Stop Trying to Understand SOLARIS (1972)

[@papalaz4444244]

This is strange because the film is very faithful to the novel with some extra pre-flight scenes which pay off in the very last shot, also not in the novel. A major theme in Lem's scifi novels is literally that alien contact CANNOT make any sense, due to having nothing in common.

[@mikecimerian6913]

Master's Voice illustrates this even better. :) Lem is a pessimist, by his account we could decode galactic transmissions for take-out orders as plans for weapons.

[@vickdisco]

When someone asks me what Solaris is about, I tell them, "It's many things, but most of all, it's a love story. A tragic, beautiful, Shakespearean love story."

[@MattMcIrvin]

Stanisław Lem rarely wrote love stories, but here he wrote a terrific one and then was bothered by the fact that the film adaptations tended to focus on that, rather than the more cerebral content of the novel about the limits of understanding the alien and the way humanity is reflected in its struggle to comprehend the incomprehensible. He may not have entirely grasped what he had done--this sometimes happens with artists.

[@JanKowalski-vj9py]

@@MattMcIrvin Lem himself lived long enough to see Hollywood version of "Solaris". And he commented it this way: "As far as I'm the author of "Solaris" I did not write a love story. If my intention would be to do so, this book would be called "Love in outer space"".

[@francescas7895]

Ho letto il libro, bellissimo, e visto il film, (forse il più bello mai visto in vita mia insieme a " film rosso" di Kieslowski e * picnic ad Hanging rock" di P. weir) Libro e film li ho amati entrambi e li trovo complementar. Un film non deve essere necessariamente identico al libro da cui è tratto. Infatti si dice " liberamente ispirato al romanzo di..."i​@@JanKowalski-vj9py

[@BRNRDNCK]

You made me cringe by saying Shakespearean. You’ve obviously never read Shakespeare.

[@CRM-114]

Which explains exactly nothing.

[@wimvanderstraeten6521]

There are actually three adaptations of Solaris. There's also a 1968 Soviet television play that follows the novel more closely.

[@jackfriend4u]

ooh i want to see that!!!

[@mnoorist8223]

The Long driving scene. Is followed by the quiet serenity of the pond. U feel the scene. I never ever felt that before watching a film.

[@markearnestfromreno613]

A wonderful pick! I am an utter Tarkovsky nerd, so I’m happy to watch any viewpoints on work that is so deliberately enigmatic and stunningly beautiful at its best. And your analysis on this one is spot-on. Bring on the Stalker video!

[@northprime_unlimited]

I think your interpretation of the ending is better than mine and more positive. Mine was that Solaris recreated that environment so Kelvin could reconcile his relationship with his father from the guilt that he had pent up similar to the relationship he had with Hari. As for the 2002 version I helped design the one-sheet. The way I got the job was I was invited to the design studio where they were doing the marketing campaign and no one had ever seen the original movie so, they thought it was just another Star Wars sci-fi film so I came up with a concept that they used.

[@valmarsiglia]

I've read the novel and really enjoyed it, as brain-melting as it is. I'm sure a lot of it went over my head; it's a _lot_ more philosophical than the film. I've always loved Lem's reaction to all the adaptations of Solaris, though (there was an earlier TV adaptation in the 60s): he said something like "If that's the kind of story I wanted to tell, I'd have named it The Erotic Problems of People in Space rather than Solaris."

[@JohnWilliamNowak]

I think there's a lot of shared DNA between this film and Stalker, in that both have a situation where the cast's deepest desires are made manifest, and it does not typically end up well. One of the more subtle bits from the novel is one of the other people on the station expressing envy of Kelvin because his deepest desire of having a second chance with his wife is something he could admit to in public. This makes the construct of a little girl extremely dark, but I think it's what they intended. It's a happy ending in the sense that Kelvin reconnecting with his father is attainable in reality.

[@Professionalnyj_Troll]

Majority of the cast died young due to exposure to chemicals from the natural sets they shoot on (as per some gospels).

[@scs_one]

You forgot to mention that Grinko acted in Stalker and Andrei Rublev. I met Grinko in person in the 80s, too bad I couldn't ask him about his work with Tarkovsky. Thanks for your video about Solaris and you explanation of the ending is intriguing enough.

[@MattMcIrvin]

I kind of love that the auto-captioning for this video spells "Lem" as "LM", as if he were the Apollo Lunar Module (pronounced that way by the astronauts because it was called the LEM in the early parts of the project). That's a pun that Lem himself used more than once, and the idea of it coming out of a machine transcription system would have tickled him as well, given that he seems to have predicted a lot of details of our modern struggles with AI. The movie does take a long time to get going, but the sets of the Solaris station are *so perfect* a depiction of Lem's setting, I love it just for that alone. And the cast are perfect too. I think it's interesting that both Tarkovsky and Soderbergh decided to give the movie a twist ending. Lem's ending isn't a twist at all, it's just very unresolved, as Lem's writing often was.

[@JanKowalski-vj9py]

Lem (the original name of the familly was Lhem - his ancestors dropped middle "h") was very well aware about moon spacecraft called LEM.

[@splifftachyon4420]

This is one of my favourite movies. I remember playing it for some friends a number of years ago and they were skeptical at first, complained that it was boring for a while, but when it was finished, they were blown away too. It is a remarkable film. I do like your assessment of the ending as well. Very intriguing.

[@Sims_E]

I have always viewed ending of this film through a slightly darker lens.. Imho the main character stays in space, forever living in an illusory world where the ocean reproduces his father’s home, where he is finally forgiven. I find this interpretation of the ending more bittersweet and therefore more touching, than him just returning home, and ocean recreating his inner traumas. But that’s the brilliance of this film - it can be viewed in many different ways. One of my all time favourite films. Thank you for this video!

[@mahatmarandy5977]

I’m just gonna mention this for the benefit of anybody who may have taken your review to mean that Solaris is fundamentally incomprehensible. Wow the book never specifically states what Solaris is (beyond it, being a planet completely covered by an ocean) Dozens of little facts through the course of the book to add up to let us know what it is. This may or may not be a spoiler. The world and circling ocean of Solaris is alive, it is a one enormous organism, and it is intelligent. And until people from earth turned up, trying to study it, it was completely unaware, that anything intelligent existed beyond itself. It has no frame of reference with which to communicate with us, and even the idea of communication is something that the world ocean does not quite grasp because it has never had to communicate with anything before. But it still wants to. It is somewhat telepathic, and it is able to modify portions of itself to build physical representations of the things. The human researchers are thinking about. The humans are continually thinking about their fears, or guilt, or fetishes, or whatever, so naturally, these are the things that get the oceans attention, and it creates them as a attempt to communicate. This naturally has a wildly destructive effect on the psychologies of the humans. Lem’s novels have a recurring theme of being unable to communicate with a fundamentally different intelligence, because there is no frame of reference, and this is probably his purest expression of that. This is never stated in the film, but I think it is a fundamental premise behind what we see on screen, even if the characters themselves never really understand it . In the book, Chris goes home and uses on how he doesn’t believe in God, but if he could, Solaris is pretty much, the only sort of God he could believe in . I politely disagree with your reading of the last scene. I think that is the real Chris, and I think the real Chris has given in to nihilism and nostalgia. And I think he plays out the rest of his days in that little fantasy world Island. The fantasy world he has caused the planet to create is both his heaven and his hell . That’s just my gut instinct though.. I can’t prove it, and as far as I can tell Tarkovsky himself never bothered to explain it

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Thank you for that. I knew most people would disagree with my reading of the ending, but it only speaks to Tarkovsky’s intent that multiple explanations can all fit, both narratively and thematically. I think I go with mine because it feels the most interesting and uplifting, which might say more about me than about the movie. Art can also be a mirror!

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@TheUnapologeticGeek oh, absolutely. Art is almost by definitions subjective. I regularly get stuff out of movies and TV and paintings that other people don’t. Frequently, they tell me I’m wrong. Which is fine. I mean it’s a little bit annoying when someone wants to argue with me about something dumb like “creation of the humanoids,” but this is an art film and art films are Generally intended to have multiple interpretations. So my opinion is just my opinion, I’m not gonna say anybody else is wrong. Heck, if Tarkovsky himself were to come back from the dead, and tell either one of us, or both of us, that we were absolutely wrong, I don’t think it would matter. I still got from it when I got from it and you still got from it what you did, and if that isn’t what he intended it just means he succeeded in creating a really impressive work of art. But really, I just wanted to explain what is going on with the planet itself in the book, as it kind of informs the movie, but it doesn’t command the movie, if that makes any kind of sense.

[@malafakka8530]

Chris doesn't return home at the end of the novel. He flies down to the ocean and decides to stay there and wait for whatever might come next.

[@williamblakehall5566]

THANK YOU for explaining the length of the Tokyo drive, which has bugged me for decades. Yes, absolutely -- there are movies which we individually love and respect but recommend to a general audience at our peril. I think I like Solaris because it reminds me of Ray Bradbury, and this movie shows more respect for its source material, or at least the spirit of it, than a TV miniseries did for Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. (As a tribute to the power of love, I take Solaris over Interstellar.) Finally, would you like to know why I like some -- but only some -- "pretentious" movies? Because they have PRETENSIONS, ambitions, and that can be a good thing.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

It’s interesting that you mention Bradbury, as Tarkovsky cited him as his favorite Western sci-fi writer.

[@stephenmorton8017]

Yes which just reinforces my view that the history of the adaptations of the book are more interesting than the adaptations themselves. Meh.

[@stephenmorton8017]

I don't think that's true. I think he saved his admiration for Philip k Dick.

[@strangebeer]

I want to wait until you tackle Stalker before I weigh in, but I loved this video. Have already shared it with friends who have had to put up with me rattling on about Solaris since the 70's when BBC 2 premiered it for late night audiences in the UK. It has been my favourite film since ..

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Thank you so much! I plan to get to Stalker some time in the next few months.

[@andibell652]

A new TV channel launched in the UK in 1982 called Channel 4 with the goal of being arty and edgy. This was one of the first films they showed and 15 years old me was the only one in our house who could pick up the new channel on my portable 14inch B/W TV. I was completely hypnotised by this movie and it still remains my favorite art house movie ever.... until they showed Fitzcoraldo a few months later lol.

[@svofski]

It's impossible not to cry during the levitation scene. And probably impossible to listen to that music without remembering this scene ever after. Thanks for this beautiful analysis. I personally see the book and the movie as two separate entities that somehow magically connect, but one is not a counterpart of other.

