Movie Talk &#8211; Solaris

Remember literature classes where some crazy allegory was pointed out in an otherwise interesting book (i.e. “The Nautilus represents Verne’s expressions of inadequacy as a man.”), and you thought, “Man, they are really making too much out of this.”? I’m about to do that with “Solaris”, the 1972 Russian film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky and based on the novel by Stanislaw Lem.

Please bear with me- there is a point to this exercise.

Here’s the setup- the basic story is about a planet named Solaris. Humans have been studying it for years, and have determined that the huge ocean covering it is probably alive, and may be sentient. The crew of the orbiting station is having severe problems, and a psychologist, Kris Kelvin, is sent to evaluate the situation. Lem’s motive in writing this was his interest in the big idea of humanity encountering a truly alien life form, and being unable to comprehend it due to the significant differences in perception and understanding. Tarkovsky is more interested in exploring the personal story of Kelvin in order to derive understanding about the self, conscience, and morality in an age of ever-increasing knowledge, and is less interested in Lem’s overall narrative. Get it? Same narrative, but one guy is using it to look outward and the other is using it to look inward.

OK, let’s back up 200 years to Edinburgh, Scotland. David Hume was dissatisfied with the basis of philosophical thought. In the prior several millennia of human existence, mankind’s curiosity about the world had far outstripped the ability to gain knowledge about existence. This had shaped philosophy/theology to rely heavily on received wisdom. Up until the time of Socrates, the answer to the question of “Why are we here?” was found by consulting the local priests.

Theology and philosophy were strongly intertwined, and focused much more on social relations than individual enlightenment. This was by necessity- for the vast majority of human existence, the worst thing that could happen for anybody was to encounter a group of people from another tribe or nation. Very rarely did anything good come from such experiences, and most of human development concentrated on understanding and managing those encounters (i.e. war, laws, economics and government).

In real life, David hume wore a shirt.

And a do-rag, evidently.

By the late 18th century, the British Isles had become a place where a thoughtful individual was free to work on a philosophy that didn’t emphasize social structures so much (i.e. the Vikings had stopped invading, and the religious wars had settled down). David Hume took advantage of this happy situation, and decided to examine the assumptions and constructions that governed the science of thought to that point. He wrote some truly brilliant treatises on the very nature of facts, truth, causality, determination- basically he set the foundation on which all future logical thinking and philosophy would be based. Hume established distinctions between truths/claims established by definition, experience, or derivation, and explained how those distinctions supported various arguments. After Hume, it was no longer intellectually or logically acceptable to answer a “why” with “because it is written…” or “because so-and-so said…”. In an age and part of the world dominated by Calvin’s ideas of predestination, this was very significant. Pretty much every modern atheist draws on Hume’s criticism of religious belief, whether they are aware of it or not (disclosure- TTR is not an atheist).

Why should we care about philosophy? Well, if it was football season, we wouldn’t. But it’s not, and we should care. A society’s choice of philosophy permeates almost every aspect of their relations and worldviews. Want an example? Have you ever dealt with the French, and wondered why they were so difficult? It’s because of Cartesian reasoning, which dominates the Francosphere. This is a philosophy that includes a very useful application for personal decision making. Cartesian reasoning emphasizes understanding what’s in your own personal best interest, and de-emphasizes that which is valuable to others. Are you starting to see why to societies, one influenced by John Locke and Adam Smith, and the other by Rene Descartes, can be so different? I really believe that we reason, value, and decide the way we are taught to reason, value and decide, to a very large extent.

There are issues with Hume’s work, as brilliant as it is. Since data that is personally experienced (or sensed) is valued so much more strongly than data received from somebody else’s experiences, philosophies resulting from Hume’s framework tend to be very self-centric. It is very difficult to work with ideas like love or religious devotion in a consistent manner. Once you start to test the basis of your personal beliefs and understandings, how can you give credence to another person’s? If you are skeptical of your own emotions, what can you think of those voiced by another?
These are the same issues Kelvin has to deal with in Solaris, whether intended by Tarkovsky or not (Ha! You thought I forgot about the movie.). When he arrives at the planet’s space station, he finds only two survivors.

Now, to get this movie, at this point you have to realize this is not a Hollywood film, and Kelvin does not intend to take charge of the group, and convene a meeting “TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS”. This is a very personal film, and the characters care more about their own needs and desires than any mission. Kelvin checks in with each of the survivors, notes that they want nothing to do with anybody else,

and catches a fleeting glimpse of a couple of small, trollish characters hidden in the survivors’ staterooms. He views a video message from one of the recent deceased (a friend from home) and he starts to learn that the crew has been bedeviled by “guests” – living, physical personifications of guilty memories and conscience. Kelvin is warned that he, too, may expect a guest.
The next morning, she arrives. Her name is Hari, and she is an exact representation of his dead wife, who committed suicide 20 years earlier when he left her. At first horrified, he slowly begins to engage Hari as a person. The rest of the movie deals with the implications of that.

This deals with a very Humesian (is that a word?) question- if all we know of somebody else’s existence and reality is what we perceive of them, how real is a construct that acts and responds exactly per our perception of another person? Science fiction is the perfect venue to entertain such an issue. You may scoff, saying this is a manufactured issue and unimportant outside the narrative of this piece of fiction. Yeah? Well, isn’t memory and perception all we have of any of the dead that we have ever cared for? This really is a significant question, as it deals with the reflection in eternity of all we, as individuals, have ever been or known. In other words- in the end, is there any point to life? Our lives in particular? In “Solaris”, Kelvin has to decide how to apportion weight between his rationality and his morality, and in doing so answers the question.

There is no evidence that Tarkovsky focused on philosophical dilemmas branching from Hume’s work. He intended to go deep with this film, certainly, but most critics agree that he was more interested in matters relating to the human conscience in a modern age, rather than the solution of philosophical issues of definition (can you imagine pitching such a movie to Hollywood? “Wittgenstein? Is he that cinematographer?”). Isn’t that a sign of successful art- that Tarkovsky intended to comment on one aspect of humanity and managed to address coherently and successfully a separate existential issue as well?

So, you’re thinking, “That sounds deep, but I’m a smart guy, and if I have to learn about philosophy, I would rather do it with a movie than a book. I’ll bet “Solaris” is one of those movies that has an entertaining story while it works a deep sub-plot.” You would be wrong. “Blade Runner” is the movie you’re describing, not “Solaris”. “Solaris” is three hours long, and a full one hour involves silent footage of water ripples and Tokyo traffic. Tarkovsky liked to use footage without action (or interaction) to force the viewer to adjust to his pace, and reflect. Tarkovsky also randomly (as near as I can tell) flipped between monochrome and color. There’s also the issue that when characters speak, you only get sub-titles about 80% of the time, and they seem shorter than the spoken dialogue would indicate. In other words, “Solaris” is a movie you have to want to see in order to finish. If you’re up to it, and this sounds interesting at all, go for it, but you have to engage it.

You get a lot of this in “Solaris”

Ebert lists it as a Great Movie. I like to link his reviews because I have found that he has interesting content for before and after viewing a movie.

A few years ago, Stephen Soderbergh made a new version of “Solaris”. I haven’t seen it yet, but have it DVR’ed and hope to see it soon. I understand he comes at the source material from a slightly different direction. Thoughts?

Article Tags:

Culture, Movies, off season jackassery, Pauline Kael, Pop Culture

25 Responses

Black Scholes said:

April 28th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

I’m finding those Large Print books really are easier to read.

I could go for a nice 24 point font right about now. Maybe a 12 or 13 if that’s all you have in stock.
jc25 said:

April 28th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

I watched the Soderbergh Solaris in high school, and (while this may be ignorance talking), it was the most boring piece of crap I have ever seen in my life. If you recall (or IMDB it), Soderbergh was coming off a few commercial successes (Out of Sight, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Ocean’s Eleven), so I thought, cool, he’s gonna blow shit up in space with George. Anyhow, we kept waiting for something to happen. Nothing happens. So you’re right, Taylor, you definitely need to get in that mindset.

Also, Jeremy Davies plays one of the crew members onboard Solaris. Jeremy Davies also plays Upham in Saving Private Ryan, who is perhaps my most hated movie character EVER. So not only was I bored the entire movie, I was harboring an intense hatred for Jeremy Davies for putting through another round of movie madness. Ironically enough, Jeremy Davies now plays Daniel Faraday on LOST, which is rife with the science-philosophy-history connections and features a character named Desmond Hume. Small world.

I’m not sure why I wrote all that, but ok then.
Gracie Supanoosinphone said:

April 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I kept waiting for you to somehow tie the philosophy to Mack’s coaching philosophy.

Still waiting.
Facebook User said:

April 28th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

There is nothing hotter than Hume lactating.

I will actually go read this now having watched both Solarii and been completely underwhelmed.
Mr. T said:

April 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Quit yo jibba jabber! Let’s talk some football!
Facebook User said:

April 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm

I’d like to see Michael Bay’s remake of Solaris.

This was good:

Breakfast As Directed by Michael Bay — powered by Cracked.com
BrickHorn said:

April 28th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

A society’s choice of philosophy permeates almost every aspect of their relations and worldviews. Want an example? Have you ever dealt with the French, and wondered why they were so difficult? It’s because of Cartesian reasoning, which dominates the Francosphere. This is a philosophy that includes a very useful application for personal decision making. Cartesian reasoning emphasizes understanding what’s in your own personal best interest, and de-emphasizes that which is valuable to others.

I suppose a similar analysis applies to Americans, who uniformly admire Painter Broadbrush’s work on the theory of sweeping generalizations.
Hookah said:

April 29th, 2009 at 12:53 am

Well it certainly looks like jc25 has a bright film critic career ahead of him.
TaylorTRoom said:

April 29th, 2009 at 4:00 am

That clip is greatness.

There was a lot of discussion when it was released of “Solaris” as a response to “2001″. One of the big differences is the quality of the special effects- they are awful in “Solaris”. Part of it is probably the difference in budgets between American and Russian films. I think the biggest reason is the difference in standards between Kubrick and Tarkovsky. Check out an obscure 1974 student film made by John Carpenter and Dan O’Bannon called “Dark Star” to see what kind of special effects can be accomplished by guys with no money who are at least trying.
Steve Nebraska said:

April 29th, 2009 at 5:57 am

The remake of Solaris wasn’t very good, although I don’t hold Jeremy Davies in as low esteem as other posters.
Stats Are For Losers said:

April 29th, 2009 at 7:01 am

I actually agree with jc25. That Solaris remake was intelectually stimulating but it was boring as hell. When the movie ended I did not know how to feel. I distinctly remember being perfectly fine with the ambivalence I felt toward the lack of conclusion.
Spider said:

April 29th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Have you ever dealt with the French, and wondered why they were so difficult? It’s because of Cartesian reasoning, which dominates the Francosphere.

Uh, I have dealt with the French, a lot, and they aren’t difficult, just different (and diverse). And a lot has gone on in philosophy, especially in France, since Descartes. The French get in your space a lot because that’s normal for them. They don’t smile as much as we do because they think it’s disingenuous … or retarded. And they take to the street at the drop of a hat because they aren’t passive enough to treat bad policy (pubic or private) as inevitable, like the weather.

French suits, however, suck. They’re almost as bad as Hungarians’.

As for Solaris, if anyone was bored by Soderbergh’s version, the Russian version will put you in a coma. The Russian version is like a cross between 2001 and the original release of Bladerunner: it’s been edited so badly that they have to explain it to you. The Soderbergh version is shorter, more direct, more personal, and has a fantastically meditative score that I keep meaning to buy.

