Solaris

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

Paul & Amy orbit 1972’s Russian outer space mood piece Solaris! They learn why director Andrei Tartovsky disdained nearly all American films, compare Solaris to the many movies it influenced, and decry the ‘explainer’ culture of modern film fandom. Plus: A dramatic reading of the trailer for the Solaris remake!

Next week Unspooled’s space series continues with Aliens! You can join the conversation for this series on the Unspooled Facebook Group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/unspooledpodcast, and on Paul’s Discord at https://discord.gg/ZwtygZGTa6. Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

[FictionIsntReal 79]

The first Tarkovsky movies I saw were Stalker, and later this. Neither really worked for me (nor did The Mirror). His period pieces like Andrei Rublev & Ivan's Childhood were much better. After hearing that the earlier TV movie adaptation was more faithful to the book, I watched that but it just removed the material on Earth. Later I read the book and can't quite understand Stanislaw Lem's distaste for the movie. Basically everything there is in the book, alongside unfilmable chapters of "solaristics". Paul seems intent on proving me wrong, since Lem's whole point was about the possibility of communicating with something as alien as Solaris, and Paul clearly got the opposite message from the film. I thought it was clear enough that the entity herself came to the realization that she was a mere construct rather than a real person and thus chose to permanently eradicate herself, so there's no aspirational message about how to treat such constructs. Solaris doesn't care about her (or "its") inner experience, and just kept creating constructs because that's what it does.

A better example of a pretentious arthouse director who derides film is Peter Greenaway, who says painting is a much older form and directors should look toward that rather than imitating other movies.

I don't think Cameron is like Tarkovsky OR Kubrick. The original Terminator is still a great film (which is arguably more indebted to Carpenter & Crichton), so I respect Tarkovsky's verdict on it.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

This is still the only Tarkovsky film I've seen to date, and from various other listener comments I've seen (here and on Facebook), it seems like there might be better Tarkovsky candidates to be blasted off. I also do kind of see this as a package with 2001, and if that is already on the list (deservedly so) then I'm not sure we need this as well. Yes, it's different in several ways, but when it comes to "meditative, intellectual sci-fi" as a broad grouping I think Kubrick has the trophy there (and I'm sure Mr. Tarkovsky would despair at such an opinion).

On the film itself: I like it, it's clearly very well-made, and it leaves you with a lot to ponder. This is my second time through it, and I still find myself not quite "vibing" with the pacing. Slow isn't necessarily bad (and it's also clearly intentional here), but if we're splitting hairs among great films then I have to admit that I get a bit bored in places while watching this movie. The film's virtues certainly override that problem, but it wouldn't be in my personal canon.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

5 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

and I'm sure Mr. Tarkovsky would despair at such an opinion).

I imagine the cancer and Soviet censorship were greater sources of despair for him.

 

Anyhow, I really should rewatch Solarys, it's been a long time. The problem I run into, given the length, whenever I feel like rewatching a Tarkovsky sci-fi film, I end up just rewatching Stalker, because that's the one I remember liking more.

Which sounds a lot like Paul's line about Alien and The Thing.

That said as @FictionIsntReal mentioned above, I believe the common understanding is the planet itself is an alien entity, and is kind of unknowable, creating simulacrum of life. Which, well, see Tarkovsky and trying to make religious films in the Soviet Union. (I believe the final scene is partly, rejecting the rational world to succumb to the heart and God/faith. Or something). It sounds like Paul conflated the simulacrum with a direct representation of an entity, which strikes me as an odd read, but he did keep referencing Contact, where that was what it was. 

 

Side note, I recall there was a How Did this get Made?  episode where someone who worked on the film worked with Tarkovsky. I remember this, because Paul stumbled over trying to say Tarkovsky's name in the episode, which was kind of the sign of, "oh, Paul doesn't know who this is."

I'm pretty sure this was before Paul ever mentioned loving Annihilation, but not positive.  Though I can't remember which movie it was. 

Anyhow, hopefully they'll get to more Eastern European films. Daisies and Marketa Lazarova would both be... worth a watch.  And if Paul had never heard of Tarkovsky before, I'm pretty sure he hasn't heard of those.