MovieChat Forums > Solyaris (1972) Discussion > Well, I tried.

Well, I tried.

posted 12 years ago by tsode
12 replies | jump to latest

On reputation, I bought the DVD of this film and (after some years) finally just watched it...

I actually watched 2001: A Space Odyssey the night before as well, and am a big fan of slow, thought provoking science fiction. In fact, I've seen just about every science fiction film of note, released in the past 30 years. Huge fan of the genre...

The best moments of Solyaris, to me, were...

(Spoilers!)

- The brief, fleeting shots of Kris's spacecraft traveling and docking.

- When Hari comes back to life after consuming liquid nitrogen.

- The ending, and the reveal of the island in the ocean (actually found this a little spine tingling)

I also love ambient music, and will listen to the darkest, deepest, most formless drones imaginable if they convey a sense of expansive, desolate, deep space or other worlds. So the "soundtrack" was suitably menacing in this film.

But outside of all that, Solyaris felt overlong and in serious need of an editor with a sense of pacing. I didn't need to see endless conversations with people wandering around, in order to absorb the themes of this film. Nor some of the camera shot choices (inside Kris's hairy ear-hole? Really? Ugh. No tweezers available in 1972 Russia?)

Without nitpicking though, it is just too long and slow IMHO. And I enjoyed Malick's Tree Of Life.

Glad I watched it. Nice effort for Russia in 1972. But a hard slog that certainly makes 2001 seem chipper by comparison.

[–] noro777 12 years ago

the soundtrack added a melancholic touch to the ending. I guess the director knew very well how to make a person haunted by nostalgic feelings...

overall it's a great movie

[–] stazza 11 years ago

yeah... when I first watched it a few years back, I watched it with new curiosity, letting it just "be" as a "foriegn film".
Just bought the BLU RAY for my third watch and it not too good. There is really a lot of non-story-feeding fat that could be cut and never missed.

Not saying it should be an action fest, but filming making has changed, and improved over the decades, and it would be cool to see this in a pared down edit. I bet it would wonderful and rewatchable at one hour 45 min, but doable at 2 hours also. I might try an edit myself.

The point, the message and the emotional connections could all improve with some thoughtful editing and cutting.

And the self reflection, and cool futurism of the infamous TUNNELS SCENES could still deliver the goods in 30 to 45 seconds, not 5 minutes. Seriously.
Show some tunnels, slow cross fade to Burton's eyes with a slow push in, cross fade back to tunnels, done.

[–] stazza 11 years ago

and I'm no "revision junky" either. I can't stand remakes, reboots, and George Lucas edits.... keep the original art as is, of course, but provide a new and possibly improved version. Movies are STORYS, not horribly slow, dull, pan shots of boring nature from Russia in the 70s

[–] tsode 11 years ago

Yes, I do tend to agree with you. A shorter edit of this film would probably tighten it up enough to make it a more satisfying experience.

As you say, the original has it's place. And I can see why some people would happily sit back and absorb the lengthy original, much like listening to ambient music. Except with visuals.

It requires a certain mindset.

But for those just wanting to experience the story and dialogue, without the padding, it would be really interesting to see how this movie would feel as say, a 2 hour cut.

Anyway, it's been a few weeks since I saw it, and I'm still thinking about it. So that's something. I still think about the final scene, and the space scenes...and also the general sense of how distant space travel was taken for granted.

It's interesting how little emphasis and exposition was devoted to that actually - the notion of people traveling beyond the solar system to some base station around another planet. It was depicted as entirely routine, despite all the technology looking like...well...1970s Russian technology.

And I know 2001 and others have also depicted space travel as routine, but I guess the difference with those is that we often got to see and understand the routines - the craft, the bases, the weightlessness. In Solyaris, we only saw brief glimpses of what space travel was actually like.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"There is really a lot of non-story-feeding fat that could be cut and never missed".

There`s more to the art of film than driving forward the story you know. Cut off these proposed 45 minutes and the movie would be unrecognisible and useless.

"But filmmaking has canged and improved over the decades".

Actually, it has noticeably declined.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] nephihaha 11 years ago

Tarkovsky was never one for the cutting room floor. Since he had public money he could get away with it. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] jackluminous1965 11 years ago

"But filmmaking has canged and improved over the decades".

Actually, it has noticeably declined.

bold words literally need to be backed up with things like...proof

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

bold words literally need to be backed up with things like...proof

Wouldn't it be equally reasonable for the OP to back up his "bold words" about film "improving" with "proof," or does this standard only apply to posts that you disagree with?

Objectively, there is no doubt that filmmaking technology has improved. The optics, the lighting, and the tools available for stunts and special effects are leaps and bounds more advanced than what was available 40 years ago. However, impressive special effects, lighting tricks, and stunts aren't enough to make a good film.

It seems that in recent years, new technology has offered a lazy way out for filmmakers - why bother with stories, characters, ideas, or dialog when you can dazzle the audience with CGI or camera tricks?

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

Where are the Kubricks, Tarkovskys, Bergmans of 2014? Where are the grand masterpieces that decades past were rife with? Sure, there are interesting films still made and, arguably, we're even graced with a masterpiece every now and then, but none of it compares to 1960's or 1970's when one could expect more truly great films to come out in a month - maybe in a week - than we're lucky to see in a year at present. Even the more thoughtful fare too often seems like watered down copies of the real things from the past.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] crazyhellboy 11 years ago

When Hari kills herself with liquid oxygen you can see nipple.

I shall call him Squishy and he shall be mine and he shall be my Squishy.

[–] eholzapfel26 11 years ago

You're not counting the appearance of the creepy dwarf as THE best moment of the film? ;)

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

by tsode » Sat Jun 1 2013 07:22:54
IMDb member since January 2004
Post Edited: Sat Jun 1 2013 07:24:56
On reputation, I bought the DVD of this film and (after some years) finally just watched it...

I actually watched 2001: A Space Odyssey the night before as well, and am a big fan of slow, thought provoking science fiction. In fact, I've seen just about every science fiction film of note, released in the past 30 years. Huge fan of the genre...

The best moments of Solyaris, to me, were...

(Spoilers!)

- The brief, fleeting shots of Kris's spacecraft traveling and docking.

- When Hari comes back to life after consuming liquid nitrogen.

- The ending, and the reveal of the island in the ocean (actually found this a little spine tingling)

I also love ambient music, and will listen to the darkest, deepest, most formless drones imaginable if they convey a sense of expansive, desolate, deep space or other worlds. So the "soundtrack" was suitably menacing in this film.

But outside of all that, Solyaris felt overlong and in serious need of an editor with a sense of pacing. I didn't need to see endless conversations with people wandering around, in order to absorb the themes of this film. Nor some of the camera shot choices (inside Kris's hairy ear-hole? Really? Ugh. No tweezers available in 1972 Russia?)

Without nitpicking though, it is just too long and slow IMHO. And I enjoyed Malick's Tree Of Life.

Glad I watched it. Nice effort for Russia in 1972. But a hard slog that certainly makes 2001 seem chipper by comparison.

It's a hard film to get through. I've seen it a couple of times, and I think that's enough for me.