Solaris, no clue this time around
Not wanting to be left out, I too will contribute my two Zloty to the general discussion of Solaris. Both Maxine and Charly had things to say about it which are worth reading. No surprises here, the movie is altogether execrable. I will not dwell on the reasons for two long – botched plot, cretinous dialogue, poor directing, total lack of cohesion – the usual suspects. But there is another interesting aspect to this movie that is worth getting into for a bit.
It can be argued that each work of art must stand on its own, without regard to what inspired it to begin with. While this may be true in principle, the application depends on the context. To wit, we don’t particularly care about the play that inspired Shakespeare’s "Hamlet." For all intents and purposes, it is historically and artistically insignificant by comparison. Such independence from sources of inspiration can only be achieved through genius and time. In the case of Solaris 2002, everything works against it. Preceding this extravaganza of the very callipygous George Clooney, there was a great Science Fiction novel, by Stanislaw Lem, published in 1960 in Polish, as well as an eponymous movie made in 1979 by Andrey Tarkovsky. Not only remaking Tarkovsky’s work is a hard act to follow, but the existence of the book makes it a double remake.
Remakes are fine. Remakes can be very useful, as a matter of fact. Each era has its own concerns, it’s own mode of depiction and communication. The question that is always raised is whether the new version has said anything new. Well, the current version said nothing. The new version did a bit of babbling, some drooling, and suffering from a serious case of halitosis. What is frustrating most of all is the lost opportunity. Tarkovsky certainly did not explore all the possibilities in Lem’s work. This would have been a great opportunity to do so.
I intentionally am not going into the details of the book, since I don’t want to spoil it for anyone who have not read it. I read it last, with great pleasure and relish about 6 years ago, and I think it merits a re-reading.
Finally, just out of curiosity, I wonder if one can sue a studio or its distribution arm for truth in advertisement. I mean, the movie was depicted as a love story, which it was not really. There was also an intimation of action, which was also quite absent. Both Charly and Maxine say the movie belongs in the art house. One might claim that this is more of an art movie than a mainstream affair, but I object to the distinction. Furthermore, a bad "art" movie is still a bad movie, and it does not belong anywhere.
6:41:42 AM 
|
|
