. 27.


----------



## Tabitha (Dec 21, 2002)

This is now out in the US - to mixed reviews I believe.  After all the broohaha (how do you spell that anyway?) over Clooney's bare bum and the certificate, I think audiences were underwhelmed by what was actually on screen.

All I have seen of it so far I have really liked, and I think it gets a UK release in January, so I will definitely be off to see it then.

Any US ascifiers seen it and care to comment?


----------



## Amun Ra (Feb 18, 2003)

*Solaris*

Solaris (2002) 

IMDb

George Clooney ....  Kelvin 
Natascha McElhone ....  Rheya 
Viola Davis  ....  Gordon 
Jeremy Davies ....  Snow 


Plot Summary

Upon arrival at the space station orbiting a world called Solaris a psychologist discovers that the commander of an expedition to the planet has died mysteriously. Other strange events soon start happening as well, such as the appearance of old acquaintances of the crew, including some who are dead.

Review

This has been stuck on my Hard drive for weeks now and i've been put off watching it because it has been called hard work. On the Contrary, I couldnt take my eyes or attention off it for a second, it had me glued. In a sense, its a cross between '2001' and 'Sphere'. I  wont give anything away apart from that it was a real head twist and I'd recommend it to anyone.


----------



## Tabitha (Feb 18, 2003)

This one isn't hitting the UK till next week, I have been looking forward to it for months and months.  Glad to hear you enjoyed it.


----------



## Status (Dec 19, 2003)

Just watched this on VHS and was captivated by it. Had some really great acting in it but you couldn't take your eyes off of it for  a minute or you would get lost (which happened to me a time or two making me rewind and play parts of it again).


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 5, 2004)

*Solaris*

Anyone seen this? Kind of slipped past me. One moment I was watching out for it - next I'm seeing the DVD on the shelves. 

Anyone watched the film?


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 9, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

No, I haven't seen the one I suppose you mean. I did see the earlier Russian version by Tarkovsky and was quite taken by the story. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has seen both versions as to how they measure up.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 10, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

_Both_ versions? I'm having trouble enough finding a report on just the one!


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 12, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

Here is a good link on the Tarkovsky version: http://www.filmref.com/directors/dirpages/tarkovsky.html#solaris


This is a report on the recent re-make: http://digiverse.net/vectormatrix/archives/00000054.htm

I hope that helps. I haven't seen the newer one, so I can't really comment on it myself.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 12, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

I haven't seen either of these but there's an old B movie called Journey To The Seventh Planet and, apparently, the plot to Solaris is almost identical to this one.

I quite liked it and it had quite a touching ending (for a B movie that is).


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 13, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

BTW, the movie(s) are based on the novel of the same name by Stanislaw Lem, a Russian SF author.

This link includes Lem's own views on the more recent version: http://www.cyberiad.info/english/kiosk/kiosk.htm#solstation


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 17, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*



			
				knivesout said:
			
		

> BTW, the movie(s) are based on the novel of the same name by Stanislaw Lem, a Russian SF author.
> 
> This link includes Lem's own views on the more recent version: http://www.cyberiad.info/english/kiosk/kiosk.htm#solstation


I thought Stanislaw Lem was actually Polish.

Also he was more of a psychological writer. It was just because his books were set in the future that he ened up in the niche market of sci fi.

What would have happened if Geroge Orwell's 1984 was in the sci fi section?


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 17, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

He was Polish, sorry. I must have got mixed up because the original film was made in Russia.

As for your question - personally, I don't think a good SF collection is complete without Orwell's 1984 or for that matter Huxley's Brave New World, so perhaps that answers the question from my perspective. 

There are many works that are not seen as part of the pulp-derived SF genre, but are still an important aspect of the larger picture of the genre.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 17, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

I agree with you about that it's just for some reason teachers tend to think, my teachers anyway.. , that sci fi is a waste of time I suppose. More along the lines of comic books.

As for the first version I read that Stanislaw Lem did not like it. I wonder how the new one with George Clooney stacks up against the book. 

A friend of mine gave it to me as a present. She didn't like that it had George Clooney's picture on the cover. It was the only one available.

Now if only they asked us to read these things when I was in school. I would have enjoyed it more than Pip's inadequacies towards women in "Great Expectations".


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 17, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

I always assumed that "1984" was classified as science fiction.  Just me, I guess.


----------



## mac1 (Jan 18, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*



			
				knivesout said:
			
		

> No, I haven't seen the one I suppose you mean. I did see the earlier Russian version by Tarkovsky and was quite taken by the story. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has seen both versions as to how they measure up.


