MovieChat Forums > Solyaris (1972) Discussion > For all those who enjoy Solaris

For all those who enjoy Solaris

posted 10 years ago by Citizen41
13 replies | jump to latest

I am finding it difficult to understand some scenes within this movie and hence I am also finding this movie to be rather insipid.

The first few scenes all evoke natural elements and even though I enjoy how we are introduced to kelvin it still does not justify the prolonged sequence of natural elements unless there is some connection to the main theme of the movie.

We then see kelvin walking through the woods and again even though I enjoy the 'long range shot' I cannot fathom why we are shown this scene.

Then we see a horse galloping and kelvin washing his hands. If Tarkovsky is introducing the idea of 'washing his hands due to guilt' I can understand that. However, if we were introduced the theme of guilt and later it would have been emphasized by a shot of kelvin washing his hands it would have been easier to make the connection and emphasize this established theme. Unless there is no point to kelvin washing his hands.

Again, Why are we shown the horse? It's not a great shot and the nature theme had already been emphasized by the previous three minutes.

I have only focused on a few opening scenes and I would like to know why people who enjoy Solaris find these opening scenes interesting - assuming that they do-

[–] clockworkorange13 10 years ago

I just finished watching Solaris and my first impression is that the editing needed to be much tighter. 5 minutes of driving in traffic? I'm sorry but that is the director straight up trolling the viewers. Great film but as far as editing goes I'd give it a 4/10.

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

Now that I'm done giving advice on Tarkovsky on the CK boards, I'll address your points more specifically here.

I think you approach the film wrong. You expect every scene to further the plot, the characters or the themes. This is a basic critical fallacy, assuming that form should always directly serve content. Do not look for anything explicitly symbolic - Tarkovsky hated symbolism (this is one reason why I think Ivan's Childhood doesn't feel like a Tarkovsky film). The point of these shots is to establish an atmosphere of dreaminess. Why are there so many shots of "crap floating in space" (in the famous words of Confused Matthew) in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Is it to further some theme? No. It's there in service of the atmosphere, which in turn is mesmerising and intoxicating. Did we "need" to see the cattle walking for 9 minutes in Tarr's Satantango? Not for the plot or characters, but for establishing the film's mood and tone, and for being riveting all the same. Film isn't just about storytelling, and if you can't reconcile with that, you're essentially closed to anything that is not narative-driven. Film, at its purest essence, is a medium for communicating emotions and mood. And while a good narrative could be a great way of doing so, it is far and away not the only one, and you need to keep that in mind.

This isn't just an advice for Solaris, but for all Tarkovsky, and for all non-narrative cinema, be it watching a housewife doing her routine for 3 1/2 hours in Jeanne Dielman, or bearing witness to supreme *beep* and aggressive alienation in Last Year at Marienbad.

I hope this helped.

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

IMDb censored my response, so I guess I must resort to a more appropriate term. Then I suppose "willful obtusity" will do.

(By no means is this a complaint.)

[–] Citizen41 9 years ago

You're right that I expect every scene to somehow further the plot but not always.

However, my emphasis is not on the plot per se but rather its content. In "The sacrifice" we get a long take of Alexander talking with Otto about philosophical matters. It does not add anything directly to the plot but there is content within that specific scene. First, there is some wonderful dialogue and secondly the lovely long take which not only tracks our characters but eventually approaches them.

If there had to be a movie which would have a nonsensical disjoint plot but it would have content then I would still find it enjoyable. In "Solaris" the opening shot and the introductory shot of Kris would have been enough and then we could have been introduced to burton.

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but damn me if you understand my point. I'm saying that the prejudice that form (pacing, cinematography, editing, and general construction) should be in the service of content (narrative, characterisation and themes) is fundamentally wrong.

There are plenty of examples to the adverse, where content is in service of form (the most famous of which is 2001: A Space Odyssey). These works are called *formalist*, and they may be as valid an example of art as any.

