Solaris, old or new?

[Rain]

I love them both, in fact its difficult to compare them.

Tarkovsky's is alot more psychological, Soderbergh's is more dramatic. Both done very creatively in their own times.

Note that both are not exactly adaptations, as both veer from/expand on significantly from Lem's book. Perhaps we'll see another spin on Solaris in 10-20 years...

So, which one do you like more?

R

I like book more. I always like books more than movies. Every movie expands book, but at the same time story loses something difficult to describe... author's spirit, maybe? Movie is the same story retold by other man. I prefer originals, though retellings can be interesting in some way.

It's just my opinion

[davlet]

Originally posted by Rain
I love them both, in fact its difficult to compare them.

Tarkovsky's is alot more psychological, Soderbergh's is more dramatic. Both done very creatively in their own times.

Note that both are not exactly adaptations, as both veer from/expand on significantly from Lem's book. Perhaps we'll see another spin on Solaris in 10-20 years...

So, which one do you like more?

R

Definitely, the Tarkovsky's one. The Hollywood one isn't just dramatic, it's MELOdramatic, like most "blockbusters". Besides I gave up on George Clooney after seeing "The Peacemaker" (have you seen it?).

As for the book, I read it some 10 years ago, so I don't really remember.

[Rain]

Originally posted by Alex_Ivanov
I like book more. I always like books more than movies. Every movie expands book, but at the same time story loses something difficult to describe... author's spirit, maybe? Movie is the same story retold by other man. I prefer originals, though retellings can be interesting in some way.

It's just my opinion

Thats indeed true, rarely ( if ever ) does a book's spirit prevail in its cinematic format. I think it also has to do with the medium itself, language, words...often leave the most space for us to fill in, thus making a unique and personal experience.

Lord Of The Rings is perhaps the only successful translation from book to cinema. ( Though I dont find the whole thing exciting at all, The Hobbit was way more interesting ).

It also has to do with Hollywood expectations. Its factory after all, designed to bring in money and few exceptions the storylines are predicteable and have formulas. ( There even exists a software to write a script, - a gross insult the art of writing imho ). For example, the coming "I-Robot" based on Asimov's book veers away from his style into a loud thriller-blockbuster with lots of explosions and destruction.

It seems only the actors and settings changes, the characters and plots always remain the same...

R

[Rain]

Originally posted by davlet


Definitely, the Tarkovsky's one. The Hollywood one isn't just dramatic, it's MELOdramatic, like most "blockbusters". Besides I gave up on George Clooney after seeing "The Peacemaker" (have you seen it?).

As for the book, I read it some 10 years ago, so I don't really remember.

When I first saw Soderbergh's version, I wasnt as impressed. Its only upon watching it alone myself later that I truly absorbed its genius and its message. It kind of grew on me.

The theme itself was a break from usual hollywood fast-cuts, and music used lavishly. An art film, really. I still think about it sometimes.

George Clooney's actign usualy sucks, but I really appreciated Solaris. Goes to say how much the director is responsible for the overall consistency of the film and literally molding the actors into their roles.

Reminded of Kubrick...though I dont like Soderberg's other stuff, dont know what was the big deal about Traffic...

R

p.s - Peacemaker was horrible.

[davlet]

Originally posted by Rain

When I first saw Soderbergh's version, I wasnt as impressed. Its only upon watching it alone myself later that I truly absorbed its genius and its message. It kind of grew on me.

The theme itself was a break from usual hollywood fast-cuts, and music used lavishly. An art film, really. I still think about it sometimes.

My impression: a movie that tries hard to be artsy, yet acessible and, well, it can't be both. The ending was predictable. There were a couple of scenes that struck me as totally sappy. Like the one close to the end when Harry(Rheya) says something to the effect of them (Chris and Harry) "being forgiven", trivializing the ending (in the Russian version it is open-ended). To be fair, if I hadn't seen the Russian version before, I'd probably have appreciated this film better -- I mean with Tarkovsky being the ultimate art-house director, any "remake" would seem inferior.

[Rain]

I see what you mean...I watched Tarkovsky's version when I was too young to appreciate it, hence the new movie had a bigger effect. I should rewatch it sometime.

You should definitely see "The Return", also a very post-Tarkovsky film, but very original all the same. Perhaps Russian cinema is being reborn...

R