[@EdMorbius46]

Well, TUG, I have been eagerly awaiting your reviewing Solaris, and I am not disappointed. You knocked this one out of the park! I saw this extraordinary movie many years ago, when I was a young man, and it left an indelible imprint on my brain. Reading the book by Lem helped somewhat, but that also was a long time ago. I have not returned to either since then, despite having purchased the DVD more than 20 years ago! It has been waiting until I was ready to invest the time. 😂You made fair comment about the interminable car drive, and it is indeed a long movie. Your explanation about the shoot in Tokyo helped to explain this anomaly, but Tarkovsky has always been leisurely in his editing. Despite these misgivings of mine, I side with you about its importance: I have a list of just over 30 greatest SF movies of all time, and Solaris is in there. However, because of its unjustifiably long car drive, I could not even put it amongst the top 100 movies of all time, despite its considerable emotional and intellectual impact. For comparison, a movie that did make my top 30 movies of any kind, The Leopard, has a ballroom scene that was around 45 minutes long - but every minute of that scene was justified! Thanks for a thought-provoking review, as always including useful historical detail. 👍

[@davidgianatasio5747]

Lem wrote a great book called Futurological Congress. It’s one of those works where reality gets ripped away again and again and again. What seems reals simply isn’t. Nor is the next reality. Phil Dick does this, but Lem’s take is staggering and mind-altering . Seek it out!

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Oooh, nice recommend. I will check it out!

[@MattMcIrvin]

@@TheUnapologeticGeek It's a classic, also hilarious in its own way. For me Lem's greatest will always be his Cyberiad, a collection of surreal and comical science-fiction fairy tales set in a world populated by robots, but many of his more serious works are amazing too, particularly His Master's Voice and his dark, enigmatic late novel Fiasco. Also, his more experimental collections, Imaginary Magnitude and A Perfect Vacuum, haunt me today in how many of the pieces predicted aspects of recent developments in artificial intelligence.

[@IMOReviews]

This was excellently timed for me! Mrs IMO’s dad is a huge fan of Tarkovsky and has lent us his criterion collection… we watched stalker the other night, it took a while to put it together but when it clicked… wow! Next up… Solaris! Keep up the great work m8 😊

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

That’s awesome! I’m excited for your journey into Tarkovsky!

[@fredo1070]

So why was that shot of the guy carrying the candle so great?

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

I’d need a whole separate video to explain. I might do that!

[@EdMorbius46]

​@@TheUnapologeticGeek- Yes, please do that. I am really curious, having immensely enjoyed your review of Solaris. Like you, I was profoundly stirred by Solaris (kull wahad, to quote Frank Herbert's appendices to Dune). 😂

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@TheUnapologeticGeek yeah I would appreciate it if you did explain that. I’ve actually seen that movie and the shot did not jump out at me as being particularly fantastic so clearly I am lacking a broader context. I would love to know what I’m missing.

[@meiketorkelson4437]

You need to do a semester of film school to find out. 😅

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

@@meiketorkelson4437 😂

[@KonElKent]

Your professor is wrong; the greatest scene in all of film is Slim Pickens riding the bomb in Dr. Strangelove. Nothing captures the very concept of making lemonade so well.

[@EdMorbius46]

We all have our favorites, which I will not insert here. But I love your suggestion, as well as how vividly and concisely you expressed it. 😊

[@paulpiacentini]

Cheers man. Well done. Please keep it up.

[@tuttt99]

Two things I don't understood at all but love dearly: Tartovsky's films, and "The Prisoner"

[@Torgo-and-the-Lucifer-Cat]

Know what you mean. Prisoner is about how society and government controls the individual. The village is the world. No. 2 is always different because it doesn't matter who's in control. No. 6 is actually no. 1, because you have to "look out for number one", i.e., yourself.

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@Torgo-and-the-Lucifer-Cat I disagree. Number six is number six because Patrick McGough noted that it is the only number you can turn over and have it be a different number so from the very beginning they are implying that six is something other than he appears. Number two runs the village at the behest of number one. Number two and the village in general, continually trying to beat down number one and make him submit, but your explanation he is not only looking out for himself. He frequently helps others in the village, even when it is not to his advantage. That most of the other people are trapped there, like him, and has sympathy for them. He doesn’t trust them, but that’s a very different thing. In the long speech in the end of the final episode, there is a discussion of the three kinds of rebellion , two of which are immoral and invalid, and the third of which is true. We are told that number six has “ demonstrated the right of the individual to be individual.” he is there for granted, “absolute authority,” and taken to meet number one, which turns out to be him or a clone of him. What the show is saying is that regardless of the government and the social order, the ultimate source of power and authority is the individual. What the individual is willing to give to society is the only thing that validates society. Society is made up of individuals, though both we and society itself often forgets that. The story is by no means , “look out for yourself,” it’s more, “don’t let them make you say yes when you want to say no.”

[@papalaz4444244]

The Prisoner was made up week by week and they never had an actual ending planned at all. That makes it chaotic with no answers to be gained.

[@Torgo-and-the-Lucifer-Cat]

@@mahatmarandy5977??? then why is it his face as no. 1 when he takes the mask off?

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@papalaz4444244 i’m not sure where you’re getting that from. Patrick MacGoohan had planned out six or seven episodes in varying levels of detail. The studio insisted on a full season, he only wanted to do six, they reached a compromise, and did the 17 that we have. So, basically, just under half of it was stuff that he wanted to do from the outset, perhaps a third ideas he had been interested in, but did not feel were essential, but he was happy to explore them. The remainder were mostly filler that they slapped together when they needed it, which might be what you were thinking of. He did have difficulty with the penultimate episode, which was originally intended to be smack in the middle of the season, but he ended up pushing that back. While a lot of the final episode is just tripping nonsense admittedly, there is a very clear philosophy to the entire show, which they spell out specifically in the big speech in the final episode.

