Solaris - Criterion Collection | 
 enlarge | Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
Actors: Natalya Bondarchuk, Donatas Banionis, Jueri Jaervet, Vladislav Dvorzhetsky, Nikolai Grinko
Studio: Criterion
Category: DVD
List Price: $39.95
Buy New: $19.95
You Save: $20.00 (50%)
New (36) Used (15) from $19.95
Rating:  151 reviews
Sales Rank: 7424
Format: Anamorphic, Black White, Color, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: Russian (Original Language), English (Subtitled)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Number Of Discs: 2
Running Time: 165 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.2 x 0.9
MPN: PMIDSOL070D
ISBN: 0780026071
UPC: 037429172124
EAN: 9780780026070
ASIN: B00006L92F
Theatrical Release Date: 1972
Release Date: November 26, 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand new. Factory Sealed. Original criterion edition. Free upgrade to first class shipping.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
The Russian answer to i2001/i, and very nearly as memorable a movie. The legendary Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky made this extremely deliberate science-fiction epic, an adaptation of a novel by Stanislaw Lem. The story follows a cosmonaut (Donatas Banionis) on an eerie trip to a planet where haunting memories can take physical form. Its bare outline makes it sound like a routine space-flight picture, an elongated iTwilight Zone/i episode; but the further into its mysteries we travel, the less familiar anything seems. Even though Tarkovsky's meanings and methods are sometimes mystifying, iSolaris/i has a way of crawling inside your head, especially given the slow pace and general lack of forward momentum. By the time the final images cross the screen, Tarkovsky has gone way beyond SF conventions into a moving, unsettling vision of memory and home. Well worthy of cult status, iSolaris/i is both challenging art-house fare and a whacked-out head trip. i--Robert Horton/i
Product Description
Strange transmissions have been received from the 3 remaining residents on the solaris space station. When cosmonaut psychologist kris kelvin is sent to investigate he experiences the strange phenomena that afflict the solaris crew sending him on a voyage into the darkest recesses of his own consciousness. Studio: Image Entertainment Release Date: 11/26/2002 Run time: 169 minutes Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 146 more reviews...
 "Hey! I can see Russia from here!" ``Sara Palin, geografer December 4, 2008
Peppino
Lil' Sara should see this film, maybe her opinions about the 'evil Russian terroristas ' of gulag, block housing, vodka drunks and all other stereotypes that the crazylouco wing of terrans residing within the USA borders hold dear to their hearts can be dismissed. br / br /What I mean to say, the typical USian can see quite a bit of the rural and urban landscape BEFORE being jettisoned to 'outer space', and realise once again, in the gentlest of terms to those of parochial and provincial manner...welcom to the world! (and then, go, OUT of this world, haha!) br / br /Exquisitely filmed, with the already -described ayhuasca trip feel, this film quite slow paced , so much that it may cause physical discomfort to many who adhere to the hyper-paced day to day . br / br /Moody, well acted, and, thanks for the DVD format, can be viewed either to one sit down, or to watch in manageable segments for those with the short attention span. br / br /I have not seen the USA version (with the marquee actor George Clooney), as I can only imagine there would be no way to capture the magic of this film in the Hollywood idioma. (I already have seen the abject failures of Hollywood to remake two of my favourite films, "El Hombre Mirando al Sudeste" (becomes K Pax) and Insomnia (Al Pacino a great actor, but Skellan Skaarsgaard owned the film!). br / br /Well worth to add to a film collection, enjoy! br / br /1000 estrelas no ceu! Sara Palin doesnt have to go out of doors to see "Russia", here is a fine example of excelente Russian cinema! br / br /
SOLARIS The ultimate space trip into the inner mind November 27, 2008
W. T. Hoffman (Williampsort, Pa United States)
Tarkovsky's SOLARIS got a bit of a resurgance in popularity, due no doubt to the remake of the film with George Clooney. The "Hollywood USA" Solaris, when compared to the "USSR" SOLYARIS, tells more about the contrast between the American way of seeing the world, including cinema, and the Russian Weltanschauung. With Hollywood SOLARIS, you have a very linear plot, lots of emotional development between Chris and his wife, including Gabarian, during the initial earth scenes, wierd plot twists and characters revelations at the space station, and obvious big budget sets, costumes, and effects, all given over to an emotionally unsatisfying ending. It is only with the USSR SOLYARIS, that you recieve ART CINEMA (Grand Jury Award at the Canne). br / br /SOLYARIS gets compaired to 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY all the time. About the only thing they DO have in common, is the idea that space travel occurs in the MIND, as well as the body. The other unity between the two SCIFI masterpieces, are that space travel seems to break apart the psyche of the traveler, who contacts in ANY way alien intelligence. Kubricks 2001 doesnt make as many philosophical discriptions during the film, as SOLARIS does. For me, this is a minor flaw in SOLARIS. Tarkovsky's film ends with this musing, about mankinds purpose, the existence of deity, what it means to be "human", and if it IS possible to return to Earth, after experiencing something as life altering as direct contact with Alien intelligence. Kubrick's film accomplishes the same thing, but silently, more effectively. For the most part, Tarkovsky lets his imagery move the poetic underpining of his films, but he loves to stick in little bits about how mankind is doomed by his greed, and neurotic need to have his (materialistic) dreams all realized. Most people find the beginning of SOLYARIS, at the Dacha, a bit boring, (just like 2001's MONKEY scenes) it helps to set the visual pace of the film, the visual poetry. The long shots of the pond in the beginning of SOLARIS, actually makes sense, if you see how it connects to the end of the film, when the POND becomes just another creation of SOLARIS, itself a larger planetary ocean, set in the ocean of the universe. br / br /Tarkovsky is a poet with imagery, as his father was a poet with words. The one element that always makes me realize the depth of Tarkovsky's work, is the disunity that the critics, and the audience, have over WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Especially in "space ship" type SCIFI, the meaning tends to be very cut and polished. Its only with Kubrick's 2001, made in 1966, that ambiguity seems to enter the genre. It left the genre 6 years later, when Tarkovsky made SOLARIS. Both films are about aliens exploring the human mind, reflecting the "psychedelic" travels of those mind explorers during the 1960s and 70s who used LSD for the same purpose. Therefore, a film where PURE MINDSTUFF, invisible pure being, is one of the central characters, just doesnt seem to want to connect with people today. SOLYARIS, like the MONOLITH, represents humanity's possibilities, their limits, and the concept that REALITY is so much MORE than our preception of REALITY. We make our own realities, and that IS SPACE TRAVEL, of the purest type. This might be why The "HOLLYWOOD" Solaris is more easily digestable. It has no bizarre, circular ending, no low budget sets that need the viewer to invest their own imagination, to make the various roundish rooms on the first SOLARIS turn into a circular space station. The USSR SOLARIS doesnt give you time to consider what might be WRONG with the set logically. Instead, your mind is occupied with intellectual, and emotional concerns. SOLARIS Hollywood style, has it all in place, logical, tight, every hole filled in with the characters, the scenery, and even the CONCEPT of alien intelligence. When ambiguity is removed for rationist reasons, the poetry is removed as well. br / br /The same people that HATE Kubricks 2001, will NOT enjoy the USSR version of SOLARIS. If you dont like to ruminate over the films meaning, by having "breathing space" in the plot, then you wont like the USSR SOLARIS. This is how Tarkovsky makes films. His films use SPACE, for instnace a film shot where NOTHING is happening, or at most, water moves, to allow the viewer to sense a journey, either thru distance, or thru time. (Not unlike the long sections of lights, after Dave enters the Jupiter monolith, and moves thru space and time, for 10 minutes of light shows, that has no plot device, other than MIND TRAVEL is SPACE TRAVEL.) Without all the costly, realistic sets, costumes, etc, its easy to forget that SOLARIS even takes place at a distant planet. Everything looks so EARTHLY, that you forget about the SCIFI theme, and just accept that this altered reality that the people on the SOLARIS Space station experience, is as real as the earthly reality. You accept the delusion, that Chris accepts. Kubrick's 2001 never allows you to forget for a MOMENT, when his film is happening in space, which is the real, and the illusions of the MONOLITH. Maybe that difference is the REAL reason that SOLARIS makes us uncomfortable. Its because it makes us question the very substance of our EARTHLY perception of reality, by the end of the film. br / br / In both films, the main characters become transformed, and overtaken, by the alien intelligence. Both films are a total trip, a trip to the far reaches of the mind. Same destination, different roads. The difference between the two films, is like the difference between cosmonauts and astronauts. In the late 60s and early 70s, that difference was so much greater than it is today. The HOLLYWOOD "SOLARIS", and "2010 The year we make contact", shows how our society today wants it ALL to have a tight, logical ending. No ambiguity, no inner space travel, its all been given over to large budget sets, and big name starts. For the same reason ASTRONAUTS will probibly never land on the moon again, we will never see COSMONAUTS go to the USSR SOLARIS, or ASTRONAUTS enter another monolith. The great age of imagination and exploring inner realities, has been given over to the external, concise reality of COMPUTER GRAPHICS, which give us anything our imagination could EVER produce. (but a machine can do better, or so we believe.) When the imagination becomes superfluous, and ambiguity becomes boring, then its just POPCORN FILMS from here to the edge of the universe.
One of the best movies eve made. November 3, 2008
Dale Mitchell (Las Vegas, NV)
The director is brilliant, and works with a brilliant cast. Thanks to the great Stanislaw Lem for writing this story.
 Ponderous, dull, pretentious November 2, 2008
Jordean (Indiana, United States)
Dull, ponderous, pretentious, and visually unappealing to boot. br / br /Read the book. It's shorter than many of the five-star reviews here. Effusive praise can't conceal the fact that Lem was a far better writer than Tarakovski was a director. br /
NOT YOUR TYPICAL SCI-FI October 5, 2008
Enrique Hernandez (Miami, FL)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Don't expect lots of special effects or action sequences. DO expect a gripping tale full of poetic and philosophic musings about culture and what it means to be human. Tarkovsky's is much better than Soderbergh's 2002 version, but it's also much more demanding. It was an excruciating experience the first time I watched it, but, by the end, I knew I had seen something important. Although Tarkovsky based his movie on a novel by Polish author Stanislaw Lem, it's actually not surprising that Lem disliked the movie since Tarkovsky stood Lem's sensibilities on their head. Whereas for Lem outer space is an exciting--if forbidding-- frontier that is waiting for humans to conquer it, Tarkovsky depicts space as a place where humans, uprooted from Earth, become dehumanized and (no pun intended) alienated from their own nature. All the characters on the space station undergo psychological breakdowns. br / br /Whereas the novel includes no scenes on Earth, the movie begins with a long sequence in which Tarkovsky, using slow tracking shots, immerses us in the beauty of our planet. No director I've come across has filmed nature as lovingly as Tarkovsky, who also brought out its strangeness. We first meet Cosmonaut Kris Kelvin, the main character, as he takes his daily stroll through the woods around his father's house on the morning before Kris is scheduled to leave for the space station orbiting the planet Solaris. The movie, which opens with a haunting close-up of long, flowing, primeval-looking weeds, is introduced by Bach's meditative chorale prelude in F-minor, which imparts a spiritual resonance to the images. We slowly track across the pond to the marshy shore, where Kris stands surrounded by lush vegetation. We immediately get a sense of a man with deep connections to nature (and, later, to family). In any case, messages to the Solaris space station have gone unanswered, and Kris has been tasked with the job of traveling to Solaris and figuring out what's wrong. His report from Solaris will determine the fate of "Solaristics." br / br /Whereas most sci-fi depicts flight technology as something that frees human beings for exploration, for Tarkovsky the leaving of Earth's surface becomes a nightmare scenario (as it does at the beginning of ANDREI RUBLEV). For Tarkovsky, a key myth seems to be the fall of Icarus. It's not surprising, then, that Kris' flight into space leads to tragedy--or at least to one very dark mind-trip. Throughout the movie, Tarkovsky demonstrates a distrust of technology and, in this, he is closer to Martin Heidegger than Stanislaw Lem. In his famous Der Spiegel interview, Heidegger said, "technology tears men loose from the earth and uproots them. I do not know whether you were frightened, but I at any rate was frightened when I saw pictures coming from the moon to the earth...The uprooting of man has already taken place. The only thing we have left is technological relationships." Heidegger's statement provides a fitting summation of the movie's central theme. It is about the uprooting of man from his natural abode on Earth, and what happens to him as a consequence of this uprooting. On the space station, the men are caged like the parakeets we see in Kris' father's house back on Earth. Kris' separation from Earth is linked to alienation from parents, history, culture, and origins. br / br /Before leaving Earth, Kris receives a warning from a retired Cosmonaut named Burton, who used to be stationed on Solaris. Burton warns Kris about strange apparitions. The planet's surface is covered by a bizarre, swirling ocean that is, at times, blanketed by impenetrable fog. This ocean takes on shapes that are familiar only to those who see them. Indeed, it turns out that the planet is a giant brain that reads