Solaris

[Anonymous]

Er, so did anyone else see this one? Part of me says it's Soderbergh and Clooney saying, "Hah, look at the shit we can pull off... $50 million for an art film with exactly no action."

And part of me liked it... I like the philosophical implication of recreating the people that mean something to use using our memories, but then realizing that our memories are based on our perceptions. And our perceptions create flawed people.

But the whole "god" angle was underdeveloped, and I think Clooney's character accepted the return of his wife way too easily.

But I did chat up three women outside the theater after it to discuss it, so I guess that's a good thing.

[wumpus]

You are smooth with the ladies, Bauman.

Also: Solaris was written by Stanislaw Lem, one of my favorite SF authors. I hear there was a 1972 Russian film, too?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it was first made as a Soviet sci-fi movie, and it shows it in the remake. The entire god conversation seemed very commie.

Man, oh man. This is a SLOW movie, though. I couldn't get into it as Steve did, mainly because we've seen this plot in a bunch of other bad sci-fi movies (Sphere, anyone?), not to mention Trek episodes. Of course, they all took the idea from Lem's novel, but this doesn't change the fact that this is a SLOOOOOOOOW movie.

Heh, I can see just how the movie studio musta had nightmares trying to market this movie. The entire "ratings scandal" seems nothing more than trying to drum up some kind of publicity for the money. See George Clooney's ass!!!!!!! While I'm sure that works for the women and 10-percent of all men, I don't fall into that demographic. Ughhhh.

[Tom Chick]

Solaris was a Calvin Klein perfume ad set in outer space.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

I hear there was a 1972 Russian film, too?
Yeah, oddly enough it's called Solaris... actually, the DVD is for rent at this local store, and the star looks exactly like George Clooney gone slightly to seed. It's weird.

[Anonymous]

Solaris was a Calvin Klein perfume ad set in outer space.
But the question is whether you'd rather see George Clooney's ass or Kate Moss' breasts. That's the big difference.

And yes, this a glacially paced movie. As I said, there was zero action.

[wumpus]

As I said, there was zero action.
Inside the theater, that is.

[DavidCPA]

I hear there was a 1972 Russian film, too?
Yeah, oddly enough it's called Solaris... actually, the DVD is for rent at this local store, and the star looks exactly like George Clooney gone slightly to seed. It's weird.

They played the Russian version sometime in the last couple of days on the AMC or TCM cable network. Paused on it for two minutes and kept on surfing.

-DavidCPA

[mtkafka]

Tarkovsky did the first one. And I don't think Soderbergh is a Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky is one of the classics of cinema with a 'c'! I remember having to watch his films in college getting bored by them, but AFTER college I rewatched them in another context (the contemplative life is mysterious existential post college slacker 'I'm an artist' mode) they are good! Andrei Rubylev and Stalker are both great movies once you get into them. Solaris is the least favorite of the movies I've seen of his.

I think there should be a remake of Kubricks 2001 or Welles Citizen Kane, made by our great american directors of Soderbergh and PT Anderson. They are clearly 'masters of there own domain' (hint hint masturbate to there own self conceit as 'great directors'). Soderbergh... I'd take a Sam Raimi over Soderbergh any day!

to add, i havent seen the soderbergh movie, so i am wrong.

etc

[Jason Becker]

Maybe as a 1/2 hour or hour long Twilight Zone/Outer Limits episode it could have been descent but geez I can only take so much of people doing nothing but standing around and talking or long shots of someones face with this bewildered look on it.

[exodusquandary]

I ended up seeing it twice (meh!) over the weekend. I was hoping the second time through I'd catch something deeper or more profound I didn't the first time, but no luck.

It tried to be deep, but they didn't seem to develop anything deeper than just beneath what was going on. And there was a lot of unexplained stuff, like the security crew disappearing for no reason, and the fact no one ever saw the black lady's guest except her. Lord knows they had enough time to explain it.

Did anyone else think it was George Clooney's character's son with him the very last minutes on the space station?

[Tom Chick]

like the security crew disappearing for no reason

I'm pretty sure this was mentioned briefly in George Clooney's first conversation with Jeremy Davies. When Clooney asks about the blood, I believe Davies tells him that one of the other crew members killed the secrity team before commiting suicide. I think?


Did anyone else think it was George Clooney's character's son with him the very last minutes on the space station?

I don't recall there ever being a reference to his having a son. The little boy was the "visitor version" of the son of the doctor who called Clooney to the space station. He's introduced earlier in the movie and explained at one point.

I do wonder if he has anything to do with this (http://www.cine-tre.com/ju-on/trailor_s.html).

I do think more movies should end with a nearby planet, star, or space anomoly getting really fat and pink and then swallowing the main character. We don't see enough of that in today's movies. Well, today's non-anime movies, at any rate.

-Tom

[exodusquandary]

*SPOILER*

I know that saying the vistor is Chris' (Clooney) and Raya's son is a far stretch, but it kind of makes sense. Raya was having visions on the station that seemed to involve her guilt in aborting their child...and who knows whether it was actually a boy or a girl. But it made sense to me, because when the dead doctor visits Chris, he says "that's not my son." Also, when Chris first tells the phsyco guy about seeing a child, the phsyco says something to the effect of "I think that's why you're here." Which you assume at the time it's to fix the hallucinations people are having, but maybe it was instead to reconcile some deep-seated guilt Chris was having over the whole thing.

But I could be reading way too far into it. There needed to be more mysteriously blown out blood-covered sections of the ship. And lasers.

[Tom Chick]

But I could be reading way too far into it.

