“Solaris” was released Nov. 27 and made a quick, quiet theatrical run before departing from the big screen. Currently, no theater in Eugene is showing the film. This will change, however. Previews have popped up at the economical Movies 12 theater, so expect it back on the big screen within a week or two — if not this Friday.
Given that there is significant history concerning “Solaris,” discussing the film now has a few advantages. For starters, a few common myths and perceptions must be dispelled.
First, this film definitely falls within the genre of science fiction, in the best sense of the words. Trailers and promotional material portrayed it as a romantic drama, and while those elements do exist within the story, they were clearly played up on the behest of the studio’s marketing department.
“Solaris” stars George Clooney as Chris Kelvin, and is directed by Steven Soderbergh. Given these names and their prevalence on the tips of magazine writers’ tongues today, one might expect the film to be some bloated celebrity vanity project.
It is questionable whether this film is a remake or an adaptation. The source material comes from the same-titled book by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem, but “Solaris” has been adapted to film once before, in 1972. That version of “Solaris” was a Russian production, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. A new Criterion Collection DVD of that film has been released.
Thirty years separate the two films releases, yet juxtaposing the two doesn’t negate one or the other, but rather, shows each version’s particular strengths. Both take place aboard a space station, orbiting around a planet. Each focuses around the main character, Chris Kelvin, coming to this space station after something “mysterious” is reported as happening on board. And each explores science fiction in a philosophical light which is, ideally, what the best of the genre ponders.
The Tartovsky version of “Solaris,” running 165 minutes, is decidedly more detailed and languorous. Because of this longer running time, it tends to focus on the psychological elements of human interaction and their isolation from Earth. (The VHS version of this film is not recommended because of its poor subtitles and English translation.) Soderbergh’s “Solaris” runs at a shorter 99 minutes, and thanks to modern-day production techniques, there are less hindrances and limitations as to where the film can go and what it can look like. For example, the film has more scenes that take place on a quasi-futuristic Earth.
Despite better production values, Soderbergh’s version wisely grounds its strengths in its minimalism. The film was budgeted at a modest (by Hollywood standards) $47 million, yet the design and visual effects effectively create a lasting atmosphere that many films fail to capture. Whereas the Tartovsky version is routinely compared to the Stanley Kubrick film “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “ethereal” or “surreal” are better descriptors for Soderbergh’s world. The music, by composer Cliff Martinez, matches these feelings perfectly.
The lack of box office earnings for the film indicate a disturbing trend for idea-driven science fiction films. While the “Harry Potter” and “Lord of the Rings” franchises easily rake in the dough, more cerebral films such as “Solaris” are ignored. Congratulations are due to Soderbergh and company — in hindsight, this was a risky project that would have unlikely seen the light of day without his popularity to back it up. How long will it be until audiences get something similar from the Hollywood studio system?
Contact the Pulse reporter at [email protected].