I've seen both versions. I was sure I did a comparison of the two on here ages ago, but I may be wrong as I searched and couldn't find it. Heres my lowdown:-

I personally, perceived the russian original (Solyaris) to be wisely directed in a Kubrickesque brooding manner which effectively portrayed the loneliness of space, and much more significantly the psychological damage that removing our terran species from its rural home could have. In my opinion, this emphasis was criminally underplayed in the remake as Solaris, to the unfortunate detriment of both the film's direction and its plot. The american remake, though a good film in itself, made no attempt to make such statements. In it, the characters delusions were not infact caused primarily by the lonliness of space, but by a chemical present in the planet they were in orbit of. The look of the two films was drastically different too, Solyaris was filmed in 1973 (i believe?!?) meaning everything in it was a set, and what sets they were. Huge metal structures, somewhat akin to the later Alien films, combined with decour also not dissimiar to that seen in 2001: A Space Odessey, a film with which Solyaris draws many parallells. Solaris on the other hand, was sadly, basically a typically american remake. While still retaining the relatively avant-guarde nature of the original, the message is sadly lost the point of its message, be it through the decision to cut a two-and-a-half hour film down to an hour-and-a-half, or simply through bad direction, in my eyes, that is the sad reality.

There you go Brian, hope that helps a little. 

Anyway, I would get hold of both, but watch the Russian film first


----------



## SDNess (Jan 18, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

Hmm...I'll have to check those out. 

Amazon.com reviewers called it "a literary scifi movie..."
Sweet.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 18, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

The Russian version sounds very interesting.


----------



## Shiola (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: Solaris*

I saw Solaris a while ago.  I enjoyed it but blown if I could tell you the story - which is just as well considering you don't want me to spoil it for you.  I remember bits of it.  Quite slow but in a nice relaxing way.  George was good.  I'm going to have to watch it again now!

 (I'm sure 1984 was considered sci-fi in it's day).


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 2, 2005)

Please put all your thoughts, ideas, rants/raves, literary gesticulations here


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Apr 2, 2005)

Which version of Solaris is it to be btw? (not sure how faithful the remake is to the original)


----------



## ravenus (Apr 3, 2005)

My original request was for the Soderbergh version but it'd be great to include comment on the Tarkovski film too, but FIRST OFF...

Soderbergh's film is NOT a remake of the Tarkovski film. Both are adaptations of Polish author Stanislav Tem's book of the same name, and from what I hear Soderbergh's film is more faithful to the concerns and tone of the book.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 3, 2005)

Yes, Soderbergh's version was the one. Sorry. I should have made that clear.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 3, 2005)

After watching this movie for the first time, I sit here pondering its meaning.

First of all: George Clooney. I'm not too keen on him as an actor but consider this movie to be one of his finest moments. He surprised me big time with his portayal of the guilt ridden psychologist (or is that psychiatrist?).
Beautifully shot and the planet Solaris would make a great sort of Lava Lamp/Plasma Globe for any modern living room  

As to the story: not so much a Science Fiction Movie as a mirror of the Human Condition that happens to be set in space. A love story? A story of redemption and second chances? Probably a bit of both. The planet itself? God? A mindless force endlessly reproducing scenarios from our past? Either way it's got me thinking. I enjoyed it but definitely feel that I need to watch it again.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 3, 2005)

For those who have not seen the film, this post may contain SPOILERS proceed at your own risk:




I don't think that Solaris is a mindless force because it's not just replaying a situation...it's reconstructing an entire fascimile of a human from another person's memory which can actively interact with the person.

The simulacrum has all the memories and the emotional patterns of the human it imitates, it thinks and feels like the human it imitates but...VERY IMPORTANTLY...is self-aware. Aware of itself being a simulacrum and having feelings about that...which lead to the suicide attempt it makes (useless of course but its actions are governed by its human form)

I see Solaris as a divine force, something like a minor God with a sphere of influence, possibly though not necessarily a predatory one.

But what matters in the end is not Solaris, which is again relegated to the background, but Kelvin, who knows that what he is going into is an illusion, but chooses to go into it, because he prefers it to a reality that of loneliness and despair. This is a brilliant anti-heroic way to end the story.

Foxbat, as I see it, this is an Sf film in the same vein that PK Dick's books are SF books...they are eventually about the human condition.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 3, 2005)

> they are eventually about the human condition.



Very true. What I meant was that the setting itself was incidental.



> it thinks and feels like the human it imitates but...VERY IMPORTANTLY...is self-aware. Aware of itself being a simulacrum and having feelings about that...


 
Yes. This is a very important part. But it is also worth noting that the simulacrum are not _immediately_ aware that they are constructs - also, at one point Kelvin's wife disputes the fact that she actually has to be a slave to the tendancies imposed upon her by Kelvin's memories. This leads to an important question in itself given that level of independance - Does Kelvin have the right to deny them existance?

