Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Rei, Being of Polish-extraction, I felt an empathy with a Tarkovsky version that I perceived as more slavonic in its outlook. I had presumed that Lem would share this view and was unaware of his comments on it. I would characterise the response to Q6 as at least ambiguous about the Soderbergh version. The return "to Mother Earth" that Lem refers to can be read as the particular Russian need for the return to "Holy Mother Russia" which is the only place where he really feels (felt?) safe. I guess that I ought to get the Soderbergh DVD out and watch it. Peter Rei Shinozuka wrote: > I don't see how Soderbergh's version could be termed "a disaster." > He managed to create a beautiful, ethereal adaptation of Lem's work, > simultaneously paying homage to Kubrick's 2001. However, I can well > see how the film may not appeal to everyone. A > rationalist, in the mold of the protagonist Kelvin, will likely not > find satisfaction here. > > I haven't seen Tartakovsky's in some time (though i have the Criterion > on DVD waiting to be re-watched), so it's hard for me to compare > the two directly, even in my own mind. > > In a February 2003 interview, Lem himself spoke about both films, > expressing more sympathy for Soderbergh's version. Considering > the manner in which Lem has typically characterized American tastes > and sensibilities, his reply to question 6 is high praise indeed. > > > 5. I dont know if its true, but I read that you didnt like Tarkovskys > "Solaris" when it was released. Is that right? Why didnt you like it > (or why did you like it)? Since then, did you change your mind? > > I definitely did not like Tarkovsky's Solaris. Tarkovsky and I > differed deeply in our perception of the novel. While I thought that > the book's ending suggested that Kelvin expected to find something > astonishing in the universe, Tarkovsky tried to create a vision of an > unpleasant cosmos which was followed by the conclusion that one should > immediately return to Mother-Earth. We were like a pair of harnessed > horses each of them pulling the cart in the opposite direction. > > 6. What about the Soderbergh's film? What are the good and the bad > points of the movie? > > Although I admit that "Soderberghs vision" is not devoid of ambition, > taste and climate, I am not delighted with the prominence of love. > Solaris may be perceived as a river basin - and Soderbergh chose only > one of its tributaries. The main problem seems the fact that even > such a tragic-romantic adaptation seems too demanding for mass > audience fed with Hollywood pap. If in the future someone else dared > a faithful adaptation, I am afraid the effects would be understood > only by a tiny audience. > > > http://www.lem.pl/english/interview/interview.htm > > > On Mar30 09:45, Peter Dzwig wrote: > >>Yes, though really for Solaris. The book is amazing, the Soviet film, when >>it first appeared was a landmark in SF films and inspired many. The >>Hollywood film was, I am afraid, a complete disaster by comparison. >> >>Peter Dzwig >> >>A. Lal wrote: >> >> >>>Just heard that Stanislaw Lem, one of the great science fiction writers >>>of all time passed away yesterday. Any fans of his on this list? >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Leica Users Group. >>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Leica Users Group. >>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >