i received a free itunes coupon today and saw a name i didn’t recognize. read the brief on it and was intrigued, skipped the trailer and decided to rent it on download. it was called Solaris and was, apparently, a remake of a russian original circa the 70’s based upon a 1961 book by Stanislaw Lem.
in a word — woah.
i’ll start by saying one of the things that really drew me to this movie was that everywhere i looked prior to and after renting it, there are a plethora of comments along the lines of “can anyone explain this movie to me?”
naturally, it compelled.
to break the movie into its parts would be, i think, nigh on a crime. upon the viewing, i find it to be among the ‘hidden in plain sight’ things in life. if you have the breadth of mind to understand it, it will rock your world. if you don’t, you’ll just wind up puzzled. i know how arrogant that sounds. but it is not arrogance if it is true and in this case, it is definitely true.
the underlying premise deals with the epistemological question of the ages in relation to knowledge, perception, and defining reality. one of the more interesting things i found in the movie was the manner in which the lead, with full understanding and deliberation, eschews the reality that is in pursuit of one that might be.
in this manner, something of a dreamer, albeit a much more intrepid one than this world tends to see or experience.
the contrasting characters of gordon and kalvin represent their respective perspective with aplomb, though granted, i watched the latest re-work of the film and have not yet enjoyed the original in all its subtitled glory. the staunch “objective” slant of gordon versus the relativist one of kalvin was an unexpected surprise, which is refreshing in any output from hollywood these days, credit duly given here to Soderberg for a truly fascinating play on philosophical themes.
more post-viewing research lends bafflement. there is, it seems, considerable deviation from Lem’s original in Sodenberg’s rendition. apparently, the exobiological aspect of the book and more gritty confrontations on the psychological level between the crew of the research station and solaris itself is largely overlooked. (thanks wikipedia.) it makes me wonder how the 60’s version plays and also, how the book reads.
needless to say, i intend to find out both.
Soderberg did a fine job of making an intriguing film that explores and eventually leaves one hanging in relation to ‘what really did happen’… this, the one jarring note in an otherwise enjoyable watching experience. not only did he not resolve the question (which, of itself, isn’t such a big deal as the ultimate cliffhanger is pretty tried and true), he committed the crime of not giving up enough information to allow the viewer to reach a sense of a valid conclusion for themself.
for all the enjoyment of the various themes, to come away without the ability to tell myself ‘what happened’ is simply unforgivable.
but! happily, the book and the previous movie will likely put all questions to rest, so i add them to my list of eventualities and content myself.