Solaris, old or new?

[Rain]

I also notice this tendency, where it seems the directors just cant go far enough. There are always these constraints imposed by the producers.

Example, - Christopher Nolan, turned pop after his masterpiece, will probably never outdo his debut feature. This happened to the Wachowskis too... I hope Arononofsky won't do the same in his upcoming high-budget film.

Its tough business, to punch your idea through in US cinema, always a fight, and I suppose it will remain so unless the American public changes its tastes. And looking at the the string of summer blockbusters coming up, featuring the same recycled male machismo of Gladiator/M:I2 continued in Troy and King Arthur, it seems the fight for original ideas will remain bitter...

R

[Voyager13b]

I agree that a good book is the best experience, as the mind has no budget limitations, or casting problems to deal with. If the book is well written, it plays perfectly in the theater of the mind.

The latest Solaris film with Clooney wasn't a bad movie. I don't think it reeked of Hollywood at all compared to what usually comes out of that place. In it's own way, it was a pretty thoughful film, and it had the benefit of modern production.

Then again, the same film directed by Tarkovsky (without benefit of the latest production tools) was sublime. I know that it pissed off Lem to a degree when it came out, and it wasn't an exact video representation of the book, but I think Tarkovsky had the ability to involve the audience at the thinking level, rather than simply at the viewing level.

Even though the new film has better sound and image quality, I think Tarkovsky gets the blue ribbon in this case.


Voyager