That said, and running the risk of seemingly contradicting myself, I do think a work's components need to add up and that each needs to have a function. (This is one reason why thr 1983 version of Scarface does nothing to me - these awful bits and pieces of dialogue add absolutely nothing in any way, shape or form.) The function of the Solaris scenes you mention is creating *mood* and *atmosphere*, which isn't "content", per se, but can be no less important. Can't a work be just atmospheric? Can't it be just beautiful? Must it make a point, have a message, tell a story, mount a theme? Why, exactly?

Finally, if you allow me to indulge a bit of zealotry, I notice that you use the word "analysis" quite a bit. Analysis is a violation of the work, a way of rejecting its text for some obscure subtext, which is somehow of more value than the text. How so? Do we really hate surfaces that much? Must we destroy them in service of a message we apparently see? Can't a work be just itself?

Have you read the Susan Sontag essay I sent you? I guess you haven't. It tackles all of the points we're discussing here in supreme detail and insight. Don't be put off by the length. It's over even before you start reading it.

[–] Citizen41 9 years ago

I will read the whole essay in due time. Since now that I have some time off I am trying to catch up with some movies that I have been putting on hold but anyway.

I watched "Andrei Rublev" and I approached the movie without any notion of analysis since you have aforementioned that Tarkovsky hated symbolism. I also kept in mind that Tarkovsky tries to create atmosphere and mood. When approaching the movie with such a mentality I found myself longing for those "atmospheric shots" which have seemingly no relation to plot, theme, characters etc.

It does not have to have a message. My problem with Tarkovsky was that I was approaching him with the same way that I approach Welles's work.

I used the word "Analysis" rather than "interpretation". A case in point of interpretation would be trying to make sense of Kafka's work outside of the information kafka gives us. Analysis utilizes the information given to somehow further disclose any subtext. A famous example would be of CK, where Welles uses different camera angles to portray different power relationships; another example would be of Kane never using Bernstein's first name - in fact it is not even told- but using Leland's first name on a regular basis hence showing us the intimacy of Kane and Leland. If I am not mistaken there is also a scene with Kane and Thatcher and Kane refers to him as Mr thatcher and then he rebukes kane by saying that he should call him father; hence giving us insight on how Kane was distanced from Thatcher.
Analysis deepens our understanding of the subject, interpretation leads us astray.

Truth be told, I am starting to enjoy Tarkovsky's work. Can you suggest any movies "similar" to rublev?

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

I am happy you enjoyed Andrei Rublev, and I would recommend you to revisit Solaris (and, now that we both understand each other, Vertigo), plus give a viewing to other Tarkovsky films (here's hoping that you'll find Mirror to be something more than a self-indulgent exercise in confusion and deliberate obfuscation). Definitely watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. What more, what more? Tarkovsky himself admired Ingmar Bergman and Robert Bresson, so you might want to check them out too (Bresson is a little difficult; I could give a RB101 if you'll ask me). If you want more of this style of atmosphere-driven films, even ones that go much further than Tarkovsky did (if you can imagine that), I'd recommend Bela Tarr, preferably start with Werckmeister Harmonies. Some completely formalist works can be found in Jeanne Dielman (the full name is a little too long to write here) and, in one of the most frustrating, baffling exercises of cinema (in the best possible sense, of course) Last Year at Marienbad. Also, Tarkovsky loved The Terminator, so there's that 😊.

And while we're at recommendations, if you're looking for something vaguely similar to Orson Welles, Billy Wilder is certainly a good bet.

My brief rant on analysis was largely because I don't see art as something to be studied and understood, more like something to be felt. And analysis stands in direct opposite to that.

[–] Citizen41 9 years ago

I'll start with Tarr since you have mentioned that his style is similar to that of Tarkovsky. I watched Mirror except for the last ten minutes. I preferred "Stalker" over "Mirror". I could identify with the characters in stalker more than I did in Mirror. The characters also seemed to indulge in conversations which I could not particularly relate to. The lack of naturalistic scenery and the short duration of the movie when compared to Rublev also tended to put me off.