I’m still wondering if Clooney used an ass-double, though.
TaylorTRoom said:

April 29th, 2009 at 7:27 am

“They don’t smile as much as we do because they think it’s disingenuous”

“And they take to the street at the drop of a hat because they aren’t passive enough to treat bad policy (pubic or private) as inevitable”

This is what I was getting at. A lot of the synergy/greater good/cooperation/consensus building stuff we take for granted is a result of the emphasis of Anglo philosophical trends. A Cartesian will tell you that win-win negotiating is stupid- each party is responsible for themselves (to a large extent they’re right).

I’m not arguing that one society is superior to another. I’m saying they are different, and there are reasons, and a lot of it is due to philosophical work and educational emphases going back centuries.
Vasherized said:

April 29th, 2009 at 7:51 am

Hegel’s statue has blood dripping out of his eyes. Way tougher look than Hume.

Nobody could agree on whether Kant deserved a statue.
Spider said:

April 29th, 2009 at 8:24 am

I’m not arguing that one society is superior to another.

Of course not. That would be silly.

… unless we’re talking about aggie or okie …
scagnetti said:

April 29th, 2009 at 10:27 am

KANT couldn’t figure out if there really are statues or states of consciousness we identify as statues and if they read as such in our minds’ eye…

Ah yes philosophy humor.

Tarkovsky is another brilliant film artist I admire and it is for the very thing people criticize him for and that is the observational ambivalence his camera forces the viewer to gaze into for three plus hours. The Mirror, The Sacrifice and Andrei Rublev are all contemplative works about the polarity of possibilities man eschews in order live his/her life.

This mission of sorts, I believe, points to the core of humanity. It’s messy and confusing and sometimes you can’t/won’t/don’t believe what’s happening right in front of you. It is up to the individual to evaluate the sanity and reality I his/her surroundings. This, IMO, is what Andrei Tarkovsky set out to do with every film he ever made. Watch the opening scene from Andrei Rublev and you’ll see an overt example of his psuedo-omniscient POV.

As for Solaris, the intercutting sequences with city/nature scenes should appear fairly obvious in the heavy duty – talk about overt philosophy – alegory to man v. nature, etc. If it be not man on man, we’ll go to a collapsing 3-2 zone from Mother Nature…

And I’m out!!!
Stats Are For Losers said:

April 29th, 2009 at 11:02 am

How on earth can we have a thread about Solaris while we let Leach Vs Sherman go undiscussed. You fellas are letting me down!
BatesHorn said:

April 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am

I learned something new today. Keep it up.

And if you want to know about the pretentious pricks I went to college with:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124096471555766239.html
BoomerFreakin'Sooner said:

April 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am

‘… unless we’re talking about aggie or okie …’ Say what you will about okie, but I ain’t seen this kind of crap on windmill. And the last time I cared about what a frenchie thought was never. Frenchy might not be passive, but he lacks testosterone. That don’t fly, even in Texas. Yawner, but thanks for the effort.
Eskimohorn said:

April 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am

You just don’t get it Stats Are For Losers. Fran versus Sherman is exactly what Solaris is about.

It’s totally derivative of Hume – “if all we know of somebody else’s existence and reality is what we perceive of them, how real is a construct that acts and responds exactly per our perception of another person.” Take Graham Harrell. He put up huge #’s and appeared to be a good quarterback. In reality, he is what NFL scouts define him as – the suck. Leach’s dissonance of this construct reached a crescendo when the Cowboys drafted a rag-arm quarterback in the 4th round from Texas A&M. Thus, the balance between reality and perception grew even further, even though the Cowboys perception of reality is based on Maslow’s pyramid of needs (i.e. fiscal) rather than their own cognition.

