Solaris

On my Netflix instant queue are a bunch of classic foreign films. I'm assuming that Netflix is putting them up on there because old foreign films don't sell like hotcakes and the distributors are getting a few extra bucks off of cinema fans like me. But they're there, and a lot of them have sat on my queue for a while and every time I cycle through the list I'm always tempted to watch one of them. I came so close today to watching Sanjuro(the sequel to Yojimbo, my favorite Kurosawa film), but instead I watched the first half hour of Dead Snow. I'll review that someday soon, maybe with my zombie movie post.
One of the classic films I have gotten around to was what I heard in college described by one of my professors as "the Russian answer to 2001: A Space Odyssey." The original Solaris is about 3 hours long, so it took a few days to get through. And since I hadn't seen the remake, I had to watch it and compare. Was it worth the six hours of viewing?

Solaris!!!

First and foremost, again the original runs close to 3 hours and the American remake clocks in at about an hour and a half. So my first comment has to be that, leave it to American filmmakers to make the same story but in half the time. Bravo! Because the remake could have easily been over three hours, it felt like it at times. And actually there-in lies the problem. Since the original is foreign, both in language and culture there is a uniqueness to it. It feels so different, and therefore it has a curiosity to it that no American film can have. I was so curious what the Russians thought about the future, and how they felt about love and how their actors acted, and even in general what the future looked like to people in 1972. Apparently it looks like Tokyo(where they filmed the futuristic city). But with the American version, that's absent, so all you're left with is the story. And when you take a slow and rather bland story and add no spice to it whatsoever, you get a very bland film that you aren't interested in.
Another curious thing about the original, was that it was void of any political thought. There was never a mention of communism or overall purpose in why they were there studying the planet Solaris. The two other scientists didn't come off as Soviet robot types. Each character had personality and quirks. In the remake, about the only person with a personality was the guy who plays Daniel Farraday from Lost. And no surprise, he kind of plays the same character; a quirky out-in-left-field scientist.
Science fiction has come a long way from 1972 to 2002, when the remake was made. Star Wars, Blade Runner, Alien, The Matrix. Each of those films, and countless others, have brought so much to make the genre legitimate, bringing deep questions about humanity and technology. Solaris, the original, brought up some interesting questions. And those same questions are brought up in the remake, exactly the same way, while trimming things as well. So it begs the question, why remake a film if you aren't going to bring anything new to the story? I'm not opposed to remakes. All across America stage plays are remade every year, with new actors and directors and sometimes new takes on locations or culture. So it seems entirely logical for the same thing to happen in film. A new culture takes on an old idea and changes it to say something new or shed new light. With that in mind, it is no wonder that the new Solaris is a forgotten film. No one went to see it, and yes Mr. Soderbergh that partially did have to do with marketing problems, but mainly because this movie had nothing new to say, and in light of the original and the book, the themes of the remake don't make sense. So I'll leave the remake at that. If the original was never made I would praise the 2002 film, but the original was made.

The original is like a masterpiece. I won't say it is a masterpiece, but it is like a masterpiece. It felt entirely like the Russians did in fact say, "Okay, Americans made 2001, we can make a science fiction movie that means something, too." And they did. (Though Wikipedia says the director hadn't even seen 2001.) So much science fiction proposes the question of mankind making contact with aliens and what would happen, and our place in this universe. Solaris is so interesting because, and the book is more about this than a love story, that man is not capable of understanding the universe or any alien being. One of the scientists says, "We don't want to conquer space at all. We want to expand Earth endlessly. We don't want other worlds; we want a mirror. We seek contact and will never achieve it. We are in the foolish position of a man striving for a goal he fears and doesn't want. Man needs man!" Isn't this even a problem here on Earth? People are selfish. Mankind is selfish. Most drama has to deal with human selfishness, and through the whole film Kelvin is faced with this dilemma, and it's so hard. The dilemma is that his dead wife is on the station. He knows she isn't real. And part of the reason the dilemma is so hard is because he doesn't know why she is there? The planet Solaris is somehow making these human-like forms appear on the space station, coming from the scientists memories, but why? And yet, he wants her around (though at first he sends her into space) even though he knows she isn't real. But what person wouldn't want their dead love around them again?
The film is pretty ambiguous about the whole thing, though. What is he to do? He sent her away once and she came again, and the planet is there trying to do or say something. And that is ultimately where the film falls short. There really isn't any action, just a lot of esoteric dialogue and philosophy and staring at each other. At least 2001 had some action. He doesn't know what the planet is trying to say and thus we don't ever know, and that's the meaning; we really can't know about the universe. Depressing. Just like the Soviet Union.


I've included some movie posters from each film. My favorite from each is the two above, but these will offer some comparisons to the two films. It's clear in the posters.