[@rickriffel6246]

A question for anyone who cares to answer: Do you understand everything you enjoy and do you enjoy everything you understand?

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

To paraphrase David Lynch: life doesn't make sense, so why should we expect art to?

[@markearnestfromreno613]

No and no. Maybe it’s the word ‘enjoy’ hanging me up here. I will say that as long as I’m feeling something, and it’s clear that it was made with emotion and care, I’ll go along for any artistic ride, whether or not there is clarity at the wheel.

[@mahatmarandy5977]

No. I do not enjoy everything that I understand, and I do not understand everything that I enjoy. I do try to understand most things though. Because understanding might give me the key to enjoy it, or at least appreciate it.

[@meiketorkelson4437]

No and no. It's always great to have things which are open to interpretation. One of my favorite graphic novels is Watchmen. I have been reading and rereading since it came out. But I notice I will identify differently with characters each time I watch it as I grow older. Likewise in Solaris, I feel very different to this each time and pick up differently on it.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

@@meiketorkelson4437 I feel the same way about Watchman. I swear it’s a different graphic novel every time I go back to it!

[@saiden630]

I read Solaris (albeit because of the fame of the movie) before I saw the film. It was great thought provoking hard sci-fi culminating in the “mirror” conclusion. The film however is the actual holding of the mirror to humanity not its abstract conception.

[@antoniocunha3912]

I would enjoy VERY MUCH your reading comparing both Solaris and 2001. Since these two films are unquestionably proven CLASSICS of cinema. By the way, must thank you very much for this episode. Greeitngs from São Paulo, Brazil.

[@tiborsramek]

I'm more of a Tarkovsky respecter than fan, but the guy was incredibly talented, it's a chore to sit through his movies but they have an immense effect on people

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

That's a common reaction, and a completely valid one. I don't expect that many people to enjoy sitting through a Tarkovsky film, but I do want to try to open people's eyes to what's so important about him.

[@FacuCettour]

Underrated channel, greetings from Argentina!

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Thank you!

[@meiketorkelson4437]

Thanks so much for this. Solaris and 2001 are both superb movies but almost polar opposites. 2001 is spectacle and storytelling, but with very little character (or dialogue). Solaris is a movie much more about emotions. What the scientists experience is something deeply personal and haunting. It's a movie I dip into every few years, and engage with differently each time as I mature. There are very few piece of art you can say that about.

[@perlman7376]

Stating the obvious - 2001 is the GOAT of SCI-FI. Well, at least for most of us. I somehow got thru about 25 minutes of Solaris and stopped before I really got angry due to boredom. Throwing out useless crumbs of innuendos and expecting them to be taken as profound or deep statements is the essence of pretentiousness. For me, the worst sci-fi flick ever.

[@FixItAgainToni]

Thanks for this very helpful and interesting video. Just watched Solaris for the first time and this video gave me a lot of context.

[@thiagoferraz5362]

I really liked your interpretation about the ending. Solaris is agreat movie, I really love what Tarkovsky did in this work.

[@dornravlin]

This movie took a long time to grow on on me first I thought it was boring as molasses then it suddenly grew on me

[@ChristopherTheBanana]

This is a fairly good analysis of Chris-- especially your conceptualization of the ending. To kind of further that point, this film is very existentialist. While the visitors initially present themselves as 'mirrors' for those on the station, Kris' relationship with his seems to push the ocean further and allows it to investigate it's own being. Initially, Hari is just a replication of Kris' memory, but as he engages with it and treats it as person, as opposed to Sartorious and Snaut, who treat them as alien or hallucinations (respectively), it realizes itself as a separate entity-- a distinct consciousness, a Dasein. Of course, as far as we know, the bodies which the ocean finds itself in are completely alien to it, and so are the emotions which it experiences as a consequence of that and the memories it 'has' from the researchers. However, this is not far off from our own human experience at time-- where we experience emotions without understanding why, where our bodies feel alien to us. What exactly this means, I don't yet have a conclusion. But it's none the less interesting, and I think food for thought.

[@kirkaplin234]

Just discovered your channel a few weeks ago. Enjoying your Sci-Fi Classic reviews. Would like to see reviews for Atlantis the Lost Continent, Master of the World, Journey to the Seventh Planet, Robinson Crusoe on Mars and A Boy and His Dog sometime. Keep up the good work!

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Those are ALL on my list! I’ve got a couple of them in the queue even.

[@chutomagh9946]

I would be very interested to find out why the candle scene from Nostalghia is such a great scene. Thank you for this video btw.

[@brainofmorbius]

When I eventually read the works of Stanislaw Lem I was surprised how much humour was in his novels based this movie.

[@papalaz4444244]

He has the comedy scifi novels and the others are straighter in tone. Like Solaris.

[@danthsmith]

Good video as usual. Andrei Rublev is one of my all time faves and should be seen on the big screen. I'd love to see Solaris at the cinema. There is tons of Soviet era Sci-fi from Iron curtain countries. Often butchered by american versions. Ikarie XB1 is my fave but many others worth attention. Changing topic, what about the Harryhausen First Men in the Moon? Best wishes

[@ashleydoreen000]

I love the film and the novel. Thanks for posting this.

[@tskmaster3837]

My take: It's a good thing the Soviets never found a way to weaponize boredom. It is possible to have a beautiful movie while still having a movie.

[@CMDR_Verm]

Thank you for this. I'm a lover of both the novel and the film but have never seen a video where the cast and characters are so well investigated, i.e. there was a great deal of new information for me (and as a geek myself I know that's what we thrive on). I can understand Tarkovsky's view of not wanting to make a movie that is just a visual representation of a novel. Villeneuve has recently done that with Dune and, having read all the Dune novels, I can say I am not ''learning'' anything new. I would have much preferred to see Jodorowsky's interpretation because it was his own personal take (and at least would have had some colour in it!). Villeneuve's Dune might as well have been filmed in black and white. And no, I'm not asking you to do a deep dive into his version, but Jodorowsky's might make interesting viewing, even if it never did get made.

[@dialecticsjunkie7653]

For someone who's stereotypically seen as downplaying the "Genre" elements of Sci-Fi, Tarkovsky really had a tremendous impact on the future of the genre. A lot of the elements in this and Stalker -- retro-futurism (the grimy broken-down aesthetic), environment as reflection of unfulfilled desires, Daddy Issues (Contact, Ad Astra, Interstellar, I'm sure more well-versed Sci-Fi nerds can come up with more examples), ambient electronic score -- become staples of a particular kind of "sci-fi psychothriller" subgenre that's maintained a certain popularity even in mainstream Hollywood.

[@TimBarrett-b2u]

I've always viewed Solaris as the middle ground in Sci-fi between the brain (2001) and the heart (Interstellar). It manages to balance those two competing elements without giving in completely to one or the other. I think Tarkovsky's criticism's of Hollywood films at the time were valid, and you can definitely see the influence this film had on the west after it came out.

[@gmanley1]

12:23 The name Steven Soderbergh sounds like a parody of Steven Spielberg from some sort of TV show I would watch.

[@FixItAgainToni]

He made the only film about Kafka that I didn't enjoy at all... and then the totally dumbed-down Hollywood remake of Solaris. Hm, I'm not really impressed about him ;)

[@siarnne]

Two scenes you caught come to mind (though I do vote for the Nostaghlia candle scene exposition) and I wanted to ask if you thought there was more than coincidence to them: The first was the mention that someone on Solaris had two wives. That immediately made me think of Commander Norton in Rendesvous with RAma (soon to be undertaken by Dennous Villousnouvous twenty years after we pegged our hopes on Morgan Freeman and David Fincher)-how in the text of the book he had two wives as a necessity of his career as an interplanetary space captain. I also think Clarke had used it as metacommentary on how progress can make society's values seem strange and alienating. As RAma was published a year after Solaris came out, and Clarke was closely connected with the production of 2001, do you think this was a case of cross pollination. Also you made it clear what Tarkovsky thought of 2001. I wonder what Clarke thought of Solaris. Third, I don't mean to emphasize the A in RAma. It's just easier to type i that way. Also Third: You dwelt on the scene of the rain falling in the Teacup-which still had Tea and I noticed how it showed the ruination of things appealing. The tea still tinted the liquid but it was diluted and settled into a subsurface layer. That immediately made me think of the soaked donut in ALIENS-which got a visceral reaction from the theater audience when I saw it. I never understood that shot completely. It wasn't evidence of the ALIEN attack on the colony in the way the acid burns and ruined barricades were. But it had that same ruined pleasure. I wondered if you knew of a connection between James Cameron and Tarkovsky's work exemplified here.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

There’s a lot to chew on and research to answer those questions! Well done, sir. The donut shot from Aliens is especially interesting, and I would not be surprised if there’s a connection there.

[@RealPersistences]

Im actually confused by the very last shot. Were they not on Earth? Were they on Solaris? 2:27:00-2:29:00 was a bit confusing too, and i dont get y Chris sent the first Hari away in that spaceship

[@colinboyter]

Great video. Thanks.

[@thrashpondopons8348]

Thanks TUG! Must confess... this film always eluded me!

[@robertrootes]

Nothing says depressed Russian filmmaker than jumping into the future. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person and have attempted to watch the film more than few times. But waxing poet about this sufferable film doesn't change the general consensus about this film. It is strictly a movie for directors and that is it.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

I completely understand that reaction!

[@myflock000]

very cool brother

[@1kylecurry]

Very methodical, slow burn however...brilliant film making. Beautifully shot & intelligent.The original haunted space station. This underrated gem grew on me after multiple viewings. Highly recommended. Just stick with it.

[@mikesilva3868]

Great review 😊

[@RaysDad]

Hari was not born; she was created by an alien intelligence using human thoughts as a blueprint. Yet as she lives with humans on the space station she becomes "more human than you are." The alien intelligence Solaris also learns from the space station crew and in the end achieves enough understanding to create a home for Kris where he can resolve his life issues.

[@hanniffydinn6019]

Love hitch hikers guide to the galaxy? Looking for something that is just as crazy, surreal, off the wall & SF comedy? I highly recommend the german TV show: “ Ijon Tichy: Raumpilot” which is based on Star dairies and other books by Stanislaw Lem! I Can’t express how brilliant it is, it’s more hitch hikers than hitch hikers itself ! Stanislaw Lem is a genius with these crazy SF comedy tall stories, I’d argue Ijon Tichy is better, And should be more known in the west. 🤯🤯🤯😎😎😎

[@jime6688]

I’ve tried this film a couple of times and ALWAYS doze off during the traveling through the city scene. It IS long. The main thing I remember about this is Chris burning all of his possessions before going to Solaris. I took that as him believing he would never return from Solaris, but there’s probably a deeper meaning there.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

I do think it’s intended to show he thinks he won’t return, but he’s also trying to erase all the things he cares about because they’ve caused him such pain. As for the driving sequence, as much as a purist as I am… you can totally skip it and lose nothing. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@jime6688]

@@TheUnapologeticGeekFINALLY completed it. It helped to skip the traveling through city part. Thanks for explaining why they did that.

[@TheFilmArdent]

I’ll be honest with you: I’ve seen his films more than once but it feels as though I still don’t understand it’s true meaning. Sure, I may walk away with an interpretation from the film, but that’s just what my mind believes the film’s about. It’s not even close to what Tarkovsky may have aimed to do for the film. This is a very interesting video that I’m glad I watched. The impact Andrei Tarkovsky left and I know by now it’s gotta be painfully pretentious or cliched by now, certainly made a big impact on me as a cinema lover. Although I will admit there’s A LOT that I may not fully understand since I am not on the same wavelength of intelligence as Tarkovsky, but what I appreciate the most about him is how much he changed my perception on cinema. He showed me that art shouldn’t just be entertainment only, but as a way to directly affect the emotions of the audience that then awakens the thought process forward. Sorry for the long comment, but I love your analysis on Solaris. I think your analysis enhances my overall love and appreciation for this film. It’s such a shame that Tarkovsky views Solaris to be his least favorite film he’s directed, but am glad he gave us such a remarkable science-fiction film that feels more like a meditative experience rather than just a film.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Awesome comment, and well said!

[@Malvito]

Great video; makes me want to delve into Tarkovsky. Yes, by all means, I would love to see a video explaining the reasoning associated with the candle carrying scene. For one thing, it would, I am sure, include needed context. The Tarkovsky/Kubrick philosophical split brought to mind the reputed philosophical split between Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. Don't know if that is intentional of if I am projecting, but there you are. I have seen the American version of SOLARIS; I liked it more than a lot of people, but I am pretty sure that I will like the original better, even if only because other-than-American films handle philosophy so much better than American ones. Taking a wild swing at the next video, are you going for FRANKENSTEIN:THE TRUE STORY? I love that one; watched that one, both nights, in my yout'. It's no closer to the original source novel than any of the others (and, let's be fair, I would argue that an exact translation would make for a really awful movie, even ignoring the potential argument of whether to use the 1818 three-volume version or the 1836 revision), but it's a lot of fun.

[@MatthewSmith001]

I love so many sci-fi films of that genre. Do Anna To the Infinite Power. Great book... bit of an eerie movie. You'll find the book in the YA section on the library... At least I did in the 6th grade. But then that's where you'll also find Pinocchio and Bambi, both books of some violence.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

I’ve put it on my list!

[@MatthewSmith001]

@@TheUnapologeticGeek awesome! That whole era of sci-fi literature was pretty awesome.

[@papalaz4444244]

I would be interested if anyone has an interpretation of the scene of traffic moving slowly through Tokyo. I think it's very specific from the director and a genius idea but other people don't see any reason for it.

[@UtopiaForMore]

i like your thoughts about this masterpiece movie

[@tombaker4586]

Must watch it. Tom, Belgium.

[@stephenbrowne3399]

It's an examination of life. What constitutes life and what is consciousness. It's mystery is shown in the ocean, the people and nature. These are are just reacting within.

[@TheTimeRocket]

"The Lamb of God is seen thro' mists & shadows, hov'ring Over the sepulchers in clouds of Jehovah & winds of Elohim, A disk of blood distant; & heav'ns & earths roll dark between. What do I here before the Judgment? without my Emanation? With the daughters of memory & not with the daughters of inspiration?" -William Blake

[@Professionalnyj_Troll]

Read the book the Solaris is well explained by Lem he spent half of the book to refence what Humanity learned about the Ocean and how it was interacting with homo sapience before it lost interest. The end of the movie is just made up painting - The Return of the Prodigal Son which Lem BTW did not take very well.

[@meiketorkelson4437]

Okay. The driving sequence... My interpretation of this has always been that the guy (Burton, if I remember) has that girl with him. And there's an implication that she's his visitor from Solaris who is still following him around. Because it's like she's pretty much ignored. Like she's some kind of a ghost.

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Oh wow!! I never considered that.

[@meiketorkelson4437]

@TheUnapologeticGeek and that to me is how cinema can essentially be art. On rewatching you see different details. You suspect, but you can never be either truly validated or invalidated. It becomes your interpretation. And that's what brings us back to challenge ourselves. We all have suspicions on the nature of Snout or Sartorious's visitor and what it reflects about them.

[@joshsalwen]

I watched about 1/2 the movie a few weeks ago. I need to get back to it. I want to watch it, but I hesitate because 1) it is a bit wild and 2) I don’t want it to be over. Weird, I know

[@buffstraw2969]

Very good analysis of one of my favorite films, "Solaris." You pointed out a few symbolic things that I didn't catch, even after repeated viewings. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the ending. Lem's novel ends with Kelvin staying on the planet Solaris, hoping that Hari (Rheya in the novel) will reappear, and that "the time of cruel miracles was not yet passed." Yes I love pretentious art cinema. But I don't see it as "pretentious." I think that's a weasel word used by mediocre minds to dismiss honest cinematic efforts that they neither understand nor appreciate. "Meh, I thought it was pretentious" really means "WTF, I didn't get it." Most moviegoers prefer filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas, who pander to their lowbrow tastes. I do agree with you that Soderberg's version of "Solaris" is junk, with a phony Hollywood happy ending added on. Now THAT'S pretentious.

[@palmercolson7037]

I have watched the American version with George Clooney, it was OK. I haven't seen Tarkovsky original because it just seemed to be over long (2 hours, 47 minutes) with the reputation of not having very much going on. After all the Marvel movies, the length seems lest daunting, but I don't feel motivated to see it over more recent movies.

[@MarttiSuomivuori]

I just read the book and watched the film for the third time. This info is interesting but does not help in understanding the film. In Mirror, Tarkovski depicts his mother as a serial smoker. You did a nice job, giving me new associations.

[@brettcoster4781]

Solaris is still the only Tarkovskyy I've seen in a cinema, many, many years ago. Yet I've seen almost all of his films (The Sacrifice is the only one of his features I've not yet seen but I do have the Curzon Blu-ray of it) and would rank Stalker highest but then Solaris, Andrei Rublev, Nostalghia, Ivan's Childhood. I don't yet know where to place The Mirror; I need to watch it again, and probably again. And again, as with all Tarkovskyy's (and Kubrick's). The Tokyo scene in Solaris was, I thought, the Soviet take on the wormhole scene in 2001; I've laughed a few times while watching it. Can't not I'm afraid. I thought that Solaris' ending was Solaris providing Kris Kelvin a proper ending, but I was surprised and intrigued by your interpretation, which is I think a better answer. And please, I await your interpretation of Stalker, whenever you can do it.

[@adrianbardan782]

just saw the movie recently. it didn't need to be 3 hrs. yes, quite pretentious. I only understood the main events that happened after watching YT reviews. lol. the long scenes were in fact too long. it's weird seeing this in the days of the internet when we have sci-fi dust shorts that sometimes carry similar punch in a fraction of the time. the movie was ok. definitely very russian. I'm a bit bummed that Chris didn't particularly try to help his new wife figure out her humanity after he formed his attachment. he was a bit too busy acting like a distraught russian, doing too much naval gazing to be useful. this crew needed someone from star trek tng to teach them about first contact.

[@indyspotes3310]

At the heart of every auteur is a child who wanted to be a painter. But, ultimately, they have to tell a story. And Tarkovsky, talented though he may be, never told stories that I cared for. I suspect it's the oppression he felt politically coming through in his films making them bereft of any joy. Although unintentional, his continuous overly drawn out shots also always struck me as a perfect symbol of the static nature of art under communism. Who knows? Maybe if he had been born into the type of society that he held in such disdain, .the artistic freedom and resources could have helped him create a film he could finally be happy with.

[@MichaelJohnson-kq7qg]

Tarkovsky is very much a maker of art that is experienced, rather than enjoyed. If Tarkovsky had the resources Kubrick had, his films probably wouldn't have been as creative and probably would have been much more formulaic.

[@jnr2349]

I feel that being from a communist country made him think deeper. All his movies seem to contain political angst AND all the existential angst of being. Where as I think Kubrick always seemed to me to belong to the hollywood hype. Tarkovskys opinions on Kubrick ring true to me.

[@perlman7376]

2001 is the GOAT of sci-fi. solaris is a pretentious idiosyncratic POS which tries to achieve validity by leaving bits and pieces of clues which go nowhere in an attempt to achieve profoundness. I couldn't even get thru this crap of a film because after a while I just didn't care to get jerked around. I can, and do, my own heavy duty thinking about what existence is.

[@iangalley3464]

I took the long driving scene to be a representation of just how long (and boring) the space flight would be.

[@tommydarbe1524]

Deep.. like the Ocean.

[@jmalmsten]

Andreis filmography for me is one filled with frustration. Like with Terrence Malick, I wonder if I wouldn't enjoy the experience of the ride through the narrative, if they were mute. What I mean is that while I agree that on pretty much all technical levels his craft is pretty much without failings... His dialog writings make me want to pierce my ears with steel nails just to make it stop. It is so simplistic, so much surface level teenage navelgazing, and regressive propaganda mixed with technophobia and incoherent anti-science ramblings. Nothing is actually challenged. Its spoken text devolving into essentially like a feature length episode of Black Mirror. Maybe I should turn off the subtitles in upcoming viewings. Maybe that way I won't be distracted by the contents of what they want to say.

[@billhumiston9888]

Honestly, at the time I first saw this film in theater, I was not colored impressed - especially since I was 15 at the time (what can I say?). Although it was pitched as "the Soviet '2001'," I saw nothing of the Kubrick classic in it, nor did I see a work of art; to me, it was just an overpriced waste of time. But art, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. I did watch it again as a young adult, but again was not impressed. I did see the American version of this film which sparked yet another rewatch of the Soviet film, but again was unimpressed, although the ending made more sense because of the influence of the American film. Three times (four, if you count the American film), is enough, however!

[@CarlosSouza-ju7bx]

I loved the video, just like to point that i find funny the focus on the video on creating a narrative where the bad comunists try to sabotage solaris and his director at all cost and the movie came out despite of soviet state. It is a funny narrative, considering that in the west there was no even a chance that a movie like solaris would be released or financed. Despite that biased way to describe things i love the video and find excelent insights on it.

[@FixItAgainToni]

Different topic but if you dig (or don't dig 😁) extremely long (and sometimes monotonous) shots, try watching "The Seventh Continent" by Haneke. (It is a good film btw!)

[@rsacchi100]

I found it interesting Andrei Tarkovsky didn't like 2001. H.G. Wells hated Metropolis. Big disagreement on what science fiction should be.