You're right. You're reading way too much into it. :)


There needed to be more mysteriously blown out blood-covered sections of the ship. And lasers.

You're right again. :)

To be fair, I really liked the look of it. I liked how Soderbergh didn't hit you over the head, a la Minority Report, with all this OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU'RE IN THE FUTURE AND ITS SOOOO UNBELIEVEABLY COOL!!!!! stuff. Solaris has a very austere and effective production design (from the same guy who did 8 Mile, by the way) that Soderbergh's camera proceeded to ignore in the pursuit of telling his story. Bravo on that front. Shame about the movie.

I used to say we needed more character-driven science fiction, but I'm afraid someone heard me and now we're getting stuff like Solaris and Signs. Apologies to everyone if I'm in any way responsible.

-Tom

[Chris Nahr]

I occasionally tried to read novels by Stanislav Lem. I couldn't. Maybe it's the translation but I was unable to detect any saving grace, be it style or story or subject matter, that could have made me endure those endless ramblings with absolutely nothing happening. There's something horrible about science fiction that tries to be literature...

[Jason Levine]

I do think more movies should end with a nearby planet, star, or space anomoly getting really fat and pink and then swallowing the main character. We don't see enough of that in today's movies. Well, today's non-anime movies, at any rate.

Yeah, I can think of a lot of movies that would be improved with that ending, and most of them aren't even SF movies.

[Tom Chick]

There's something horrible about science fiction that tries to be literature...

I haven't read any of his novels per se, but I've read plenty of his short stories, some of which are loosely enough connected to be collected as ersatz novels. None of it struck me as Literature so much as clever constructs, sometimes with biting social satire and sometimes with playful whimsy.

You might give some of his shorter fiction a shot, Christoph. I have to admit Lem was the main reason I wanted to see Solaris. Which is now the main reason I probably won't be reading any of his novels.

-Tom

[Jason Becker]

"I believe Davies tells him that one of the other crew members killed the secrity team before commiting suicide. I think?"

If thats whats supposed to have happened thats one pathetic 'security team'.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, that security team musta sucked really hard. I wondered what the hell happened to their bodies, if they were killed.

As for Gordon's never-seen imaginary friend, I thought that's cause she vaporized her friend with the TECHNOBABBLE(TM) beam.

Oh yeah... this movie was so slow that by the time they started spouting TECHNOBABBLE(TM), I swear the folks sitting around me nearly left early in disgust.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Is TECHNOBABBLE(TM) from the makers of Photon Milk?

[Anonymous]

No, it's mainly from the hacks responsible for Star Trek these days, but they sure borrowed a few biggun's from Voyager's hellish TECHNOBABBLE(TM)-laden scripts for this movie.

[Tom Chick]

Is TECHNOBABBLE(TM) from the makers of Photon Milk?

Photon milk! I wonder what would happen if you soaked one of Solaris' visitors in a bath of photon milk...

Now I want to know what they called the Technobabble beam. It was a Higgs-Something-or-other Array, I think.

Was there ever a time when Technobabble wasn't ridiculous? If I was 12, would I not snicker at the whole midichlorian thing? Would someone talking about a Voight-Kampff test sound ridiculous to me if I heard it for the first time? After turning 35, did I simply get fed up with people who just make shit up?

-Tom

[Jason Levine]

Was there ever a time when Technobabble wasn't ridiculous?

Good point. And we need a related term for military babble. Come to think of it Photon Milk Spielberg has been a prime offender at that too:

"Welcome back, Navy. This way to debriefing." -- Close Encounters of the Third Kind

That one still makes me cringe.

[Brian Koontz]

I recall entering the theater and thinking that a lot of middle-aged women were seeing this film, more than expected given its sci-fi nature and then I remembered George Clooney as the lead and it made sense.

Most of those women were disappointed with the film, and a few walked out.

The men didn't fare much better, and its been a long time since I've seen a movie create more disappointment in the audience (The Transporter came fairly close however).

The movie struck me as ambitious but minus the brains needed to fulfill the ambition. It had an interesting premise and proceeded to do almost nothing with it. How about the movie focus closely on the wife instead of on Clooney? Focusing on the wife might explore Solaris's nature as well as bring much greater drama to the plight of that Solaris construct. Instead we have Clooney merely offering self-pity and pining. Kind of boring, really. The wife on the other hand is not only the creation of a bizarre planet but is surrounded by philosophical and physical issues. So the movie goes about following CLOONEY around. That makes sense.

[Tom Chick]

I don't remember where I heard/read this, but I seem to recall that Daniel Day-Lewis was originally cast in George Clooney's role.

I think it would have made a huge difference in making the movie less cold and aloof. I like Clooney and all, but mainly as a sort of latter day Cary Grant rather than an actual actor.

-Tom

[Tyjenks]

Musta gone with Clooney because he has a nicer ass than Lewis.

[Tom Chick]

Musta gone with Clooney because he has a nicer ass than Lewis.

Whoa. If you say so, Tyler.

However, just imagine how much *worse* the movie would have tanked without Clooney in it. I'm thinking Pluto Nash tanking. Of course, it probably wouldn't have gotten any distribution without Clooney.

-Tom

[Tyjenks]

Someone was telling a story the other day about going to the theater and he had asked the ticket guy how bad the Eddie Murphy flick was. The guy's only reply to the question was, "Woof."

When I saw Solaris come in at 6th or 7th or whatever, I was really surprised. I thought the Clooney ass = girl and their significant other ticket purchase factor would have been good for a top five finish at least. Also Adam Sandler's fart joke toon did not do well either, thankfully. Maybe the ticket buying masses are getting smarter.

[Anonymous]

Not really. Not when crap like The Santa Clause 2 is in the Top 3.

