Solaris (2002)
Complementary to Tarkovsky
12 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I liked this film a lot, it sent goose pimples all over my body most of the time, and I felt very relaxed after it. This is something very few film achieve. But some of them are by Andrey Tarkovsky, who filmed "Solyaris" in 1972. And I don't think I can tell right now which film is better. Sure: Tarkovsky is unique, his genius unsurpassed, probably a league of his own, while it is much easier to compare Soderbergh's work with that of others. But Soderbergh looked at Tarkovsky's "Solyaris" very attentively, with self-consciousness and respect. In his version, he stressed the points underdeveloped by Tarkovsky: emotional clarity, acting and closure in the screenplay (the latter not always to the best of the film). He wisely did not try to compete with Tarkovsky in fields in which he can't be beaten: visual poetry and philosophy. Tarkovsky's Kris is great, but so sullen you wonder what kind of psychologist he is to send into such an unclear situation. Clooney is much more convincing in this respect. In Soderbergh's version, people are also much less secretive about their view of the visitors and their emotions.

SPOILERS

I do not understand what people do not understand about the ending of the film. It's pretty clear: The visitors are part of Solaris, an alien intelligence. Chris stays on the station and makes contact with Solaris, embodied by the boy. The final scenes are not set on earth, but on an earth recreated from Chris memory by Solaris. He himself is not more than a memory - his original body has been destroyed during the fall of the station. Thus he overcomes the distinction between humans and visitors, and the one between real people and images. Draw from this any philosophical conclusion you want...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed