Comment Re:not a scifi flick (Score 1) 205
I'm kind of suprised that not many people here are comparing the new solaris with the original tarkovsky version - it seems like more people read the book but haven't seen the original movie.
To all complaints about this not being a genuine-sci-fi flick, go see the original. It is almost completely philosophical - presented in incredibly slow panaramic shots of un sci-fi scenes - the slow drive through the tunnel in the back of a taxi, the gentle, mysterious flow of weeds underwater, kris' manifested wife looking at an old russian painting on the wall of the space station. For that last scene, take note: the fascination is of an alien manifestation on a space station orbiting a distant star, and the fascination is on the PAINTING. In other words, it's the story of human life that is interesting. The only sci-fi element the original movie employed was the mystery of the planet solaris - but he showed us that everyday elements (like the before-mentioned underwater weed scene) is also completely mysterious. He treats both objects in the same way - an unflinching and unengaged slow shot of movement, with little or no non-diagetic sound. The result is one of mystery and curiosity. there is no mention of a typical science-fiction plot of explaning or exploring (or even really caring about) the alien planet. It's a vehicle for thought. And his story goes all the way to a different planet to show that such mystery is in fact very ordinary, and wrothy of inspection.
That's Tarkovsky's vision. This is not science fiction.
To all complaints about this not being a genuine-sci-fi flick, go see the original. It is almost completely philosophical - presented in incredibly slow panaramic shots of un sci-fi scenes - the slow drive through the tunnel in the back of a taxi, the gentle, mysterious flow of weeds underwater, kris' manifested wife looking at an old russian painting on the wall of the space station. For that last scene, take note: the fascination is of an alien manifestation on a space station orbiting a distant star, and the fascination is on the PAINTING. In other words, it's the story of human life that is interesting. The only sci-fi element the original movie employed was the mystery of the planet solaris - but he showed us that everyday elements (like the before-mentioned underwater weed scene) is also completely mysterious. He treats both objects in the same way - an unflinching and unengaged slow shot of movement, with little or no non-diagetic sound. The result is one of mystery and curiosity. there is no mention of a typical science-fiction plot of explaning or exploring (or even really caring about) the alien planet. It's a vehicle for thought. And his story goes all the way to a different planet to show that such mystery is in fact very ordinary, and wrothy of inspection.
That's Tarkovsky's vision. This is not science fiction.