[Ron Dulin]

as a sort of latter day Cary Grant rather than an actual actor.

!?!

Shit. And here I was thinking that it would take some sort of thespianic talent to be the greatest comedic actor of a generation or two.

[Tom Chick]

And here I was thinking that it would take some sort of thespianic talent to be the greatest comedic actor of a generation or two.

All right, Mr. Smarty Pants, I meant that Clooney is the kind of guy, like Cary Grant, whose persona and charisma carry him just fine. That whole 'pouring yourself into a role' stuff isn't really his strength. That's why we have guys like Daniel Day-Lewis.

-Tom

[Tyjenks]

Not really. Not when crap like The Santa Clause 2 is in the Top 3.
Yeah, but that's to be expected. Parents have to take their kids to see something and SC2 is about all that is out there plus it is the holidays and that is, of course, a holiday flick.

Dopey Tim Allen needs to make one of these a year, not bother with the rest of those idiot comedies that have failed, and his career will be just fine.

[Dave Perkins]

To be fair, I really liked the look of it. I liked how Soderbergh didn't hit you over the head, a la Minority Report, with all this OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU'RE IN THE FUTURE AND ITS SOOOO UNBELIEVEABLY COOL!!!!! stuff.

I agree very much. I really liked how Solaris just lurked in the background, too, looking inscrutable and otherworldly.

I know of someone who saw this movie and said afterwards, "Man, they sure did a bad job depicting what Earth looks like from space." The guy thought that Solaris was the name of the space station, and it was orbiting Earth.

I expected way more enthusiasm for Solaris than I'm reading here from you folks. I thought the movie was terrific. Two things that were worth the ticket price: first, the fact that we never see Gordon's visitor, but only 'see' it through the terror on her face as it bangs around in the room behind her (the Lem novel also does not reveal who her visitor is), and second, the fact that Rheya's suicidal personality was directly caused by Kelvin's memories of her, so that Kelvin was torn up by something he himself was responsible for.

[Brian Koontz]

I expected way more enthusiasm for Solaris than I'm reading here from you folks. I thought the movie was terrific. Two things that were worth the ticket price: first, the fact that we never see Gordon's visitor, but only 'see' it through the terror on her face as it bangs around in the room behind her (the Lem novel also does not reveal who her visitor is), and second, the fact that Rheya's suicidal personality was directly caused by Kelvin's memories of her, so that Kelvin was torn up by something he himself was responsible for.

Come on, SOLARIS is the one responsible for Rheya's suicidal personality... without Solaris this "Rheya" lies in a grave with a very dry personality. Certainly it would make sense to be torn up if Kelvin *knew* he was going to be visiting a planet which turns memories into flesh and bone, but that's not quite a fair requirement for the guy. Since Rheya is never explored (which IS Kelvin's "fault") either by Kelvin or the movie (which unlike my previous comments makes sense given that Rheya is about what Kelvin remembers), she remains a mystery.

Kelvin is drawn to her exotic and mysterious nature in the *first place*... their meeting is a bit dreamlike as well. Since he WANTS her to be exotic and mysterious, why would he *explore* her? That would ruin his love for her. And anyone who *doesn't* explore something lives with the perils (as well as the joys) of ignorance. If you want to know what Solaris is primarily about, I'd say that's it.

Kelvin is a total moron and has hardly gone through this sort of self-analysis (unexcusable for a top psychologist really), but blaming himself for her personality doesn't make sense for either of the two reasons I presented. Only NOW when his life is one of self-pity and pining does he call it "blame", and he calls it that despite the responsibility of a planet noone ever explores in presenting it.

Planet Solaris: An introvert's wet dream.

[Dave Perkins]

Come on, SOLARIS is the one responsible for Rheya's suicidal personality... without Solaris this "Rheya" lies in a grave with a very dry personality.

I don't think so. Doesn't Solaris-Rheya figure out that she acts the way she does precisely because Kelvin remembers her that way?

Granted, none of this happens without Solaris being nearby, but it is Kelvin who 'creates' Solaris-Rheya. No?

[Brian Koontz]

I don't think so. Doesn't Solaris-Rheya figure out that she acts the way she does precisely because Kelvin remembers her that way?

Granted, none of this happens without Solaris being nearby, but it is Kelvin who 'creates' Solaris-Rheya. No?

Who creates Solaris-Rheya is an interesting question. Without Solaris it doesn't exist, without Rheya it doesn't exist, and without Kelvin it doesn't exist. But given that the only *unexpected* element of the three is Solaris, I think that should be the focus. Rheya is dead, Kelvin is remembering, but there is no MOVIE without Solaris. So I'd say if you have to name only one creator of Solaris-Rheya for simplicity's sake, you have to name Solaris.

Here's a few questions...

If what Solaris-Rheya is is a remembered construct why aren't Kelvin's NEW memories of her as Solaris-Rheya and not Rheya added to his old memories for future iterations of Solaris-Rheya? And if they WERE added wouldn't that make the movie much deeper and more meaningful... about the creation of reality through manipulation of memory.

Why when he kills the first iteration of Solaris-Rheya doesn't she remember that death (because Kelvin does!)?

She also doesn't remember that she committed suicide as Rheya in her first iteration as Solaris-Rheya.

Also, if Kelvin's memories of her are only on Earth, then why isn't Solaris-Rheya restricted to Earth? If she is supposed to be *as he remembers*, then how can she exist in a place where he doesn't remember her?

[Ron Dulin]

I meant that Clooney is the kind of guy, like Cary Grant, whose persona and charisma carry him just fine.

I'm with you on that one.

