# Off topic: Solaris *The Urth list — 6 messages, 4 voices, 20 Jan 2003* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Nigel Price *20 Jan 2003, 23:04* 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] --- ### James Jordan *21 Jan 2003, 03:03 · follows Nigel Price* > At 05:04 PM 1/20/2003, you wrote: > Echoing what Andy said, thanks, Nutria, for all the stuff on Solaris, which > 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. > 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! 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 --- ### James Jordan *21 Jan 2003, 03:27 · follows James Jordan* Nigel, you might look at: http://www.shakingthrough.net/head2head/reviews/2002/movies_solaris_1972_vs_solaris_2002_2002.htm Nutria --- ### Jeff Veyera *21 Jan 2003, 05:12 · follows James Jordan* Avoid Solaris (2002) like the plague--- it is nothing more than a 2-hr Yanni video with intermittent shots of George Clooney's buttocks. --- ### Josh Geller *21 Jan 2003, 05:27 · follows Jeff Veyera* > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Jeff Veyera wrote: > Avoid Solaris (2002) like the plague--- it is nothing more than a 2-hr Yanni > video with intermittent shots of George Clooney's buttocks. IHNJH, IJLS: "A 2-hr Yanni video with intermittent shots of George Clooney's buttocks". . --- ### Nigel Price *22 Jan 2003, 12:38 · follows Josh Geller* 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 ---