Solaris (DVD 2002)

Put simply, this film is a masterpiece from one of the towering greats of 20th century world cinema. Tarkovsky's version is more lyrical than the recent remake starring George Clooney and can be a bit hard going in places, but for those who keep faith (and patience!) the rewards are beyond articulation. A must for ardent film fans but not for those with limited attention span.

Andrei Tarkovsky is famous for his filmmaking due to the fact that he has a very philosophical and ambitious approach to this artform. And this is art; he really wants to bring film up in acknowlegement to the same level as for paintings, litterature (Dostojevsky and Tolstoi) and music.
Solaris is a film made in 1972, based on a book written by Stanislav Lem which I have not read. I have seen this film two times and the most impressive feature is the creativity and the dedication to the job with the scarce budget taken into consideration. It reminds me a bit of 2001 a Space Oddesey made by Stanley Kubrick (1968). It's a science fiction film, but it must not be compared to films of this genre made in Hollywood.
The important question here is what does Mr. Tarkovsky want to say? I think this film is about his answer to the following question: What is the meaning of it all, is life meaningful? Besides the fact that every individual's answer to that question is depending on the biochemical condition in each persons brain, there's a more universal answer to it as well.
Solaris is, as I see it, the solar system in which we all live. In some sequences of the film we see actors standing outside and just savouring life like green plants and living animals. But some actors are definately not interested in that kind of 'things'. In stead they are cold and arrogant scientists looking down on life and living objects in a surperior super-human way.
The psychologist with the leading role in the film leaves earth and goes up to a space station where they are experimenting with making artificial humans. They have even re-produced the psychologist's former and now dead wife and he falls in love with her or 'it'. The other scientists in that spacestation regard her as a low-satus creature without value since she's really not a human being, and there is a large difference between the cold scientists attitude towads this 'lifeform' and that of the psychologist. (Maybe this movie has influenced the other sci-fi movie 'Bladerunner' by this sequence.)

Anyway up in space they seem to have lost track of their own life, and they are looking down on the biosphere benieth them and probably longing for it. I then think of the fact that astronauts seeing earth from the outer space, often changed their attitude towards life on this blue planet and starts to value it a lot higher. Then he returns back to the biosphere where he cane from and he finds his mate in a different time-space. (like in Kubricks film from 1968). So I think this movie tries to tell us that we must find meaning in our own lives by love and admiration towards all living creatures. Sir David Attenborough will probably agree on that.
Well, this is the heavy metal of films, meaning very intellectual and academic. If you are interested in philosophy, this is a gem. In that respect the movie is a classic and I can really recommend it. If you are used to western made science fiction made in Hollywood, this is probably not your cup of tea, but you could try the new version made in 2003(?) with George Clooney in the leading role.

There are two books - written fairly recently - which both fall into the category of 'Science Fiction', but would fit more appropriately if described as 'Ghost Stories'. One is 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' by Phillip K Dick (film version: 'Blade Runner') and the other is 'SOLARIS' by Stanislav Lem (film of the same title by Tarkovsky). To my mind, Solaris is the best 20th century ghost story ever written, as it deals with pure consciousness, and the physical manifestations of the consequences of the effects of the conscious being invaded by an external agency.

The scientific approach to understanding the manifestations of 'poltergeists' have allowed very sensible people to admit that these physical manifestations do indeed exist, but the closest we have come to understanding them is to acknowledge that there is always an external agency (usually a young girl, but not always) which affects others (usually her parents, but not always, again) and the whole thing is tied up with emotional bonds, mis-understanding, regret, frustration and the inability to escape these tensions in a close combined space, such as a family home, or - in this case - a spaceship.

The emotional range of the concept of this story is vast, which is why many people probably find Tarkovsky's film so demanding, but the relevance to all of us is immeasurable too - which is why this story is so great. It bears watching (or reading) much more than once.

Actually - having bought a boxed-set of all Tarkovsky's films on DVD, I've realised why I find them such hard going, despite the excellence of them - they are visually wonderful - the man had no apparent sense of humour. Sorry, but it's true.

bath-antiquary.