[Ron Dulin]

Dopey Tim Allen needs to make one of these a year, not bother with the rest of those idiot comedies that have failed, and his career will be just fine.

I'm hoping that you completely forgot about Galaxy Quest while you posted that ridiculousness.

[Tyjenks]

Dopey Tim Allen needs to make one of these a year, not bother with the rest of those idiot comedies that have failed, and his career will be just fine.

I'm hoping that you completely forgot about Galaxy Quest while you posted that ridiculousness.

I am confused are you saying you liked Galaxy Quest? Or that it was successful? Either way I think Tim Allen is miserable on the big screen and his souped up tool schtick was tired 2 years after he did it in stand up routines. My only point was he should quit attempting any other films because most are duds and concentrate on a holiday Santa Clause release every other year or so.

[Dave Perkins]

(snip) Rheya is dead, Kelvin is remembering, but there is no MOVIE without Solaris. So I'd say if you have to name only one creator of Solaris-Rheya for simplicity's sake, you have to name Solaris.

I guess we shouldn't name just one creator of Solaris-Rheya, then, cuz she wouldn't exist without Kelvin either.


If what Solaris-Rheya is is a remembered construct why aren't Kelvin's NEW memories of her as Solaris-Rheya and not Rheya added to his old memories for future iterations of Solaris-Rheya? And if they WERE added wouldn't that make the movie much deeper and more meaningful... about the creation of reality through manipulation of memory.

I would have to watch the movie a second time in order to notice if his new memories of her were added. Not sure! Good question, though.


Why when he kills the first iteration of Solaris-Rheya doesn't she remember that death (because Kelvin does!)?

An even better question! I don't know. Perhaps he repressed it (seems like a weak theory, though). Perhaps she would have remembered it, given a bit more time (she didn't recall everything straight away, but had to ponder her 'memories' in order to be able to believe they were hers).


She also doesn't remember that she committed suicide as Rheya in her first iteration as Solaris-Rheya.

As above, perhaps she would have remembered it, given a bit more time to explore her strange memory.


Also, if Kelvin's memories of her are only on Earth, then why isn't Solaris-Rheya restricted to Earth? If she is supposed to be *as he remembers*, then how can she exist in a place where he doesn't remember her?

I don't think that "as he remembers" is so strict. For example, it's easy for me to imagine what my mom would act like if she were to accompany me to a play, or an amusement park, or a walk, even though she died 15 years ago. But I'd need to be orbiting the planet Solaris for her to actually become a physical entity.

Very good questions you ask. I enjoy thinking about them, because I think the movie was made with great care, and I believe the questions have satisfying answers.

[Jason Lutes]

I saw Solaris today and enjoyed it. I don't know if I can attribute any of that enjoyment to having conquered the 20-mile bike ride to the miserable mall cineplex or the fact that since I turned 35 today I'm just more open to liking things, but I willingly gave myself over to it and felt pretty satisified by the end.

One thing that occurred to me while watching it and now reading what you guys have to say about it is that I think Soderbergh is primarily an emotional director, as opposed to intellectual or kinetic. That's what I really love about most of his work -- he knows how to use film to evoke very specific and subtle emotional textures.

So I personally didn't care so much about the nitty-gritty of the details. I was more interested in what the movie made me feel and think about than what exactly it may have been trying to say. But I'm not convinced it was trying to say anything in particular... It felt like more of a rumination on those basic themes of perception, memory, and being than any sort of definitive statement.

On a different note, there's something really great about movies like Solaris and Punch-Drunk Love getting big distribution and playing at mass-market cineplexes across the country. Not that I derive joy from a film alienating mainstream American audiences, but I love that they're out there, and that for every ten people driven from the theater, maybe one is affected in a positive way.

[Brian Koontz]

One thing that occurred to me while watching it and now reading what you guys have to say about it is that I think Soderbergh is primarily an emotional director, as opposed to intellectual or kinetic. That's what I really love about most of his work -- he knows how to use film to evoke very specific and subtle emotional textures.

Then he is a very very wrong director for this picture... and even if he could evoke them Clooney couldn't perform them.

If the movie wanted an emotional slant (which is fine) then again I question the focus on Clooney (whose emotions are entirely self-pity and pining) and promote it on Solaris-Rheya, who is a far far far more interesting character. Perhaps a different actor from Clooney would have been able to bring about the nuances in *memory* that Solaris-Rheya would have reflected that would justify the movie's focus.

Here's a question that sums up Clooney's performance: Do you ever actually believe this guy is a top psychologist?

Clooney is so tied up in longing for the dead that he never explores the identity of the Solaris-Rheya construct.

This is supposed to be the NEAR future, right? How people can seem jaded in the presence of an extremely weird planet creating extremely weird things... so jaded that they dwell on past memories is a bit hard to swallow.

The first thing I would do (after getting over the initial shock of the general situation) if I was in Clooney's position would be to ask Solaris-Rheya a series of questions tailored to finding out just what the heck the thing is. Only *afterwards* might I be torn by "Is she or is she not Rheya?"

Clooney's Emotions asked the questions in this film. His Intellect should have asked the questions and his Emotions should have answered them.

[Dave Perkins]

One thing that occurred to me while watching it and now reading what you guys have to say about it is that I think Soderbergh is primarily an emotional director, as opposed to intellectual or kinetic. That's what I really love about most of his work -- he knows how to use film to evoke very specific and subtle emotional textures.

I'm primarily an intellectual moviegoer, not emotional, yet I really like Soderbergh's pictures. But maybe you're right, and I'm not meant to 'figure out' the plot. I like to try nevertheless.


