 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
| Solaris Source of Orginal Material:Solyaris (1972) Directed By: Steven
Soderbergh Plot
Summary - Review 1 - Review
2 - CURRENT REVIEWS
|
|
| Steven
Soderbergh, whose eclectic resume includes the Academy Award(R)-winning
drama "Traffic" as well as last year's ensemble caper "Ocean's
Eleven," now brings his unique vision to SOLARIS, a story of love,
redemption, second chances and a space mission gone terribly wrong. There is a moment in “Solaris” when the film explodes in a dizzying revelation—a moment that affected me as few films have. And for all the problems this film has and all the shortcomings that almost obscure its more brilliant points, “Solaris” will surely make its mark on those who see it, for better or worse. Some movies blend together as they become distant memories. Mention “Solaris” five years from now and I’m sure those who saw it will have an opinion to share. It is a difficult movie to summarize. If I say too much, and give away its surprises, its impact is lost. What I can say is that it involves a psychiatrist, a space station, and a mysterious planet, known as Solaris. The psychiatrist is Chris Kelvin (George Clooney), a well-regarded professional, and a widower who has lost his zest in his life. He goes through the routines, endures his appointments, until one day a cryptic message is shown to him from a friend on the Solaris space station. The image pleads with Chris to come to the station, that Chris is the only one who will understand what is happening. When Chris arrives, the station seems empty. There are corpses, blood, but few signs as to what happened. When he does find the last remaining survivors, they insist that the only way Chris will understand is to “experience it” for himself. Going to bed that night, Chris has no idea what is in store for him the next morning. Other reviews have mistakenly given away more than this, and that is a shame. The film’s power derives from an audience dealing with “Solaris’” issues as Chris deals with them. Knowing what occurs beforehand allows the viewer to have an opinion before entering the theater, and ruins the film’s progression. For now, let’s just say that the surprise is something deeply personal and private to Chris. It is something that shakes his very foundation and challenges his very beliefs about life and love. The moment I spoke of occurs in a flash. Initially resisting the surprise, Chris finally gives in and, for me, Chris’ actions called into question the very notion of human emotions. Most movies attempt to entertain or speak to our personal experiences. “Solaris,” last year’s “A.I.” and only a few other recent films dare to question our very belief structure. It asks the question of whether love is something sincere and unique, or if love is something artificial; something built not out of emotional connections but out of selfish desire for personal pleasure. Sound confusing? It is, but in a good way. It is a film that takes one of the life’s cornerstones and challenges it, with much success. There is an imbalance, however, in “Solaris’” complete story. Based on a 1972 Russian film, screenwriter/director Steven Soderbergh (“Traffic”) has trimmed down the lengthy original for a snappier, modern feel. In the process, he has made Chris’ final decision a bit hard to swallow. Initially, Chris refuses to consider the meaning of the film’s surprise. But then, through the course of a day, he completely changes his mind. “Solaris’” greatest flaw is not taking more time to show Chris’ realignment from “no” to “yes.” It is a story of temptation, much like the mother in “A.I.” who wants to believe that a robot boy loves her, but in the case of “Solaris,” we never feel Chris’ inner debate as he toys with giving in to his desires. While more snappy, the 2002 “Solaris” is still a VERY lengthy psychological journey. It is a long, drawn out film, which takes its time in exploring visually what cannot be successfully expressed by dialogue. In the screening I attended, several people walked out. For them, no connection was made with the film’s underlying message. For those who are intrigued though, and are still in the theater when Chris gives in, it is quite a moment indeed. Part of the film’s length stems from Soderbergh’s minimalist style. He is willing to indulge in long takes, where the emotional gravity of a situation is not rushed, but allowed to sink in. The film’s score is subdued, moving the action forward while interfering as little as possible. Often, shots are framed abstractly, occasionally leaving the back of one’s head in focus with the remainder of the frame obscured. In these instances, there is not much to look at, but the technique illustrates Chris’ seclusion from those around him and the importance of what is happening just beneath his surface. It is this style that brings the best out of George Clooney. Never has he seemed so rich with nuance and depth. And it asks the viewer to dive into this story more than other styles ever could. “Solaris,” as a result, has a great deal to say for those willing to listen. It is not perfect, but it is unusual, unpredictable, and refreshingly substantive. Just as mainstream Hollywood seems to be shying away from intelligent works, “Solaris” has the guts to target one of man’s most accepted beliefs—love—and challenge something that few of us have ever taken the time to seriously think about.  Check out Reviews, Commentary, and More at Zertinet.com |
LINKS
TO REVIEWS |
| [DAVE'S SECTION] | |
| Movies
@ Zertinet | Oscars @ Zertinet
| Main Site Best Viewed
at 800 X 600 or greater |
|