[@richardhart9204]

... three things I hate in life: parsnips, spiders, and pretentious foreign films. I've tried to watch this garbage movie three times, and each time I've fallen asleep within the first 10 to 15 minutes of viewing. If given a choice between watching Solaris or the vastly superior, Commando, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger ... please. If I want to think, I'll read a book. When I watch a movie, I want 'splosions, car chases, fistfights, and gunfights. If ... if a movie with said can also cause me to deeply contemplate the meaning of life, the Universe and everything, that's just gravy.

[@williamblakehall5566]

Would you give 2001: A Space Odyssey a pass because it has a paranoid killer computer or simply because it's in English? And if English is your breaking point, have you ever tried La Femme Nikita with subtitles? I dig Commando too, but it gets tiresome listening to James Horner recycling the same kind of score he pioneered in 48 HRS.

[@richardhart9204]

@@williamblakehall5566 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my all-time favourite movies, and La Femme Nikita was okay, not great. People always complain about the late Mr Horner repeating the same scores over and over again, but what he actually did was repeat signature motifs he liked, and there's nothing wrong with that. That said, yes, as a general rule I like my popular culture Western and English-speaking; it's just better that way.

[@solarisnatuson7928]

Hi my name is Solaris 🙂strange thing is I discovered the movie when I commented on a Russian womens youtube channel. Even stranger is that my best friends apartment was flooded the 11th of September during the Swedish election, just like the end scene in Solaris. Yes I am trying to walk in the footstep of Lord Jesus Christ 😇🙏

[@marSLaZZ66]

I tried to watch this movie once but failed. I'll try another time maybe

[@solarisnatuson7928]

Chris turns into Christ when he is baptized in the end, he is able to see and understand his father which is God of course. Solaris is the planet of anointment. When God opens the door for you you will be anointed and understand his language. God is in everything!

[@thephantomproductions]

My guess is Shadow of the Vampire is the next movie review.

[@3choblast3r4]

It's been a super long time since I saw this movie, the book is on my TBR but I haven't read it yet.l The one thing I never got, is how confused people are about the guy whose "visitor" or apparition (whatever you want to call it) is the little girl. Gosh darnit they just can't figure out what's going on there. The f you mean bro? The people / apparitions that appear are all related to something they are profoundly ashamed / regretful for. So, why do you think that guy's is a very pretty, naive young girl.. It's clearly not his daughter etc. Not in the movie at least, not from what I remember. So to me it became very clear that this guy had let his lust take hold of him and was inappropriate with that girl. p.s. the last time I tried watching stalker I was high as a kite and I remember vague scenes. I'm not even sure if I actually finished the movie. I was 16 or something I think

[@stephenmorton8017]

I agree with Lem. This guy totally hacked up his book. He turned it into a anti-science screed. None of the interesting scenes in the book made it to the screen due to soap operatic additions. I thought the entire movie was a waste of time to view. I watched it in the theater. Even the American adaptation was a waste of time.

[@blumrich1970]

Tarkovsky literally filmed minutes-long sequences of paint drying. Watching people try to smear lipstick on that pig is always just hilarious.

[@trydowave]

If Chris brought his cloned wife back to earth, so they could live happily ever after; do you think she would dissolve into a little puddle of alien liquid; as shes too far away from solaris?

[@Leberteich]

To throw a curve ball... Is this a re- telling of the Jesus story? God became flesh by sending us his son in human form, not just for our salvation, but also so that through his son, he could experience our love, pain, and may I say sex, or what is Mary Magdalene all about? Similarly, Solaris sends Hari so that he/she/it (?) can experience our feelings through her. ?

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Interesting! I love a good Jesus metaphor.

[@Hadezul2]

So why bother mentioning that candle scene if you aren't going to explain it and say you might do another video about it one day? Chekhov's candle? 😒

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

I consider not explaining something a fitting touch on a video about Tarkovsky. 😂 But it’s funny you mention Chekhov, as this movie has a gun introduced early on that is never fired in the third act.

[@tophers3756]

Probably the most overrated director in film history. A god among the pretentious.

[@demongo2007]

If one views films purely as artwork created by the filmmaker through their own subjective creative impulses to satisfy their own needs...then ok solaris is fine. The director made it for himself so it can be whatever he wants it to be, saying whatever or saying nothing. To the extent that films are intended to be viewed by an actual human audience as a form of entertainment solaris is an abject failure. Turgid, dull, intellectually opaque relative to the source material and fundamentally boring (that driving sequence is pathetic). Anyone who suggests otherwise is a film student or a film school teacher or the director. Who apparently also realized it was a failure.

[@roberthasse7862]

I'm generally NOT into pretentious art films, but . . . I have a special love for one, The Magus, about which Woody Allen said, "If I had my whole life to live over again, I'd do everything exactly the same, except I wouldn't watch The Magus."

[@ericakasatch]

i am sorry sir. but i understand Solaris perfectly....stop making vidoes about idiots...please

[@itssogood69]

^^

[@MunkiZee]

Stop talking about it then

[@papalaz4444244]

His name isn't pronounced that way. There is a stroke across the 'l' in Stanislav. In Polish that is pronounced as W. "StanisWav Lem" " In some Slavic languages, it represents the continuation of the Proto-Slavic non-palatal ⟨L⟩ (dark L), except in Polish, Kashubian, and Sorbian, where it evolved further into /w/. "

[@TheUnapologeticGeek]

Thank you! I will try to pronounce it better if I talk about him again.

[@papalaz4444244]

@@TheUnapologeticGeek LOL I used to get it wrong of course, then I discovered the truth :)