Here's a question that sums up Clooney's performance: Do you ever actually believe this guy is a top psychologist?

How about the scene where he ejects the first Solaris-Rheya into space? He could only do that if he were convinced that she was not Rheya, and that takes some professionalism, I think.


The first thing I would do (after getting over the initial shock of the general situation) if I was in Clooney's position would be to ask Solaris-Rheya a series of questions tailored to finding out just what the heck the thing is. Only *afterwards* might I be torn by "Is she or is she not Rheya?"

Me too. Probably.

[Jason Lutes]

If the movie wanted an emotional slant (which is fine) then again I question the focus on Clooney (whose emotions are entirely self-pity and pining) and promote it on Solaris-Rheya, who is a far far far more interesting character. Perhaps a different actor from Clooney would have been able to bring about the nuances in *memory* that Solaris-Rheya would have reflected that would justify the movie's focus.

Can't argue too much with the criticisms of Clooney's ability to convey the potential depth of his character's feelings, but focusing on Rheya as a character? You're talking about an entirely different, imaginary film! She *isn't* a character, and that's part of the point -- She's just his memory of her.

You seem to think that the self-pity and pining exhibited by his character shouldn't be in the movie, when in fact they are the core of the movie's premise: what does it mean to hold on to a memory? For me, Solaris the beautiful, inviting planet represents that very thing -- The place where you get stuck if you hold on too tight to memories or things about your past that you can't change. That's why the other characters are stuck there, and that's why (for me) there doesn't need to be any logical or reasonable explanation -- the movie operates on a metaphorical level.

SPOILER ALERT

At the end, when he chooses to stay, it's not the choice of a hero (in my eyes), it's the choice of a coward -- someone who chooses to live in eternity with a subjective memory as opposed to engage with the living world and move forward. And I think it's one of the film's strengths that it ends that way. It defeats Clooney's widely understood image as the romantic hero and left me feeling unsettled, in a good way.


Here's a question that sums up Clooney's performance: Do you ever actually believe this guy is a top psychologist?

I agree with what Dave said about the ejection scene, but also I must point out that a lot of psychiartrists and psychologists are generally understood to be more fucked up than their patients. For some of them, it's what attracts them to the profession in the first place. And in this case, it's part of the irony of his character's predicament.


The first thing I would do (after getting over the initial shock of the general situation) if I was in Clooney's position would be to ask Solaris-Rheya a series of questions tailored to finding out just what the heck the thing is. Only *afterwards* might I be torn by "Is she or is she not Rheya?"

If you want to keep talking about it in strictly realistic, logical terms, I don't know if any of us could predict what we would do in that situation. Countless bad Star Trek episodes about this sort of thing have prepared us in only the most surface way for the potentital reality. If you or I were *really* confronted by the flesh-and-blood reincarnartion of the wife that we thought we drove to suicide, I think "getting over the initial shock of the general situation" might take a while, and that that our psyches might not survive that shock at all.

I hope we can just agree to disagree on this. I don't want to raise any hackles!

[mtkafka]

I meant that Clooney is the kind of guy, like Cary Grant, whose persona and charisma carry him just fine.

I'm with you on that one.

I don't know, Cary Grant was kind of cool and aloof, Clooney is sometimes too cute and sugary, which Cary Grant wasn't always like. Watch Cary Grant in Notorious or Suspicion. I dont think Clooney can pull that off.

etc

[Brian Koontz]

Can't argue too much with the criticisms of Clooney's ability to convey the potential depth of his character's feelings, but focusing on Rheya as a character? You're talking about an entirely different, imaginary film! She *isn't* a character, and that's part of the point -- She's just his memory of her.

No! Memories exist "inside the mind". *Rheya* exists only in memory... Solaris-Rheya is something different. Which is my whole point... Solaris-Rheya should be explored because noone (except maybe Solaris) knows what the heck it is!

Solaris-Rheya is definitely generated FROM Kelvin's memory of Rheya, but what can Solaris-Rheya BECOME? Can she learn? Does she age? Can she, as a character asked... bear children? Does she dream? Does she have emotions?

Do memories walk around? Can memories talk? Solaris-Rheya is definitely BASED on a memory, but she is far different from a memory.

When you are born you are "just the result of sexual intercourse, gestation, and childbirth". Does that mean that is ALL you are, or does your identity develop over time?

The movie essentially provided a gimmick, and really explored nothing at all.


You seem to think that the self-pity and pining exhibited by his character shouldn't be in the movie, when in fact they are the core of the movie's premise: what does it mean to hold on to a memory?

According to the movie, it means you visit a weird planet and have that memory appear in flesh and bone.

I guess to me the characters seem insufficiently... *curious*. I mean, don't you think NASA would DIE for this sort of planet to be found? Psychologists would be tripping over themselves to study it, regardless of the risks (or maybe *because* of the risks). Solaris has to stand as the most exciting planetary discovery of all time. Yet the characters all seem to disagree with me, and frankly I'm not sure they (or rather, *she*... the lone survivor) are going to be telling the truth about Solaris upon their return to Earth.


For me, Solaris the beautiful, inviting planet represents that very thing -- The place where you get stuck if you hold on too tight to memories or things about your past that you can't change. That's why the other characters are stuck there, and that's why (for me) there doesn't need to be any logical or reasonable explanation -- the movie operates on a metaphorical level.

EVERY person who goes to Solaris has issues similar in degree to Kelvin. Its not a matter of "where you get stuck if you hold on too tight to memories..." because according to you then, *everyone* holds on too tight to memories. Its not like only half of the Solaris population is affected by the planet, or your point would be fine.


At the end, when he chooses to stay, it's not the choice of a hero (in my eyes), it's the choice of a coward -- someone who chooses to live in eternity with a subjective memory as opposed to engage with the living world and move forward. And I think it's one of the film's strengths that it ends that way. It defeats Clooney's widely understood image as the romantic hero and left me feeling unsettled, in a good way.

The romantic thing to do in Clooney's situation is to stay (staying with your loved one is supposed to be "defeating [of]... romantic hero" according to you?) I think its also Clooney's only hope... his life is so dominated by the Rheya memories that only through exploring Solaris-Rheya can he possibly be happy.

Return to Earth and suicide would have followed closely as he is destroyed by the thought that Solaris-Rheya is REAL.

Haven't you perhaps considered that Solaris is a story of Redemption (of course, given that many of the people involved die Redemption is apparently a difficult path ;))?


I agree with what Dave said about the ejection scene, but also I must point out that a lot of psychiartrists and psychologists are generally understood to be more fucked up than their patients. For some of them, it's what attracts them to the profession in the first place. And in this case, it's part of the irony of his character's predicament.

That's not my point. Psychiatrists are psychiatrists and not the PATIENTS of psychiatrists because they can analyze themselves and in a way control themselves. Clooney acts more like a patient than a doctor in this film.

I definitely agree that the closest thing to a psychologist is a nutcase (just like the closest thing to a criminal is a policeman). The FIRST patient of a psychologist is always himself. And nutcases you could say are failed psychologists.


The first thing I would do (after getting over the initial shock of the general situation) if I was in Clooney's position would be to ask Solaris-Rheya a series of questions tailored to finding out just what the heck the thing is. Only *afterwards* might I be torn by "Is she or is she not Rheya?"


If you or I were *really* confronted by the flesh-and-blood reincarnartion of the wife that we thought we drove to suicide, I think "getting over the initial shock of the general situation" might take a while, and that that our psyches might not survive that shock at all.

Solaris-Rheya is not a reincarnation of Rheya... Solaris-Rheya (understood by both us and Kelvin) is an Alien construct derived from Kelvin's memory of Rheya.

Memory of Rheya combined with the unsuccessful importance (every memory Solaris seems to take from the humans is of their *important failures*) of that memory to Kelvin combined with Solaris gave birth to Solaris-Rheya, but the manner of its BIRTH does not (entirely, anyway) define its identity.

Again, noone ever really explores what Solaris-Rheya is and therefore neither we nor the characters ever really know.

[Jason Lutes]

Okay, I'm dropping my end of the main debate because we're talking at two entirely different levels and either I'm doing a bad job of cummunicating my side or you're unable or unwilling to comprehend it. You're applying the strict rigor of a logical "reality" to what I interpret as a metaphorical story. You know, like a fairy tale? An utterly belieavable cinematic reality, IMHO, is not what Soderbergh was going after. We'll just have to be content with our different readings.


That's not my point. Psychiatrists are psychiatrists and not the PATIENTS of psychiatrists because they can analyze themselves and in a way control themselves. Clooney acts more like a patient than a doctor in this film.

Actually, it's my understanding that psychiatrists are generally required to undergo extensive analysis with another party. So, in fact, they ARE all patients. The presumption that psychiatrists can "control themselves" better than other people is specious; they may have a better understanding of their inner selves through years of being someone else's patient, but they're just as vulnearble to emotional trauma and shock as any other human.

[Also, we've both been sloppy with our terminology, using psychiatrist and psychologist interchangeably when they are two different professions with very different requirements. Clooney's character in Solaris is a psychiatrist.]


Solaris-Rheya is not a reincarnation of Rheya... Solaris-Rheya (understood by both us and Kelvin) is an Alien construct derived from Kelvin's memory of Rheya.

This illustrates very well the difference in our interpretations of the film. Please try to understand my opinion: I believe she is NOT AN ALIEN CONSTRUCT, but simply A METAPHOR. Examining her as a full-fledged character or scientific subject makes as much sense as asking Father Time for his address and phone number.

And please don't come back with, "Ah! But where DOES Father Time live?" because you know as well as I do that NASA considers that information highly confidential.

Am I correct in remembering that you wrote up an in-depth analysis of the back-story in Deus Ex, or was that someone else?

[Brian Koontz]

Okay, I'm dropping my end of the main debate because we're talking at two entirely different levels and either I'm doing a bad job of cummunicating my side or you're unable or unwilling to comprehend it. You're applying the strict rigor of a logical "reality" to what I interpret as a metaphorical story. You know, like a fairy tale? An utterly belieavable cinematic reality, IMHO, is not what Soderbergh was going after. We'll just have to be content with our different readings.

The movie makes little to no sense if you see it as a metaphor.

That invalidates all human emotion in the picture... it turns it into an intellectual exercise, and ironically as you pointed out the picture isn't even treated intellectually.

What I mean is...

What you are saying is that Clooney is not really on-board a space ship, he's onboard a metaphor for the general environment in which the characters live, or else the shape ship is irrelevant to anything.

Clooney is really just dealing internally with his memory... there is no such thing as Solaris (Solaris is apparently a metaphor for whatever initiates these internal struggles). Why a PLANET is chosen as a metaphor for the initiation of the reification of memory is anyone's guess. The presence of LSD in the bloodstream of the author perhaps.

Do these characters KNOW they exist on a spaceship that's really a metaphor for a general environment and that Solaris is not really a planet they were sent to investigate but rather a metaphor for the reification of close painful past memories? If the characters don't know, then why should the viewer? If the movie is a metaphor, then I can certainly see why Solaris-Rheya becomes totally irrelevant... all she is is an object inside Kelvin's mind. He is essentially hallucinating when he sees her, and *every other* human who goes "onboard" this "spaceship" equally hallucinates. They must, after all, they are sharing the same metaphor.

