Before seeing the new version of Solaris, I read the book by Lem and saw the original film by Tarkovsky. The book was interesting, though it didn’t seem particularly story-driven while the film was…well, allow me to describe what I experienced while watching this film. For whatever reason, I seemed to become incapable of feeling anything (emotionally) very quickly and so was completely indifferent to everything happening to the characters in the film. I was gripped by a state of lethargy that seemed to have also seized the characters themselves, though perhaps that was my imagination. Considering the film over and over again, I failed to discover anything in it that seemed to be of such excellent quality…and yet, every review I have read has raved about the film, often calling Tarkovsky a genius. So, somewhat spontaneously, or perhaps desperately, I turn to the members here for enlightenment. First of all, to prove to myself that I am not completely mad, I would be most obliged if others who have seen the original film and didn’t like it would come forward…but I would also like very much the input of those that consider it such a brilliant work and an explanation detailing what about the film makes it brilliant.
I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I have been unable to find anything using the search engine, for whatever reason.
I thought it was crap. My wife liked it. As the man said, “There’s no accounting for taste.”
I liked both versions. In my opinion, what made the Tarkovsky film so good was the brooding, though dallying, and ultimately peaceful atmosphere. This is a strange combination of moods, and I thought it worked quite well. It was as though the (surviving) characters were on the brink of something great and beyond themselves, and yet were somehow, maybe not obviously, but nonetheless content to remain at that point only, when understanding was so close at hand. The actual plot almost seemed secondary to the environment. Anyhow, that’s how I interpreted it.
The new version, though not as psychologically powerful, has an excellent soundtrack and great special effects which carry it a great deal and make it overall more “visuallized”. I suspect that purists will generally like the original better however.
Haven’t seen the new version (it isn’t out in the UK yet), but have seen the Tarkovsky version and read the book, in that order. Filmwise, I had the immediate problem that it’s in colour: Tarkovsky’s one of the great monocrome stylists, to the point that I love the framing sequences of Stalker, but can only just tolerate and respect the stuff in the Zone. By contrast, Ivan’s Childhood and * Andrei Rublev* are visual masterpieces throughout. By those standards, the film is rather flat. I can recognise it as a work by a great filmaker, but that’s almost about it, though the theme of remembering sexual/physical obsession is enormously powerfully done.
Nor I am a Lem fan, in general. There are the differences, though I was struck by Tarkovsky’s literalness with respect to the paraphanelia of Lem’s imagining of his era’s Soviet space hardware.
I am however slightly puzzled by the fact that both adaptors have apparently opted for preludes on Earth. Surely that’s one of Lem’s great masterstrokes: start with the arrival at the station.