Solaris Review

[bcholmes]

I just recently found this review of Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. Lem takes issue with love aspects of the film. What's wrong with this part?

I have not seen the film and I am not familiar with the script, hence I cannot say anything about the movie itself except for what the reviews reflect, albeit unclearly - like a distorted picture of one's face in ripply water. However, to my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space...

Borrowing a phrase from WisCon this weekend: I'll now send you your application form for the Christian Coalition.

Comments

*headdesk*

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

"I have not seen the film"

But that won't stop me from writing a review of it?

He may be a decent writer, but bloody hell - why not paint a "idjit" target on your forehead while you're at it.

Re: *headdesk*

[cigfrain.livejournal.com]

have you read the actual article? he's not writing a "review" in any normal sense. he's mostly writing about his own thoughts about his own work, and examining how those thoughts relate to the available reviews of the movie made from that work.

what is wrong with the passage, from my own perspective, is that he oversimplifies the movie, based on those reviews. but he's also right, in some ways. soderbergh's version used the core relationship of kelvin and his dead wife, to try to more directly communicate the deeper themes of human distance... the minds in bodies, trying to touch each other... that are apparent subject of the story of a sentient, cryptic planet and its observers. soderbergh drew it back to characters we could actually relate to, in the medium of film.

lem is a cantankerous intellectual. he has a lot of compassion, but it's wrapped up in a very analytical, critical mind. did soderbergh do that mind, and its concerns, a justice or an injustice, by "translating" it... on the one hand making it accessible, but on the other, taking immense license with its chosen metaphors?

i happen to be a big fan of both versions of the movie, for completely different reasons. and for what it's worth, i find lem a boring old fart. so i allow him his critique... but i'll be watching those movies more than i will be re-reading his books.

the soundtrack to the soderbergh movie, by the way, is one of my very favorites CDs. it does as much to convey that "deep compassion filtered through cool water" sensibility as anything else.

Re: *headdesk*

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

Oh,I freely admit (and am willing to paint as need be) that I didn't read the article. Then again, I haven't read the story the movie was based on (or movies - there are more than one?) or the movie(s) it(them)selves.

It was more a "why preface what is ostensibly a review with the statement that you haven't watched it".

Re: *headdesk*

[cigfrain.livejournal.com]

i can highly recommend the movies. the first is considered a classic... a very long, dreamstate experiment by andrei tarkovsky. that soderbergh would consider doing a remake of something held in such regard - by people who are into that kind of thing, at least - was pretty audacious. as it happened, he made a completely new movie, and i think a pretty good one.

i read the book in college, and while i recall it somewhat fondly, i have not found myself compelled to re-read it.

("paint" ?)

Thanks for the recommendation and...

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

("paint" ?)

My original comment suggested that Lem paint a target on his forehead for writing a review without seeing the movie. I had commented on his review without having read it. *G* The double standard was not lost on me.

Re: *headdesk*

[nolly.livejournal.com]

Because it's the author of the book commenting on the reviews of the movie(s) based on said book, and explaining his intent.

Re: *headdesk*

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

the soundtrack to the soderbergh movie, by the way, is one of my very favorites CDs.

Meeeee toooooo!!! I play it constantly, especially when I'm at work.

Re: *headdesk*

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I haven't purchased it on CD yet, but I did buy the DVD largely because I loved the soundtrack. I haven't yet seen the older film. It's on my zip.ca list, though.

Re: *headdesk*

[nolly.livejournal.com]

(You realize this should be in the past tense, yes? Lem passed recently.)

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Lem wrote some marvelous stories, but as a critic he frequently condemned things he didn't know about.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

My brain must be turning even more slowly than I thought today. I'm not really understanding the problem in that paragraph taken by itself. In the wider context of the linked essay, perhaps I could say that 'love story' and 'erotic story' are not the same thing, but otherwise, I'm not making the connection.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I'm not really seeing it either, though maybe some of that is expecting oddness from Lem.

[firecat]

I need to re-read Solaris.