| |
|
Way back in the mists of time, I kicked off a thread to discuss Tarkovsky's Solaris, and nobody came. Now there's been a trendy Hollywood remake, I thought I'd try again.
First of all: the Tarkovsky. It's fantastic, though quite long and sprawling. It was also impossible to track down in this country - I first saw it on a print from the seventies' covered in grain and scratch, so the recent Artifical Eye DVD re-release was a godsend - it's a pristine picture and probably the best way you'll ever see the film now.
Brief synopsis of both versions: psychiatrist is called by old friend to visit a space station (named Prometheus in the remake) orbiting the planetary-object Solaris. Weird shit is happening on the space station. Psychiatrist eventually buckles and goes, to discover remaining crew in peculiar states, and that his colleague has killed himself. What he discovers is that for one reason or another, the crew of the station are being presented with "visitors" - realistic, lifelike representations of people from their memories. Solaris is covered in a sentient ocean and it appears to be reacting to them. The psychiatrist, Kelvin, is presented that night with his wife. Who killed herself five years ago, possibly because of a dispute with him (Tarkovsky is more ambiguous than Soderbergh here). And so the struggle begins - is it real or not, is it happiness or not, should he stay or should he go? Tarkovsky ends in one of the most stunningly headfucking effects shots, which is remarkable in that the effects are dirt cheap and tacky and yet it STILL unhinges your head. Soderbergh's ending is a bit more obvious and naff, but handled quite nicely for a time.
Tarkovsky was actually reacting in part to 2001 - a film he found far too mechanical and impersonal - with Solaris, which is a true sci-fi movie, and is all about people. It's also very Freudian - the dream-sequence at the end is classic. Though it's long, it's also necessarily slow and ponderous - and has to be, really, for the full impact of what Solaris is and does to the crew of the space station to sink in.
Soderbergh's movie works far better than I thought it had any right to (come on, it was produced by James Freaking Cameron); it's only about 90 minutes (half the length of the original) and yet it feels longer, because again it captures the sparse, dialogue-free, ethereal tone of the original. Visually, it's superb; Soderbergh does his own cinematography (and editing) under the pseudonym Peter Andrews, and it's fantastic: fixed, steely blues for space, handheld, warm browns and yellows for Earth. This is important, because it is a film you just have to love watching. It certainly becomes hypnotic enough. Clooney is very good, and bears striking resemblance to Doniatis Bandonis, though Natasha McElhone is woefully miscast and more than a little irritating. (Oh, and Cliff Martinez's score is good, until you hit the gamelan-tinged dream soundtrack, and it becomes incredible. Similar effect to the trippy piano motifs he used in The Limey). Actually, it reminds me of The Limey a lot, in its brief length, visual wow, and European style. Final point: no title credits, just a Lighstorm Entertainment trail. All the credits come at the end, and when I saw it (at a nasty multiplex), not only did the audience sit through the main credits, but also all the subsidiaries. Which was a good sign, I felt.
Still, it's definitely worth seeing - it's short but feels bigger than it is, and is a beautiful film just to experience. It might be slight, and a small project for all concerned (despite the sheen of class and pretty fx shots - the 2002 visualisation of the planet is just perfect), but I really liked it. Not perfect, and I do still have a hugely soft spot for the mighty original - but Tarkovsky could learn a few things from Soderbergh. Shame some of the psychoanalytical angle couldn't have been left in.
Definitely worth seeing, both times. Anyone seen either or both and want to discuss finer points in more detail, now I've got the reviewing out of the way? |
|
|
