Solaris [2003] [DVD]

In many ways Solaris is an anti promethean work. Its a kind of opposite to the clean white antiseptic and optimistic world portrayed in 2001:a space odyssey. At least that is how the Solaris station is described in the original novel and in Tarkovsky's earlier attempt at bringing this modern classic to the big screen. The newest version by Soderbergh gives us a modern 'unlived in look' solaris station with computer screens and clean lines. In a sense the human failings are a good counterpoint to this.Solaris over the years has been given a rough ride. The original novel written in Polish was translated to french originally, then an english version was translated from the French. For this reason the novel doesn't read too easily as we are getting it 3rd hand so to speak. The film versions Lem has gone on record to state he was not too happy with. Both versions tend to place too much emphasis on the internal relationships of the stations inhabitants and with Rhea in particular. The central idea of the novel was the sentient plasmatic ocean of Solaris itself and humanity's inability to understand it.The relational aspect of the novel and films hinges around the 'visitors' the station personel have. Are they Solaris' attempt at communication? or ways of punishing the personnel for obtrusive experiments upon the ocean? Here we are dealt theological and psychological cards about our moral actions, cause and effect and punishment. The visitors also act as a mirror of humanity, creating personal hell for the station staff from the sub conscious or even un conscious psyche. In Kelvin's case the instrument of Solaris and memories from kelvin that is Rheya aids in his self psychotherapy. A lot of questions are asked about what is mind, awareness and being. Also the concepts of alienation and what we really are. If we cannot really know ourselves - how can we unlock the key to 'others' or the universe in general?This is truly a film about the limits of human knowledge and the nature of reality through the mirror of humanity.The original novel was both philosophical and satirical in its handling of the anthropomorphic slant the scientists studying Solaris put on it. Both films only really hint at the lack of perception in philosophical and scientific terms of human beings. The sentient ocean remains undecipherable to human probing even after a whole century has passed. Solaris remains an enigma and truly alien, possibly unknowable.This is parodied in the novel using the Borgesian metaphor of his library, the 100's of scientific texts and theories about Solaris being as absurd and incomprehensible as Borge's library texts. The novel puts forth some very important notions - maybe due to our evolutionary shortfall humanity may not have the perceptual ability or intelligence to understand the universe. If the universe is also evolving how can we ever hope to understand it? And the major problem of quantum mechanical theory if the observer partaking in the experiment must have an effect on the experiment, he/she cannot be seperate from it.The newer film features Solaris itself less than Tarkovsky's version did. In the novel there is a lot of description of the phenomena occurring on Solaris and humanities vain attempts at understanding it. This important part of the narrative is pretty much ignored and only implied in both versions. There was a third version made for Russian TV in the 60's as well of which there is little information about.The character of Rhea is important to the narrative as an Aphrodite type figure or instrument of the Solaris ocean and there are keen observations of what it means to be a thinking being, awareness and memory. Please look up the aphrodite myth it is very interesting and throws interesting light on the reworking of the myth in the context of Solaris.Both films take slightly tangent routes away from the novel especially in the ending,where calvin puts forth his personal hypothesis that Solaris is a the universe evolving into a Godlike entity, becoming aware and also powerless to control the outcome of its actions. This too may be a poke at theology's vain also anthropomorphic attempt to explain the world around us.This version is not as fulfilling as the highly individual cinematic and beautifully enigmatic tarkovsky version, but is somewhat more accessible all be it with a happy ending tagged on for populist Western cinema tastes.All in all despite its problems the film is worthy of watching as is Tarkovsky's, but please read the novel and even the BBC radio version which adds more detail and depth to the character of Solaris itself.

While Solaris is inevitably labelled Sci-Fi its core themes are distinctly human. Loss, regret and the realization that memory tends to simplify events, people and places. While the original film allows the viewer to muse on the overall, Soderbergh's take focuses on the main protagonist's (Clooney) experience with the strange 'planet'. With only a standard 90 minutes to play with the director has done a good job of explaining the power Solaris wields without having to constantly remind us with new and more bizarre consequences (and special effects).The visuals sway from the ethereal (Solaris), austere (Earth) and utilitarian (Space Station). On the commentary track, Soderbergh tells us he wanted Solaris to have a 'synaptic' quality to it and the effect is beautiful. Cliff Martinez's score, too, will follow you around for months.As for the cast, Clooney is excellent as ever. While his performance doesn't require histrionics he makes believable a shrink thrown into a situation where his vocational skills are rendered useless by minds becoming matter. Natascha McElhone is charged with an incredibly difficult role. Her character on Earth is confident, sexy, playful, remote and ultimately suicidal; on Solaris she has to play whatever Clooney's character has in mind...hard work, but admirably done. It's unfortunate that in one weak scene of un-necessary exposition the focus is on McElhone but it's a fault of the screen-writer, not her. Jeremy Davies' Snow is perhaps the character that deserved more attention than was given. Considering his unique 'situation' it would have been worth an extra half hour to explore it. Viola Davis is okay but ultimately pointless. The removal of her character wouldn't have affected the film in anyway and her presence really only fills an authority vacuum on the station.It's good to see adult themes being explored in the Sci-Fi genre and being embraced by Hollywood heavyweights....and not a LaZer BeAm in sight. Obviously this film won't appeal to the 'action' based wing of Sci-Fi fans and the polarity of opinions shown here is evidence of this. But as a serious slice of "what if", Solaris rewards attention and multiple viewings.

* StoryThe film is close to the original scripting of Solaris (1972) but different enough to make it an alternative movie.The mission to a distant planet, Solaris, has been fraught with difficulties. The crews on the space station have been having 'visitors' from the minds of the scientists in the real form made by the planetary forces of Solaris. These cannot be measured by scientific equipment, it's all in the minds of the staff. A psychologist gathers information and is sent to the planets space station to help resolve these disturbing real visions. He encounters such a visitor, the recreation of his wife who killed herself on Earth. He is in a dilemma, to engage with this doppelganger of his dead wife, or coldly sort this issue out?* SummaryThe film has much better special effects than the original movie. The film has the essence of Solaris (1972) in a more technically advanced form. It has the features of an arthouse European movie, its photography is beautiful. But the original movie has such a presence and depth that it still feels the more satisfying movie. This film is still great. Don't get me wrong. It's a good movie over a mug of tea, just not as much depth as its 1972 original.