Subject: (urth) Off topic: Solaris

From: Nigel Price <nigel.a.price at virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:04:40 +0000

Echoing what Andy said, thanks, Nutria, for all the stuff on Solaris, which
was fascinating. Thanks, too, while, I'm about it, for your speculative
interpretation of the symbolism in the Blue-Green-Whorl triangle back on 4
January (cf (urth) Blue-Ushas; Green-Urth -- Problems). That was very
helpful, and I was surprised that no one followed you up on that specific
line of thought.

But about Solaris: I loved the original Russian film, which I went to see
twice in the week it came out in this country and have seen several times
since. When I heard that Hollywood was doing a remake, I could hardly
believe that they would do anything so hubristic and utterly redundant.
Anyway, I've recovered now, and I gather that the new version is now on
general release in the States. An off-topic question, therefore, to you and
others who have seen the new movie, which won't get to the UK for a while I
suspect: is it any good? Reply off-list if you think it more appropriate!

A secondary question: does anyone know whether there is an English
translation of Lem's novel other than the one that was made from the French
translation? That one's OK, but frustratingly "secondhand".

Nigel [who is now wondering about possible Christian symbolism in
Tarkovsky's "Stalker", the film version of the Strugatskys' novel "Roadside
Picnic", which seems fairly absurdist and nihilistic to me]

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:03:19 +0000

At 05:04 PM 1/20/2003, you wrote:
>was fascinating.

         Well, I feel pretty sure about it. I've written to one of the 
Tarkovsky websites about this interpretation, to see if I can get any kind 
of interaction. Solaris is the only Tark film I've seen, so I don't have 
much context for my views. (Films like this only show in arthouses in huge 
cities, and I've never lived in such. And I don't feel like putting out the 
money to buy all of them on DVD.) As I recall, the Vatican gave him some 
kind of award for Solaris, which indicates to me that I'm not too far offbase.

>suspect: is it any good? Reply off-list if you think it more appropriate!

         Well, I don't mind replying here onlist, but I don't have much to 
say. I saw the Tark version about a decade ago on video (the new DVD is 
much clearer). I did not have it enough in mind, therefore, to make much of 
a comparison with the new Soderberg version. There's nothing about the 
father in Soderberg; it's exclusively about Kelvin and Hani, and I guess 
kind of Hollywoody in that regard (love and sex). It's "Hani" who greets 
Kelvin when he falls to Solaris at the end, and she says "all is forgiven," 
which seemed almost to come out of nowhere. But I need to see the movie 
again and look for deeper elements, if there are any.
         Heck, I've never even read the book! I just liked the movie, and 
thought it might make a good example for what we were discussing. (And 
after all, Lem rejected the movie, so reading the novel is not very germane.)

Nutricious Nutria, the Other Brown Meat

--

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:27:17 +0000

Nigel,
         you might look at:

http://www.shakingthrough.net/head2head/reviews/2002/movies_solaris_1972_vs_solaris_2002_2002.htm

Nutria

--

---

From: Jeff Veyera <teflon93 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:12:43 +0000

Avoid Solaris (2002) like the plague--- it is nothing more than a 2-hr Yanni
video with intermittent shots of George Clooney's buttocks.

--

---

From: Josh Geller <dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:27:53 +0000

> video with intermittent shots of George Clooney's buttocks.

IHNJH, IJLS: "A 2-hr Yanni video with intermittent shots of George
Clooney's buttocks".

.

--

---

From: Nigel Price <nigel.a.price at virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:38:14 +0000

Nutria suggested I look at a website for a sensible review of the new film
of "Solaris".

Thank you! At last, a sensible and intelligent review. I'd read half a dozen
previously on the web, but whether they liked the new film or not, their
reasons for doing so were uniformly crass.

Nigel

--