Its not so much that I don't SEE your side intellectually, but that I don't see it as a viable side based on what the movie presents. Its Artifice that really destroys whatever honesty can be produced by the film.


Actually, it's my understanding that psychiatrists are generally required to undergo extensive analysis with another party. So, in fact, they ARE all patients.

Its completely not the same thing for a psychiatrist to analyze another in order to evaluate than for one to analyze a patient in order to HELP them. Very different motivations and different purposes, as well as different payment plans ;).


The presumption that psychiatrists can "control themselves" better than other people is specious; they may have a better understanding of their inner selves through years of being someone else's patient, but they're just as vulnearble to emotional trauma and shock as any other human.

No they aren't, since they have more tools to deal with the trauma and shock. Self-therapy I guess you could call it. I don't mind at all that Kelvin was deeply affected by the events in Solaris, but I felt he didn't deal with them as effectively as a top psychiatrist would.

After all, Kelvin was initially invited to Solaris to *save the mission*. That's what the inviter thought a top psychiatrist could do... DEAL WITH IT.

As the inviter said... Kelvin was the best man for the mission. He would have been if he was indeed a top psychiatrist.


This illustrates very well the difference in our interpretations of the film. Please try to understand my opinion: I believe she is NOT AN ALIEN CONSTRUCT, but simply A METAPHOR. Examining her as a full-fledged character or scientific subject makes as much sense as asking Father Time for his address and phone number.

I agree (as previously stated in this post) that based on Metaphor status Solaris-Rheya loses all value, as she becomes a shared hallucination generated by Kelvin.


Am I correct in remembering that you wrote up an in-depth analysis of the back-story in Deus Ex, or was that someone else?

Not so much the back story as an interpretation of the events within the game itself, although the interpretation did stretch into the "back story" to an extent.

What I previously posted on this forum was an analysis of Bob Page, providing his motivation for the Gray Death (to wipe out all humans who cannot accept nano-augmentation and then creating the Second Man, the definition for which is "nano-accepting".

If you remember from the game, the Gray Death is an inert nano-mechanical agent. Its like the HIV virus I believe (I'm sure someone will be more than happy to point out any slight inaccuracies to that) in that it just sits there and the Immune System fights and fights and fights until it weakens and then other illnesses enter the weakened party.

Humans Immune to the Gray Death have an Immune System which does NOT fight it off... the Gray Death is actually present in their system but it doesn't affect them. Its inert.

The rest of the humans of course die (minus Ambrosia anyway), leaving (according to Page's plan) a human populace comprised entirely of humans biologically able to receive nano-augmentation (the immune system of most humans rejects ALL nano-augmentation).

So Page is creating the Second Man in Deus Ex and is committing genocide upon the First Man.

My other major "contribution" to the Deus Ex game is in some of the mythological and cultural aspects. Its widely understood even by many casual players that JC Denton is a Christ Figure (hence the initials). I came up with 8 or so other examples (besides the initials) within the game of JC Denton as a Christ Figure. I also noted that the main character in Deus Ex 2, Alex Denton, has initials that not so coincidentally match up with Anno Domini. I also presented the scene in Everett's apartment as past, present, and future, with a dying humanity represented by DeBeers, an adult techno-human in Everett, and a child machine in Morpheus. This goes along with one of the main themes in Deus Ex... Man becoming Machine.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else get a pretty good System Shock vibe when he arrives at the nearly deserted station and starts seeing bloodstains......??:)

[antlers]

Brian Koontz--

It sounds like you haven't read Solaris the book, and you would like it much better than the movie. The book is very focused on Solaris as a phenomenon and an object of study; the devastating effects it has on the humans around it are in some ways incidental. I wonder if I would have the same sort of problems with the movie if I hadn't read the book first.

The book is certainly one of the best science fiction novels of all time. The movie is very different--lushly romantic where the novel is resolutely intellectual. At first I disliked the movie (aside from Clooney's shortcomings as an actor). But then I decided that the movie functions quite well as a work of art on its own--building a romantic story as an emotionally affecting container for a few of the most powerful scenes from the novel.

In the movie, love conquers all. In the book, love is a powerful force of nature, dangerous because of seemingly insumountable difficulties in communication. Both perspectives are interesting.

[Brian Koontz]

All right, Mr. Smarty Pants, I meant that Clooney is the kind of guy, like Cary Grant, whose persona and charisma carry him just fine. That whole 'pouring yourself into a role' stuff isn't really his strength. That's why we have guys like Daniel Day-Lewis.

The scary thing is that Clooney looked like he was *really really* trying to act in this film... I think Solaris shows the apex of Clooney's talent.

And given what I saw in the theater, his downbeat role pissed off his core audience... middle-aged women. His agent must be hoping his ass compensated.

[exodusquandary]

And given what I saw in the theater, his downbeat role pissed off his core audience... middle-aged women. His agent must be hoping his ass compensated.

So you're saying you have a lot of insight into the mindset of middle aged women?

[Jason McCullough]

What I previously posted on this forum was an analysis of Bob Page, providing his motivation for the Gray Death (to wipe out all humans who cannot accept nano-augmentation and then creating the Second Man, the definition for which is "nano-accepting".

If you remember from the game, the Gray Death is an inert nano-mechanical agent. Its like the HIV virus I believe (I'm sure someone will be more than happy to point out any slight inaccuracies to that) in that it just sits there and the Immune System fights and fights and fights until it weakens and then other illnesses enter the weakened party.