How can you be so obtuse? Is it on purpose?
BrickHorn said:

April 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Bates – that’s an interesting article on college rejection letters. UT Law sent me a rejection letter… after I had already been accepted and offered a scholie. When I returned their form indicating that I wouldn’t be enrolling there, they sent a letter that said, essentially, “You are no longer admitted to UT Law and we’re going to give your financial aid money to someone else.” I felt like I had just broken up with a really insecure bulemic girl who refused to let me hurt her, so she sent me a scathing “I’m an empowered woman!” letter in her own blood or pee or something. It was just odd.
broken hart said:

April 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Saw Soderbergh’s version years ago. Always thought its main theme was about the nature of romantic love.

The question it raised was the conflict between the inner, subjective experience of love and the demands and needs the intellect has for perceptual assurances and certainty, which occurs whenever it finds that it is falling in love. The Clooney character, in that environment, has no objective assurances that the vision of his past love is actually real. All objective indications points to her being a figment of his imagination or an illusory product of the unusual conditions of the environment. The question he faces is whether to believe in her and his love in the face of all that objective uncertainty and in spite of the all the objective evidence before him which points to his intellect that the vision is not real.

To relate it back to our experience, whenever we fall in love, we here on earth face essentially the same issue. I believe that is the main point of the movie – at least Soderbergh’s. We too face the question of whether the vision of what we love is real or just a figment of our imaginations, just mere wishful thinking. Whenever we fall in love, we are inundated with questions of whether the beauty we are seeing is objectively real and, as a result, we always endlessly ask ourselves: is she the true object of my love or is my love just idealized lust or desire, does she really love us back, can the beauty I am seeing or my love, can it be permanent or is it always subject to impermanecy and flux, was the way we met accidental or was it meant to be (for true love cannot be accidental), if she was not so beautiful would I still love her, is our love based on mere mundane and practical considerations or is it something eternal, and so on and so forth?

The question Solaris seems to be asking is whether we choose to love in the face of such paralyzing uncertainty. Which way do we choose to go? Do we choose to believe in love in spite of all those uncertainties and risk making a “fool” of ourselves, or do we reject love and stay within the safe confines and limits of our objective standards of certainty and practicality.

Basically, Soderbergh is asking whether one will still love if one knows that one will not receive any gain back in return – for some form of objective permanecy is required to possess and receive gain. In other words, Soderbergh is asking the age old question: would you die for the one you love? – for true love always asks that question of the lover and always demands an answer back or, you can be sure, it is not true love. And in answer to this eternal question, this is why it is said: God has chosen the foolish to shame the wisdom of the world.
BatesHorn said:

April 30th, 2009 at 5:51 am

Again, great thread.

Brick. I got the same thing from Trinity college after they had offered me a really generous grant and I turned them down to go to Bates (I just couldn’t bring myself to go to college in Hartford Connecticut). I learned later that this rejection after acceptance allows them to drive up their selectivity score with US World Report.
Spider said:

April 30th, 2009 at 8:14 am

Frenchy might not be passive, but he lacks testosterone.

Like I was saying about okie….
Chris Brown- the best said:

April 30th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

I wish you would post some pictures of the latest Wolverine movie-or of Carrot Top…in drag.

Articles

Movie Talk – Solaris

Article Tags:

More from this Barker:

Share This

25 Responses

Black Scholes said:

jc25 said:

Gracie Supanoosinphone said:

Facebook User said:

Mr. T said:

Facebook User said:

BrickHorn said:

Hookah said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Steve Nebraska said:

Stats Are For Losers said:

Spider said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Vasherized said:

Spider said:

scagnetti said:

Stats Are For Losers said:

BatesHorn said:

BoomerFreakin'Sooner said:

Eskimohorn said:

BrickHorn said:

broken hart said:

BatesHorn said:

Spider said:

Chris Brown- the best said:

Leave a Reply

Follow Us

Related Articles

Site Tags

Activity

FanTake Topics

Our Other Blogs