So I found stumbled on this at the library…
I am watching it right now. I think I may have a problem.
Then again, John Saxon, Ted Cassidy, Janet Margolin and Diana Muldaur and Gene Rodenberry for the story and production how can I resist.
10 Likes
I saw “Solaris” (Солярис) again for the first time in about eight years.
Every time before I rewatch this movie I’m a little nervous. It is, after all, a bit long and kind of slow. I worry that maybe I’ll be bored. But no. Although I’ve seen it a number of times — it not only continues to hold my attention, it also maintains its ability to surprise me.
It takes talent to make a good slow movie. There are slow movies who’s runtime have been padded with things like rock climbing or even a sandstorm that will invariably lead to some deep hurting. But the director of Solaris, Andrei Tarkovsky, certainly knew what he was doing. He was either able to predict the expectations of human attention, or he was able to guide it.
The basic outline of the story is rather simple: Somewhere far out in space there is a remote space station orbiting, and studying, a planet called Solaris. The planet is entirely covered by some sort of viscus ocean. The humans are trying to study the planet, and it appears the ocean is likewise trying to study the humans. Neither life form, however, is capable of comprehending the other. Due to the lack of progress, and some strange occurrences, the science mission on the space station is slowly being wound down. A psychologist named Kris Kelvin is sent out from Earth to appraise the situation and determine if the project should be completely ended.
Usually when I watch a thought-provoking movie like Solaris I am able to develop a solid idea of what the movie is about. But that’s not the case with this movie. The curious thing is that each time I watch this movie I notice some new detail that I had missed before or forgotten, and this leads me to a entirely new interpretation. And there is a lot to notice and consider. For example, I have yet to understand the significance of the horse. You really get your money’s worth out of Solaris.
In my latest viewing, I noticed that the landscape in the opening scene on Earth was surrounded by a dense fog. This reminded me of the end, where we see the same landscape as a small island manifested on the surface of Solaris. So that gave me the idea that this entire movie is just a loop, entirely a simulation being run by the planet as a way of studying humans. And then there is Kelvin’s college professor, Gibarian, who mysteriously kills himself just before Kelvin arrives. Was he the last human there, plagued by the unrelenting human manifestations? Is it possible that the last two surviving scientists on the station, Snaut and Sartorius, are also manifestations but unaware of that fact? Mind=blown
Anyway, those are some of my latest musings. Next time I see the movie a few years from now I will, no doubt, notice some other detail and come to some other conclusion.
Stanisław Lem might not have liked this film adaptation, but I’m OK with that. It might not be Lem’s book, but it is a great movie.
A last note about the acting. All the performaces are effortlessly great. A good example is Vladislav Dvorzhetsky who plays the character “Burton.” Early in the film he recounts his encounter with the planet. Now, with CGI, no doubt there would be a flashback where we are shown the strange situation he found himself in. But in this movie we just have a closeup on the actor recounting the events. That’s how Shakespeare would have done it. His description and the emotion on his face are more effective than any kind of special effect could be.
And another last note about the sets. I love the interior of the space station. It’s a marvelous combination of clean and scientific, with dirty and neglected. And furthermore, it is my contention that the main toroid hallway inspired the interior of the Millennium Falcon.
10 Likes
Great essay on one of the best of underated science fiction. Many of the scenes are asking the audience to stop a moment, and meditate on what was taking place, the slow movement of water plants in a pond, a highway drive through the city.
4 Likes
I recently went to see “Der Himmel über Berlin,” or “Wings of Desire.” When I decided to see this movie, all I knew about it was: It was mostly filmed in black and white, it was made in West Berlin in the late 1980s, starred Bruno Ganz not playing Hitler, and it involved angels. These seemed like good enough reasons for me to go.
Imagine my surprise when I went to the theater and found the show was just about sold-out. Apparently people have heard of this movie. Why have I never heard of it? I like to think I’m aware. I ended up buying the last ticket to the showing. That was lucky. But to be honest, had I known the theater was going to be so packed I would have stayed home.
It’s a hard movie to describe. At first there are so many plot threads that you don’t know quite what’s going on. When the story finally emerges it’s actually rather simple, I can imaging James Thurber writing something like it. But in this movie the story itself is not as important as how we arrive there.
