This is a very interesting topic as I have seen both Tarkovsky’s and Soderbergh’s take on the novel recently.
Tarkovsky’s version is closer to the source material than Soderbergh’s. I find it to be more of an intellectual and existential commentary on human nature and the bounds of our own knowledge and weaknesses. One where I found myself to be in deep-thought throughout most of the film and after the film had already ended. Yes, many will blast the pacing of the film and find it slow and almost boring. But this type of film would suffer without its appropriate pacing and I feel while watching the film that you need that time and space in order to process and take in the ideas from the film. The ending however, I find to be extremely stark and powerful.
Soderbergh’s version has similarities and key differences between Tarkovsky. It is a much more emotional film, thriving on the emotional capacity of human nature rather than focusing on the more intellectual notions in Tarkovsky. That being said, I don’t think anyone can argue that Soderbergh’s version isn’t intelligent by any means, but the focus of the film is rather different from Tarkovsky. I don’t think Soderbergh’s version gets the credit that it actually deserves, as many people who first saw the film weren’t expecting a 99 minute take on human nature with George Clooney in space. Watching the DVD commentary with Soderbergh and James Cameron (which is one of the best ones I have discovered) is extremely enlightening as you can really break down the nuances of the film and you get a stronger understanding of both films.
I would say that both films offer an intellectual and emotional outlook on human nature and existentialism, but each do so through different means. I find myself actually appreciating the newer version more (even though that is not the case with most films I enjoy) because I feel that the perspective of the film is much more in tune with human nature and it allows you to identify with it. But they are both strong films in their respective sense.
No one interested in Solaris? :/
Had I never read Lem’s book, or seen the Tarkovsky film, I would have liked Soderbergh’s “Solaris” just fine. It’s not a bad film, but it pales in comparison to the other two.
Can you elaborate? Especially considering how open the films and novel are to an intellectual and psychological discussion, I am curious how you have come to formulate your opinion. If anything, I would say the Tarkovsky’s film pales in comparison with the source material, as it was attempting to be a more accurate adaptation.
When you say had you never read Lem’s book or seen Tarkovsky’s film, it shows that you find their similar interpretation of the material to be the true material. The word would in that like statement also reinforces the fact that Soderbergh’s Solaris was not the one you expected going into the film. Now I don’t mean to be critical because this is a common practice, though one that is very limiting in the long run. Most films need to be seen with a clean “mental” slate to be truly appreciated because if you walk into a film expecting something else, you’re never going to see that film as an individual piece of work.
I don’t find nothing great in the Soderbergh career. OK, is a good director. Good taste, good actores performances, good scripts.
But the best in his filmography is “Traffic”…. and it is not an original script. Then the best ideas are borrowed from another moviemakers. Like “Solaris”. The rest… Ocean’s Eleven and the sequels… My God!
What about “Che”? Good taste, good actores performances, good script. Absolutly control and the result is cold, cold, cold. Soderbergh wants to be a political correct author to comunists and democrates at the same level. It is not possible.
PETER: I see what you’re talking about when you say in his complete career. Yes, he does have many questionable and not-so-great films, but I’d say right around 2000 when he made Erin Brokovich, that it started to change. Though I usually don’t like films like Erin Brokovich, after watching it I could not doubt it was a good film. The script was great and Julia Roberts is quite superb in that role, which she won an Oscar for.
I will agree that his best cinematography and filmography work is in Traffic, but I don’t think he’s a complete auteur anyways. He definitely will work on rewrites and have a say in the script, but he doesn’t always write them himself. So by technical definition he is not an auteur, but he actually does have a say in those aspects. But yes, he does tend to do a lot of adapted ideas so I wouldn’t say that he is the most original writer by any means. I will say that his aesthetic vision and control is superb though. Solaris was shot extremely well, complete aesthetic and technical control.
Can you elaborate what you mean by cold though? I thought Che was alright, but I really felt it was too big of a project for itself.
DAVID: First at all… sorry, my english is not very well. But I’ll try to be clear enough. Well, when I said COLD I mean he is with no expression. Good cinematography and color but not in the way of Michael Mann (who always takes risks). Sorderberg is always pretending to do good cinema and you can feel that.
Erin Brokovich is good, really good. But could be a good movie made for TV. Great performance by Miss Roberts. Ok. But it is not enough.
Of course, Soderbergh is better than many others filmmakers. But… there is a lot with no so great opportunities who are doing better movies.
Yeah, I will agree that Soderbergh doesn’t take a lot of risks as a film-maker, and I think that one of the reasons why that was on Che was because the project and scale of the film was too large for him. And yes, Che does feel cold and disconnected as a film, but the production level was still strong. I see your point on directors who have less but are making better films. But maybe a great script (Traffic and Erin Brokovich) is what it takes for him to make a truly great film. He did get nominated for both films and won for Traffic, so I think as time grows, he will mature as a director and do some good work. (After watching the Solaris commentary with him and James Cameron, it’s clear that Soderbergh is a very intelligent, very calculated film-maker)
Erin Brokovich may be a good movie made for TV, but it’s probably one of the best ones :)
I thought Soderbergh’s remake of Solaris was fantastic. I’m not really a ‘fan’ of the original and have never read the book, so take it for what it’s worth. The score alone makes it an amazing experience. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a score that captures “space ship/station” quite like Cliff Martinez did with his Solaris score.
In the end I guess I just liked the more emotional approach to Solaris that Soderbergh took.
I recently viewed both films and enjoyed both. I will say that Tarkovsky’s is a challenging view. It is thought provoking and well made, but far colder and less overtly emotional than Soderbergh’s. The most striking aspect of the remake is the lighting. Lighting design is not typically something I pay a ton of attention to, but it is really beautiful throughout the film. Perhaps it is a little heavy handed, but overall I found this to be the greatest feature of the newer version. I also like one of the twists near the end (won’t give it away here), but the pacing is far less conducive to deep thought and contemplation in comparison with Tarkovsky’s.
i prefer soderbergh’s but i don’t hate either of them. i enjoy them both very much actually. though i do think that tarkovsky’s film gets away from him at times. but really as big a fan of the book as i am i’m really glad to have both of the movies because they both touch upon different parts of the book in rewarding ways.
oh and i disagree quite a bit about soderbergh not taking risks as a film maker. the good german, solaris, eros, bubble, and several others all show that he does even if he has a number of more commercial movies like the oceans series and brokovich.
David:
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen either, so my opinions are not “fresh.”
I do think Tarkovsky’s film was closer to the book, at least with regard to the Kelvin character. In both the book and the Tarkovsky film, the guy is kind of a prick. You get a sense that he deserves the torture Solaris gives him. Also, I think it was much more open-ended as to whether the guy might just be crazy. The Soderbergh version, to me, tried too hard to explain what was going on, and obviously with Clooney in the lead they had to make the Kelvin character at least somewhat likable.
It’s still a good movie, I just liked the other tellings better. I do try to have an open mind when going into a film, but when it’s a remake or adaptation of something I’m familiar with, it’s difficult to judge it completely on its own merits.
C Vonhinken: I definitely understand what you mean when you say it’s hard to judge it on its own, in terms of its own merits. I think Lem made Kelvin kind of a prick so that the ending is even more powerful when he’s completely changed and extremely vulnerable compared to his cynical, hard-edged mentality in the beginning. Tarkovsky’s ending perfect grasps this concept.
I think the main difference is that in Soderbergh’s version, all signs point to the fact that Kris Kelvin is extremely disconnected with the world. That he lives a mundane life on earth, just mentally cut off from everything even though he is supposed to be someone who connects and helps others with their own problems. The great irony is that he can’t even figure out his own problems, so when he goes to Solaris he is initially put off by the events that occur that seem impossible. But after a while he begins to think that he can make up for the mistakes of the past, to go back to the life he once loved but never appreciated until it was taken from him. So in a sense, it’s a more of a take on human nature and existentialism, though Tarkovsky does touch on both points as well.
I saw Soderbergh’s film first, and enjoyed it. I liked the moodiness, ambiguity, and understated “sci-fi” of it all.
2 years later I saw Tarkovsky’s film and was blown away.
I feel like Soderbergh’s is the appetizer, that even many mainstream-minded viewers can enjoy.
But Tarkovsky’s is the real-deal 7 course meal that rewards those who offer their minds to it.
That being said, the “remake” is one of the least annoying remakes around, which is to Soderbergh’s credit considering what a weighty and difficult project that would have been to tackle. His vision seemed to focus simply on Kelvin’s issues with his wife, rather than the whole gamut of human experience.
I find it interesting that Tarkovsky himself disliked Solyaris the most out of all his films and didn’t really like to speak about the film in any way.
It was Tarkovsky himself who greatly disliked 2001 and wanted to make a film almost as a counterpoint to it, so he chose to adapt Lem’s novel. There are few films that push your thoughts and challenge your mind like Solyaris does. But honestly, the art direction in space is just terrible.
And if Tarkovsky said he wanted to make a spiritual film about inner life, I would say that his goal was better achieved in the later interpretation.
Coming to this discussion a little late…
I have not read the novel yet. I’ve been looking for it but apparently it is out of print. However, when I first saw Soderbergh’s version in the theater (and I had recently watched Tarkovsky’s version for the first time, in preparation to see the new film) I did speak with a friend of mine who is a film producer and probably the biggest sci-fi junkie I know. He had read the book and told me about it and how both films compare to the novel. The take on it that I got, from this admittedly second-hand source, was that each film simply focused on different aspects of the novel, and I truly love each film for its own approach to the source material and I took different things from each (as many of your comments have pointed out).