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer Mirror over Rublev or Stalker? -since you once mentioned that "Mirror" is your preferred from Tarkovsky films-

As to your comment about terminator; I think we all need guilty pleasures. I still 'enjoy' commercial material having significantly small amounts of artistic value. I remember binge watching the "Vampire Diaries" even though it is not aimed at my demographic. Watching that tv series was my guiltiest pleasure. Then again I am only human and one of the reasons why I admire Welles is because of his insight into human nature. As he once said "There's a philistine and an aesthete in all of us, and a murderer and a saint".

Thanks for the help and I won't mind if you give me an introduction on Bresson.

[–] thefly50 9 years ago

Mirror always seemed to me like the densest film of Tarkovsky's oevure, the one that works the most for multiple viewings, the one with the most articulate characters, etc. (The latter probably due to them being based on actual people from Tarkovsky's life.) It also strikes me as the most beautiful of his films (which in turn kind of puts it at the most beautiful film I've ever seen, from any director). Or it may just be that I'm a sucker for unconventional narratives. Who knows.

I'm not saying Stalker or Andrei Rublev are any worse than Mirror. They're all top tier cinema, and there's no point comparing from here. Mirror just resonates with me the most, and thus is my favourite of the Russian auteur's filmography.

But anyway, as for The Terminator - I truly see no reason to be ashamed of liking it. It is a great showcase for how much art you can put in an 80's actioner (even if I'd argue it's actually a slasher film), it has a great narrative, and explores some rather heady themes for what is nominally just a piece of populist entertainment. It's a very different kind of art than the EuroArt that I typically watch, but is it worse? I do not think so.

And finally, Bresson - one of the most infuential figures in French cinema ever, one of the absolute paragons of 20th century art, one of the most divisive of all "great directors", etc. Essentially, Bresson believed in stripping all artificial theatricality of his films, which in turn meant:

1. Almost no drama.
2. Heavy minimalism.
3. Extremely naturalistic, unemotional acting (most importantly).

His style is what many (myself inculded) call "transcendent" and "spiritual". It's hard to explain, but you'll probably understand that once you get accustomed to the seeming coldness and impersonality of his films (Tarkovsky is also a director that showcases spirituality in cinema, though in a very different way).

The most practical tip I can give - watch A Man Escaped first. It's extremely tense, to the point where you probably won't notice the acting. Then proceed to Pickpocket, Au Hasard Balthazar, Mouchette, and the rest is at your consideration (provided you can get something out of the films, which many don't).

All of this talk about cinematic spirituality reminds me that I should also recommend Carl Th. Dreyer (The Passion of Joan of Arc), Yasujiro Ozu (Tokyo Story) and Kenji Mizoguchi (Ugetsu Monogatary). They were all admired by Tarkovsky, and by myself too. They don't require a fancy introduction, their films are very relatable dramas for the most part. Make sure to check them out at one point or the other.

[–] joshbugg817 9 years ago

Great post.

Xenophobia sucks!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filmeuro 9 years ago

The film is a masterpiece and every second of it is worth enjoying. More than once. Twit.

[–] HamsterRecon 8 years ago

From what I understand, the purpose of all those slow, peaceful shots of nature at the beginning is get the viewer used to Earth before sending them off to the confined darkness of space. I feel like this is emphasized later with the plant on the windowsill of the space station and when the camera zooms in to the darkness outside of the window.

I personally like the opening scenes simply because I find the shots to be beautiful. It's rare, at least for me, to find a movie (rather than a documentary) that's willing to take the time to simply stop and take in the natural beauty and peacefulness of the world. Now that I've gotten into creating films of my own I've found that I like to show off nature in a similar way. I've tried to explain it my friends, but have had little progress (one commenting on a prior short of mine that I have a "nature fetish.") so I'm not sure I can actually explain it well here.

Alternatively, my best friend who loved the film when I showed it to him said he just found the beginning to be incredibly relaxing.

As a note, my first paragraph could be wrong, but I believe that I read it somewhere (maybe in the booklet that came with the blu-ray or in Sculpture's of Time) and it's how I've viewed it for years now.

Signature.