Loneliness is a big theme is this movie. People can be closely living inside a walled city, and still yearn for human contact. This is one of the few movies to depict the reality that we all exist inside our own heads. And angels, who have been in constant contact with humanity since the beginning of time, can be lonely too.
The Second World War hangs heavily over this movie: In the memories of people, in the film-within-a-film, in the bomb-damaged areas. And then there’s the Wall. Surrounding everything is the Wall. This movie is one of the best documentaries of the Cold War. No one at the time knew the Berlin Wall would come down two years later. And what’s happening on the other side? No one can pass through it except the angels.
And then there’s Peter Falk. For most of the movie he’s entertaining but seems unnecessary, until you realize he is.
And then there’s Curt Bois in his last role. I know him as a Hollywood character actor from the 30s and 40s, usually playing humorously eccentric Europeans. And now here he is as a little old man, troubled by memories of the past that seem more real to him than the present.
It feels like a very long, slow movie. I actually have no idea how long the film is because I haven’t looked that up. I don’t need to know. This is a movie that you live with for a while. I dozed off a couple of times, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
So, in short, see this movie. But do no research on it first. Just see it and discover.
And remember: Wir bunker baut wirft bomben.
8 Likes
What was the average age of the audience members? This film was relatively huge when originally released, among American film-goers who actually went to subtitled films. There was a sequel, Faraway, So Close!, which gets a bit goofy, but is still worthwhile, and also an American remake, City of Angels, which got rather poorer reviews, but it does star Nicolas Cage as one of the angels, which just might make it bizarre enough to be interesting.
And then there’s this Wenders directed snippet from Lumière and Company:
3 Likes
I saw it on VHS back when it was released on video. I should visit it again. I remember not really following all the stories well but being thoroughly engrossed with the film. Unlike other Wim Wenders films it didn’t feel as long as it was.
5 Likes
Awhile ago I was reminded I had actually not seen The Jungle Book, not the new remake.
It was a few weeks wait for the library hold but worth it.
Nice take on the source material with fun songs and excellent voice work.
3 Likes
Jungle Book is a good one.
3 Likes
I consider it one of the simple bare necessities of life.
7 Likes
I saw it in an art house theatre a year or two after it was released, and loved it.
The sequel, Faraway, So Close! was on while my then 14yo brother was visiting. It was his first art film, and he got very frustrated with us on the way to the theatre:
Will it be in English?"
“Some of it.”
“Will it be in black and white?”
“Some of it.”
“Will it make any sense?”
“Yes, but not the way you’re used to movies making sense.”
Afterwards we went for coffee somewhere and listened to him freak out over the whole experience. I think he liked it in the end.
10 Likes
They were a bit old-ish, I suppose.
That for pointing that out.
4 Likes
My favorite of his is Alice in the Cities. This can’t possibly really be the trailer, especially as it completely omits Alice, but I kind of wish it was. The trailer as auto-critique:
5 Likes
listened to the soundtrack hundreds of times. Was only able to see the movie once.
9 Likes
Such a good sound track… such a mess of a film.
4 Likes
I still want to see the five-hour director’s cut. The film as generally released was too packed with music (however wonderful the music was) and too vignette-y in too many places.
It’s a pity it couldn’t have been made into a mini-series. Released today in that format, it would be excellently suited for a streaming service.
5 Likes
" Wenders had been trying to get Until The End Of The World off the ground for over a decade when the success of Wings Of Desire — his 1987 film fantasia about an angel who falls in love with a trapeze artist in West Berlin—finally got him the clout necessary to convince a major American studio to lose tens of millions of dollars on a movie about the future of staring."
6 Likes
love the soundtrack – never seen the film!
5 Likes
[Still have the soundtrack on my iPod, never seen the film.]
3 Likes
Oh look, there’s a Region 2 dvd on amazon for $140.
Now there’s no excuse! (or 126 excuses, depending)
4 Likes
and @IronEdithKidd
you didn’t miss anything. it had some neat concepts but totally fails at execution.
3 Likes