For me, Solaris is like a painter's palette and Kelvin's subconscious chooses which colours to spread on the canvas - and in that sense, I see Solaris as a force rather than an entity.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 4, 2005)

A point that occurred to me concerning the ending: my take on it is that the ship has been destroyed by the expansion and what we are seeing is the final construct of Kelvin's subconscious. If this is the case, then every thing looks fine on the surface, but the viewer has no indication that anything outside this final scene actually exists for the constructs. If this is the case, are the two lovers meant to act out an existance in this fashion ad-infinitum? In other words, less the act of intelligence, more the result of a force acting upon the Kelvin's final thoughts. 

Yes. I definitely need to watch this one again


----------



## ravenus (Apr 4, 2005)

I didn't get the last point you made. Are you saying that what we see happens to Kelvin is not necessarily what happens to him? Are you saying that he does not actually make a choice?


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 4, 2005)

I think that it was not a conscious choice. One minute the station is being engulfed and the next he is back in his apartment (which is obviously a construct). The real question is could he survive the station being swallowed (almost like an Ameoba)? Is the Kelvin in the final scene really him or a construct made from his last subconscious moments of life? 

At least, I think that's what I mean


----------



## ravenus (Apr 4, 2005)

For what purpose? Consider here that the simulacrums never were earlier in an environment other than the ship. A mindless force would have never bothered to make itself believable to the crewmen in their environment. Their illusions would have been haywire all over the place if just randomly grabbed from their memories.

I believe that Kelvin chooses the illusion which then envelops him wholly. What happens to him in reality is not a concern, because he is lost to reality; that is the power of Solaris.

How about if you relate it to a vampire that can make all manner if illusion but cannot enter your house (in this case mind) unless you invite him to?


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 5, 2005)

> I believe that Kelvin chooses the illusion which then envelops him wholly. What happens to him in reality is not a concern, because he is lost to reality; that is the power of Solaris.


You may well be correct - but that does not indicate to me any kind of intelligence behind Solaris - merely a power which Kelvin(unwittingly/unconsciously) harnesses. It may not be an entity that makes itself believable to the occupants, but it might be their minds interpreting a power in the same way that Morbius's Monster From The id came from himself in Forbidden Planet. 

I like the vampire analogy


----------



## stencyl (May 25, 2005)

I'm bumping this discussion late. I hope that is okay.

I thought that this was a great film. I agree that it was not and action-packed sci-fi flick, but I think that the way that it works as a meditation on the Human Condition (as was earlier pointed out) is essential how it works as sci-fi. Lem's novel makes a point of illustrating the way that mankind carries that "humanity" into the unknown (i.e. space) as a sort of security blanket and a reference point for understanding through science as Solaris Studies fill volume after volume. He wants to explore what happens once that security is called into question.

The film picks up on a few of the themes of the book as they relate to the concept of humanity. It scrutinizes what it is to be a person, what a weighty role emotions play on our concept of reality, what reality itself is, what the limit of science is, etc.

I like the way the film works as a meditation on guilt and love--how that can drive our character to what essentially amounts to suicide. There's a nice irony in the fact that he is the shrink. 

I also think that the end of the film is intentionally open to interpretation. The implication is that our character elects for the unreal world over the real. He dies for a Hollywoodized love, maybe. But the monologue the Clooney delivers (taken from the novel) near the end makes it even more interesting. He talks about his "real" life back on earth as a chain of rehearsed moments if I remember right, essentially an act. 

The film deals with Calvin's life back home and his life with the impossible return of his wife on equal footing. We are to belive that both are true throughout the movie. In fact, an impossible "story-book" version of reality wins out, with Calvin's wife reincarnated and the two living happily-ever-after in their apartment, even if it means that we are to believe that Calvin gives up his life for it in the expansion of the planet Solaris.

I don't think that it matters much whether Solaris is sentient or destructive or anything else. I think that it is part of the point of the film and the book to leave Solaris a mystery. This is not sci-fi about novelties and gadgets and destructive or friendly aliens. It uses the unknown as a device to examine humanity and in this case its slippery and many layered version of reality.


----------



## Foxbat (May 25, 2005)

> I'm bumping this discussion late. I hope that is okay.


 
Bump away 

I think the fact that we all have slightly differing views is another point in this movie's favour - it certainly makes you think. 

Your comments also make me realise that it really is time I got around to reading the book


----------



## rune (Aug 20, 2006)

*Re: Solaris (2002)*

I watched this last night, a long drawn out movie that really didnt do much for me to be honest.


----------



## steve12553 (Aug 20, 2006)

*Re: Solaris (2002)*

I've seen this one and it seemed to be all fluff. I'd like to see the original but not had the chance.


----------