Humans Immune to the Gray Death have an Immune System which does NOT fight it off... the Gray Death is actually present in their system but it doesn't affect them. Its inert.

The rest of the humans of course die (minus Ambrosia anyway), leaving (according to Page's plan) a human populace comprised entirely of humans biologically able to receive nano-augmentation (the immune system of most humans rejects ALL nano-augmentation).

So Page is creating the Second Man in Deus Ex and is committing genocide upon the First Man.

That would be this (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=919&highlight=bob+gray+grey+death) thread, where everyone calls you a poopy head. Not only are you batshit insane, every line above is completely wrong. Page at no point says or implies that he's using the grey death to wipe out mankind; all over the damn game, they talk about how:

The grey death is a normally inert nanovirus, either activated for specific people to blackmail them with a cure, or cause general social chaos.

Page will use the mess to take control of the planet.

That's it. There's no nonsense about replacing humanity in there.

[Brian Koontz]

So you're saying you have a lot of insight into the mindset of middle aged women?

They aren't exactly my specialty, though I'm sure I have some.

What I was referring to specifically were the unhappy groans issued from their mouths and them leaving the theater. Its no deep insight to say they were disappointed.

[Brian Koontz]

That would be this (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=919&highlight=bob+gray+grey+death) thread, where everyone calls you a poopy head. Not only are you batshit insane, every line above is completely wrong. Page at no point says or implies that he's using the grey death to wipe out mankind; all over the damn game, they talk about how:

The grey death is a normally inert nanovirus, either activated for specific people to blackmail them with a cure, or cause general social chaos.

Page will use the mess to take control of the planet.

That's it. There's no nonsense about replacing humanity in there.

I never said that Page TOLD anyone his plans (except perhaps to Simons in secret)... I simply described what his plans are based on the logic of the game.

The Gray Death is ALWAYS inert... its perpetually inert. But being a foreign agent, the immune system attacks it. The immune system can't kill it since its mechanical (the same thing happens with artificial organs without the proper drugs), the system weakens, etc. There is no such thing as "activating" the Gray Death... you may have that confused with activation of the killswitch (a different type of nanite-construct).

Page underwent a schism with the Illuminati due to differences in opinion about how to proceed with genetic research. Page wanted an aggressive approach (the Illuminati preferring a cautious approach). Page deals heavily with Transgenics (gene splicing of animals to create crossbreeds... the Second Animal so to speak), Human Nano-Augmentation, and Cloning.

Books are found in Page's compounds detailing the Second Man.

Page throughout the game is hyper-active... even manic. He's clearly up to something. Something huge.

That begs the questions... why does Page want an aggressive approach? Why does Page undergo a plan to take over the world?

He doesn't need to take over the world to merge with Helios. That's no biggie. Merging with Helios is a METHOD of taking over the world when his Gray Death plans fail, not a result of it.

He doesn't need to take over the world to have a Universal Constructor... his company already has one.

He must take over the world to implement a reality that cannot be implemented without such control.

And part of the takeover is accomplishing the goal of creating the Second Man. Two birds with one stone.

Logically speaking, when the takeover is complete Augmentation centers are installed in the cities, the people (mostly Second Men and a few high-ranking First Men in the old order) are rounded up, and they receive Nano-Augmentation. Perhaps ALL with killswitches to keep them in line.

[Gordon Berg]

I'm just glad the name Gordon is making it's way into more popular hero fiction. Half-Life was just the beginning.

[Jason McCullough]

I never said that Page TOLD anyone his plans (except perhaps to Simons in secret)... I simply described what his plans are based on the logic of the game.

*snipped*


You reiterated the entire previous post without providing any evidence, other than Page's books, which don't contain anything about killing everyone off.

[Brian Koontz]

You reiterated the entire previous post without providing any evidence, other than Page's books, which don't contain anything about killing everyone off.

All I posted was evidence... it shows Page's motivation.

Think about it this way...

The Gray Death is implemented which kills all First Men (First Men are defined as humans who cannot accept nano-augmentation and thus whose immune systems will fight against the Gray Death) and doesn't affect all Second Men.

Now, your position as I understand it is that DESPITE this truth, the Gray Death for Page is merely a tool used to create chaos and attain global power (you haven't mentioned his motivation behind attaining global power of course) and the humans it kills (and those it spares) are entirely irrelevant to anything other than power attainment.

My position is that the Gray Death is attaining his real end, which is genocide upon the First Man. Why develop a virus that kills only select humans if your goal is to create utter chaos? And how amazingly coincidental it is that those humans that REMAIN after the Gray Death happen to be the very same ones mentioned in the Second Men books, AND that Page's life has been defined as Aggressive (and amoral) pursuit of Transgenics and Human Nano-Augmentation.

The fact is, the reality that the Gray Death creates, the RESULT of the Gray Death, is to leave the Second Men standing and to leave the First Men lying dead in the streets. It is in Page's nature to want to create this result (he is a worshipper of Nano-Augmentation and thus of humans who have the capacity to receive it). Notice that Simons (his right-hand man) is one of the rare humans to be nano-accepting. Page sees Nano-Augmentation as the FUTURE for humanity.

In order to distribute and see through his Gray Death plans to their conclusion, Page MUST have Global Domination. He's an impatient man by nature... and again he kills two birds with one stone by implementing his plans while attaining the means to implement them. Perhaps too much impatience as it turns out.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I......


DISPITE REMAIN AND RESULT FUTURE MUST

STABBLE STABBLE

[Anonymous]

From the horse's, errrr... Clooney's ass himself!

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters01-08-101624.asp