I think this is a rare and wonderful thing: to see original literary source material treated seriously, effectively, and yet very differently, by two different directors, both eminent (debates about their relative greatnesses/weaknessses aside), coming from different film cultures and perspectives. I wish this type of treatment were given to more literary works that lend themselves to film adaptations. Too often one version (perhaps the first version, though not always) becomes the standard/classic version, and then any other subsequent adaptations simply try to modernize the treatment, without really adding anything interesting to the exploration of the original source material. Then again, perhaps it’s a tribute to the richness of Lem’s novel itself, that it lends itself to two such strong adaptations. Once I track down the book and read it, I can probably comment with more confidence and conviction. :)
I did read the novel and both versions, understandably, omit the final scene. Kelvin makes it to the planet and has an interaction with its surface. It is in my estimation one of the few articulations of what it would be like to encounter and intelligence completely separate from human understanding.
I do think the Tarkovsky version is better (obnoxiously slow but better) but Soderbergh’s was such a ballsy move. I really respect him for his adaptation even though I was hoping for something different. Both took the source material and made it their own. We still haven’t seen Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris on the screen.
I recently watched both, and I really loved them both in different ways, but I actually preferred the Cameron/Soderbergh version. I mention Cameron because I saw his hand everywhere in it. I’m a pretty emotional viewer, and the emotional depth and subtlety of Clooney’s Kelvin was just beautiful. I kind of feel that Cameron was retouching some of the romantic tragedy that he explored in the Abyss, but with the help of a director who is so much more deft at crafting human drama, romance, and internal conflict. The acting in Cameron films is generally very straight forward. He does not exactly elicit nuanced performances from his actors. That said, the Abyss was a really beautiful love story, and a visual masterpiece. (I would love to see Criterion reissue it as a BluRay.) This version of Solaris was like the Abyss that Cameron would make if he had Soderbergh’s gift for directing and editing actors to evoke sexual chemistry and human emotion.
I also really love Tarkovsky’s Solyaris, but so much has already been said and written about it.
The “human question” resonates in a much more visceral and poetic way in Tarkovsky’s.
I found Soderbergh’s version a mastered thriller. Loved em’ both.
Eric: I think if you watch the film again, especially the commentary with both Soderbergh and Cameron, then you’ll realize that Cameron actually had very little to do with the film and I for one see very little of his influence in Solaris. In fact, he jokes that he may have contributed just 1% to the film if even that. He was constantly poking fun at himself by mentioning what he might have done with a scene differently, basically talking about explosions, car crashes, etc. so it was pretty entertaining to listen to. I think he knew this project wasn’t really his cup of tea so that’s why he took on the producer reigns and handed it over to Soderbergh.
That’s not to say that Cameron didn’t have any influence or opinion that helped Soderbergh, but it was apparent that he was constantly intrigued by watching Soderbergh work and the decisions that he made in the film. Mentioning on numerous occasions about how Soderbergh’s decisions were very unlike what he would do with it, but also admitting that those were great decisions and ones he might never have thought of. The cutting and different shots are some of the most obvious examples and I think you may have touched on that point.
I will definitely agree with you that Cameron doesn’t always extract nuanced performances and I think the style and tone of his films never really complement those ideas (though some would say Titanic is different). But yeah, it’s good to see people appreciating Soderbergh’s Solaris because he definitely is a good film-maker. I think as time goes, appreciation for this film will grow, because I’ve noticed most people that didn’t enjoy Soderbergh’s take, had already seen Tarkovsky’s or mentioned this wasn’t the type of film they were expecting. And in most cases, that is the pitfall for this type of film because your impressions of everything within the film are being constantly affected by your original, or what you thought to be your original interpretation of the film. When really it is much more effective for films like Solaris, to watch and interpret them as stand-alone works.
I really have nothing more to contribute to this post, other than now i think i need to go see Soderbergh’s treatment of the film. I’m a huge fan of the Lem novel, and actually have a large tattoo based on a section of the book, and I quite enjoyed Tarkovsky’s treatment of the material. I always felt he had the upper hand here, being a Russian like Lem. I had only heard negative things about Soderbergh’s treatment so had steered clear, but now it would seem it’s worth a viewing.
Soderbergh had no business remaking Solaris, he claimed his film was more true to Stanislaw Lem’s book which might be true but it is nowhere near the masterpiece that Tarkovsky made.
I agree that Soderbergh should of simply left the material alone in the first place, but wouldn’t it have been more of a cinematic crime were he to go in and actually improve on the work of Tarkovsky?
In many ways, that would be the insult from one filmmaker to another, much better one. Delivering his own so-so “re-adaptation” of the novel was the proper thing for Soderbergh to do, if he was going to do it in the first place.
It’s a bow to a master, as opposed to a blow.
“Soderbergh had no business remaking Solaris, he claimed his film was more true to Stanislaw Lem’s book which might be true but it is nowhere near the masterpiece that Tarkovsky made.”
I think I’ll just roll my eyes at this statement. Of course, I do that with every one of this user’s posts.
Michael
How do you feel Soderbergh’s treatment compares to Tarkovsky’s?
I myself think they’re both great in their own ways, but there are a ton of people who would disagree. Many say Tarkovsky’s is too slow, too unengaging, too unfocused, and too empty. Many others say Soderbergh’s is too maudlin, too emptyheaded, too short, and too different. What do you all think? Do you have a preference? Do you hate one or the other? How do you think they measure up to the book (if you’ve read it)?