Analysis of Science Fiction Movie Solaris
Analysis of Science Fiction Movie Solaris
Solaris is a Russian science fiction art film adaptation of the Stanislaw Lem’s novel Solaris (1961) shot in 1972, directed and co-written by Andrei Tarkovsky. It represents a meditative drama of psychological character set mostly on a space station that is orbiting around the fictional Solaris planet. The station had a scientific mission that was stalled as the three scientists in the crew fell into the emotional crises. This paper is dedicated to the analysis of the problems brought out by the film and the way the director managed to convey the ideas of Lem, whose work he initially decided to take as the basis of the film,
First, it is necessary to state that while working on the adaptation of Solaris, Tarkovsky has repeatedly stated that he is interested only in the moral problems of the Lem's novel and that the film, in fact, will not be too fantastic and its action will be moved partially to the Earth. These statements alarmed. If the director considers that the moral and philosophical basis of the product can be isolated, separate them from the form in which it is embodied, - from the actions environment, specific events, characters, and the characters' actions, - involuntarily we begin to doubt whether indeed he is interested in precisely those issues on which the novel is built. After all, Lem not accidentally puts action not on earth, and not generally somewhere in space, namely on the planet Solaris, with its unique properties. Solaris ocean in the philosophical tragedy created by Lem is not a passive background action, but one of the main driving forces. It is no accident that Lem removed all personal relationships of his characters with the Earth: it is not his focus. To ignore the specifics of the novel, distinct functionality of its poetics is only possible if you do not know (and do not try to understand) its true essence.
In the film, Earth scenes take up about a third of the whole time (Shpinitskaya, 2006). What happens in them has no influence on subsequent events - actually, there is nothing important happens in them. The protagonist, Chris Kelvin, on the eve of the flight to Solaris wanders along the paternal cottage, longingly looking at all around, as if saying goodbye forever to the Earth, although he was only sent, so to speak, on a business trip. In addition, to the cottage comes Space Pilot Verton to report to Kelvin what he saw on Solaris. However, Kelvin does not want to know anything about it and accepts the message from Verton with contemptuous indifference, as a result, they argue.
More on why he needed the Earth, Tarkovsky said that it was necessary for contrast, but not only for that. He needed to have the viewer the feeling of beautiful Earth so that he felt saving bitter nostalgia. To feel the true meaning of the refusal of the hero to return, the audience along with him must realize what he leaves and sacrifices. What should the Earth serve a foil to? Space? Solaris? But why? Will the viewers otherwise understand the difference? It is also unclear, what the director exactly meant by saving bitter nostalgia. Who, in fact, Tarkovsky was eager to save? The audience? In the near future earthlings are not expected to get any opportunities to move into the space and forget the Earth. The heroes? But from what we need to save them? The ability of at least some time to work in space, or what?
As for the feeling of beautiful earth, which is so necessary to the director – there is nothing like it in the movie. There is no Earth, in fact, in it. There is a cottage near Moscow - a river, knoll, house on it. For a minute and a half there is rapid, in quite a different manner captured footage: motorway, long tunnels, the flow of cars, in a word, something like Tokyo or Los Angeles (Purcell, 1978). But even this fleeting picture we see with the eyes of astronaut Burton. For Chris Kelvin, all the lovely Earth seems to be fit into the cottage. After all, when he at the end of the film mentally returns to the Earth, all his ideas about home planet boil down to the same thing: there is a hill coming out of the Mist and on the hill - a small house, and in the house – his father. Chris on the porch of his cottages falls to his knees in front of his father, and it turns out exactly as in Rembrandt, only the space prodigal son is shod, and instead the bare heels, we see sturdy soles.
Another question is whether the audience can really appreciate what Chris Kelvin sacrifices - the one in the movie. After all, being 53 (he is twenty years older than Kelvin from the novel) he only has a Dad, Aunt, cottage and even, for some unknown reason, a horse in the garage. He has no love, no friends. There are, apparently, no plans, designs, unfinished work. Not even clear what he is doing, where he worked, was he any time in space. What does he lose on the Earth? Why is it such a sacrifice - to stay to work on Solaris?
Since Kelvin’s arriving on Solaris, the events in the film look as corresponding to the story line, but this scheme is purely external: in the image of the situation, in the characteristics of heroes Tarkovsky made changes that changed the atmosphere of the film to another style and generally they made it clouded. For example, no matter how quaint, in the film “Solaris”, there is no planet Solaris! There are no slow, heavy black ocean waves: no change in the amazing lighting when replacing the dim crimson sun rises merciless blinding blue light. This is a loss that cannot make up for any earthly contrasting landscapes.
Another example is a strange transformation of the image of Gibarian, the Station Chief. The basis here is a mistake of interpreter who gave this name Armenian form: Gibaryan. The characters of Lem always have neutral English names. This makes it possible to avoid many side issues, particularly the issue of the language, in which the characters talk to each other. However, hearing the words of Gibarian-Gibaryan in the film, this issue necessarily ponders. In Tarkovsky, Gibaryan is disheveled, unshaven and speaks with a sharp Armenian accent. At the same time, his guest is embellished – instead of sinister black woman, the meeting with whom shocked Kelvin so much, we see in the film behind Gibaryan an attractive woman in a miniskirt.
There is also really depressing ending in the film, made in the spirit of the most primitive sentimental anthropocentrism (Turan, 2011). Lem's novel does not fit commonplace anthropocentric schemes, according to which humanity will meet in space ardent friends or vicious enemies, and the inhabitants of distant worlds are bound to be similar if not to people, then something earthly (e.g., birds or lizards). Lem gave the extra-human situation model - pushed their heroes with the Mind, to which there are not applicable any our measurements and contact with which has no prospects, even if it will be possible to implement. This reinforces the tragedy of the situation, as it closes on people. Heroes of the novel are tormented not by the ill will of the Ocean, but their own conscience.
However, in the film it turns out that the non-contact Ocean is a fiction, that he understood everything perfectly, and to Kelvin it even imbued with the best feeling, in the way of compensation for the trouble caused, he suggested something like mental excursions where his heart desires (as already mentioned, Calvin, of course, went to his father’s cottage). Thus, he makes it clear: a person, especially if he is good, would understand and appreciate anyone - Raptor, plasma, anything.
Other Lem’s problems Tarkovsky hardly touches. Apparently, the greatest attention Tarkovsky paid to problems of the relation between science and morality. Anyway, talks about it in the film are very temperamental. Nevertheless, in fact, what for what reason heroes say? Early in the film Kelvin conversing with Burton suddenly declares that he will perhaps expose Ocean to hard radiation. Why he, not knowing anything about Solaris, is going to carry out the forbidden experiment is unknown. Burton, of course, is horrified and delivers a passionate speech that science should be moral. However, where is the science in here? Kelvin just out of ignorance and indifference blurted something out of place. In the second series, Sartorius suddenly starts yelling at Hari - she is not a human, so she is nothing understandable. Kelvin somehow does not respond to these senseless hysterics, and Hari herself explains to Sartorius what is necessary about the morality and science. In this case, we are talking about the morality of one person, not of principle and it all looks quite ridiculous and unreliable. Lem's novel does not belong to the genre of utopia, transfer of action to the future here is conditional, and its characters are our contemporaries. However, our contemporaries, if they are real scientists, will not babble nonsense and roll ridiculous tantrums when solving problems of over-seriousness.
So what happens? Moral and philosophical problems that are so interesting for the director, the film did not actually develop – none of those which the Lem’s novel is based on, nor those which are stated by the director. What then is the movie? In fact, if the film is watched through the eyes of the viewer, who knows nothing about the Lem’s novel, and of Tarkovsky’s declarations, the movie is completely different. It is talented, of course, well shot. Still, the order is too stretched and boring. Especially the Earth, scenes where it is difficult to understand what and why quarreling heroes talk about. Clearly, there is really only one thing: the hero really does not want to leave the Earth. Therefore, he looks so passionately at his native places. Actually, about the person who is loving the Earth so much and is completely indifferent to everything else in the universe, Tarkovsky was making his movie. Everything else - the tragic events at the Station, disputes of the scientists – are mainly introduced for the plot.
First, this naive explanation seemed to me ridiculous. Nevertheless, gradually I realized that it was the most plausible. Indeed, from this point of view, there is justified massive Earth appendage, and a strange indifference of Kelvin to Solaris and misty haze, blurring the outlines of problems both moral and scientific (Zafiris, 2010). The same installation can explain that of all fiery tirades and arguments that Lem’s philosophical novel has, the film has only a monologue of Snaut that mankind is looking in space, in fact, their reflection, mirror, though cheating themselves with talk about the thirst for communication with other Mind. Tarkovsky felt that here Snaut accompanies him. The emotional background of the film, in fact, is determined by the conviction that humankind does not need space. On the Earth, it is much better in fact (but not in the big cities, but somewhere closer to the heart of nature).
This emotional background of the film hardly expresses the conscious position of director. Most likely, it is an involuntary shift arising due to persistent and fruitless attempts of Tarkovsky to master Lem. Tarkovsky, for whom the author's cinematography is apparently the most natural form of existence in art, this time tried to draw completely into his sphere a phenomenon that does not fit on the scale and contradicts it in many essential features. He tried to treat the Lem’s novel like a piece of raw clay from which he, the director, would sculpt something in his own image and likeness. However, strong and stubborn resistance of the material eventually pushed the film away from the target orbit and, by abandoning Lem’s ideas, embodied in particular art form, Tarkovsky, of course, could not use this form for the full expression of his thoughts. Nevertheless, actually, it is also a moral issue: whether to try to use a work of art to communicate ideas that are alien to the author of this work. Apparently, this issue should thought over seriously before the start of the film.
References
Purcell, J. M. (1978). Tarkovsky Film 'Solaris' (1972) - Freudian Slip. Extrapolation, 19(2), 126-131.
Shpinitskaya, J. (2006). Solaris by A.Tarkovsky: music-visual troping, paradigmatism, cognitive stereoscopy. Trans. Revista Transcultural de Música, 10.
Tarasov, V. (Producer) & Tarkovsky, A. (Director). (1972). Solaris [Motion picture]. Soviet Union: Visual Programme Systems.
Turan, M. (2011). Defining Speculative Film: In Search of a New Space in Science Fiction Cinema Through Solaris.
Zafiris, A. (2010). Remakes:“Solaris” by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972) and “Solaris” by Steven Soderbergh (2002): Analysis. GRIN Verlag.
