Solaris (1972)

Nov 8

A philosophical odyssey venturing into our cosmic subconscious.

Presentation:

Andrei Tarkovsky responds to 2001: A Space Odyssey with his own masterpiece, calling Kurbrick’s epic a shallow film focusing on technical invention. Considering how good 2001: A Space Odyssey is, this is a pretty blasphemous claim. After watching Solaris, you’ll understand why he’s correct. This is one of the most philosophically and psychologically dense experiences you can have in cinema like you just read a novel. You could argue the same for 2001: A Space Odyssey, but this film feels like a spiritually adjacent sequel with the substance that Kubrick was missing in his ambiguous ending. Solaris is shot on anamorphic, film and looks nostalgically beautiful. The film seems to influence and share the DNA of future cinema likeThe Shining, Terrence Malik’s existential quest, Deakin’s Bladerunner 2049, and most notably Annihilation. You could even argue that Annihilation was created as an modern adaption of this film but more mainstream. But this film accomplishes its goal better, though not perfectly. I nearly fell asleep 3 times in the beginning of this film. It is excruciatingly slow to the point that it seems like Tarkovsky is intentionally torturing his audience. Once you watch the rest of the film, this theory makes sense once the themes emerge. Shots are absurdly overly drawn out, which in combination with the hypnotizing droning music, puts the viewer in a trance to understand the perspective of the characters. It’d almost be genius if it weren’t for the fact that the film is technically quite poor. Shaky pans and tilts, mismatched and disjointed audio recorded in post, awkward effects and transitions. But then you realize that this film was created as a response to Kurbrick’s technical obsession and perhaps these technical flaws are intentional to prove that compelling storytelling doesn’t require filmmaking technology. The balance is still quite off, teetering off the far end of mainstream and will be pretentiously boring for most. That’s the only explanation I can give for what seems to be a 40 minute exposition functioning as a barrier for viewers that don’t have the patience nor capacity to engage in deep ideas. I really hated this first act despite understanding it’s purpose to set the tone. 40 minutes of overly drawn out dialogue all to convey the basic context of a mission when 10 minutes would have sufficed is the most arrogant choice I’ve seen from any director. I do have to say the extended shots are quite beautiful at times but whether you can forgive these creative choices because of the film’s payoffs is uncertain. This is a film only for audiences interested in the philosophy of the human condition.

Story:

The film makes many references to great Russian literature and novelists, particularly Dosteovsky and Tolstoy. If you are not familiar, then just understand that the film explores the psychology of mankind, quite explicitly toward the end of the movie. The plot of the film starts with a logically driven team of scientists analyzing the bizarre events on the oceans of the planet Solaris. Once Kris Kelvin arrives, even the rational skeptic realizes that things cannot be explained by reason. Human apparitions run around the station, traumatizing the scientists aboard which even make one of them commit suicide. Kris's apparition is his ex-wife Hari, whom committed suicide because she felt as though Kris didn't love her. These events perfectly set up for philosophical themes, a staple of Russian literature.

Analysis:

The scientists investigate and study the oceans of Solaris in attempt to better understand the universe. This is essentially a metaphor for mankind's pursuit of knowledge in order to explain their own existence. What is the meaning of life, what is the essence of mankind, why do we live? The ocean, which is the cause of all apparitions or "guests", is a source of despair and enlightenment, serving as a vessel to illustrate mankind's desires. For Kris, the ocean manifests his past love and he realizes that he does indeed love her, and quite deeply, abandoning all research responsibilities just to spend time with her. This suggests that despite scientific duties, love is ultimately the only thing that matters, bringing humans together and giving us a pursuit to live by. To paraphrase a line, when man is happy, no other cosmic purpose really matters and we stop search for the meaning of life. The apparition Hari herself then begins to gain sentience, conscious that she is indeed not human, existentially questioning how she got there and why she is there. But she feels human, hurts like a human, despite have unholy immortality. She acts as a metaphor for humanity as well, though on a smaller scale. The ocean peeks into the subconscious dreams of the scientists at night in order to discover which apparitions to materialize. Tarkovsky suggests with this that what humanity has been searching for all this time in the ocean of endless cosmic knowledge, is actually deep within our own subconscious. Love is enough to give us meaning in an infinite universe. This becomes an even more deeply layered metaphor as this film is further a meta-commentary, a response to the pursuit of technological innovation in cinema, but lacks the heart and love of raw storytelling and ideas. The film ends with a fever dream sequences of Kris engaging with his mother and father with freudian implications and unresolved traumas. It appears that he doesn't return to the reality of Earth and is ultimately stuck on the islands formed from the abyss of the ocean. Whether this was his choice is unclear, it could be interpreted that he has always been stuck in this dream, but I think otherwise. Love is indestructible, as illustrated by Hari's immortality. But it manifests it differently for each person, meaning there are different subconscious loves that are never resolved. This metaphor isn't developed enough and feels like a supplementary addition, but it does offer an even more interesting ending to open the film to even more discussion.

Conclusion:

A meticulously organized philosophical debate in cinema form, this will be undigestible for most audiences. The barrier is intentionally too high with trippy transitions and psychedelic presentation of long, torturous cuts. For those willing to persevere, this film could reward you with a most philosophical discussion of the meaning of life through the search of the cosmos. A great metaphor for life, sometimes you have to keep pushing through in order to discover the greatest mystery of all, what lies within. This is one of the greatest sci-fi epics of all time, gated by unbearable presentation. This is not a film, it’s an experience. Venturing into the unknown of space pales in comparison to venturing within.

more rotten chilis