people's dreams and manifests their psychological obsessions by externalizing them. br / br /Kris travels to Solaris as a cold-eyed pragmatist, but almost as soon as he gets there his emotions take over. He finds two inhabitants alive; the third has committed suicide. The station is in a state of disrepair. The nature sequence at the beginning provides a stark contrast to the interior of the space station, which, with the exception of the library, offers a completely synthetic and sterile living environment. Tarkovsky makes it clear that the dementia suffered by the men on the space station is caused by their extended separation from Earth and by their quixotic dream of conquering space. br / br /At first, it seems like the two survivors are plagued by hallucinations. However, it turns out that these "hallucinations" are real. It's not long before Solaris sends Kris his own "guest," a replica of his dead wife, Hari, who committed suicide ten years prior. In an interview (included as a bonus by Criterion), Natalya Bondarchuk, the actress who plays Hari, explains that Hari, who is really Solaris, represents "life after life. Each of us will have an encounter like that with our conscience, which no amount of earthly prayer can ever expiate or extinguish. When we leave, each of us will meet his own `guest.' It's something we are guilty of and which it's too late to correct because these people are no longer alive. And friends will tell you, `Hari's suicide was not your fault. You had nothing to do with it. It was an accident.' But it wasn't an accident, and the heart knows it. You did not love her enough, or you mortally wounded her, and she departed--for nonexistence. But it only seems that she departed, for in fact she draws closer and closer to you. The older you get, the heavier this sin weighs on your conscience, and sooner or later you have to confront it...We love only what we can lose. Home, homeland, woman." Bondarchuck's explanation goes a long way in clarifying what is, at first, an enigmatic relationship between Kris and Hari. Since Kris had never come to terms with his wife's death--or his mother's-Solaris sends him replicas of both. Kris is forced to face the guilt he feels over their deaths, a guilt that he hadn't even admitted to himself. I think many people eventually experience something like this, a feeling that you didn't appreciate someone fully when they were alive, that you didn't spend enough time with them, express how much you loved them, or were otherwise distant or unfair. This is what Kris is expiating. Of course, metaphorically, the wife/mother represents Earth. This is suggested by Hari's earth-toned Native American garb. The fact that Kris has severed the umbilicus that connects him to Earth is something for which he must atone psychologically. br / br /At first, Kris tries to destroy this replica of Hari, but eventually falls in love with her as if she were really his wife come back from the grave and he were being given a second chance. When he can no longer tell this pseudo-wife apart from the real one, his mind begins to crack. He vows never to leave this new Hari, who desperately clings to him and can't stand being away from him even for a moment. But, in a fit of delirium, he tells her, "Remember I told you I wouldn't return to Earth, that we would live here? It was all a lie." Kris is admitting that, no matter how connected he is to this pseudo-Hari, he feels a maddening nostalgia for Earth. br / br /But it's too late; Solaris has claimed him. Just as it reconstructed Hari for him, the protean planet has picked details out of Kris' waking memory in order to recreate Earth. (Hoping to make contact, the cosmonauts had beamed Kris' waking thoughts down to the planet, which had caused mysterious "islands of memory" to begin forming.) But the planet gets things wrong, jumbling details up so that, when Kris returns to what he thinks is Earth, things are not quite right. For instance, it rains indoors instead of out. Earlier, Hari/Solaris had carefully studied a Brueghel painting of a winter scene that hangs in the space station's library. In Solaris' recreation of Earth, the trees are bare just like they are in the painting (whereas they had been lushly green when we saw them at the beginning of the film). The water in the pond no longer ripples, but is completely still, as if made of plastic. Mysteriously, the bonfire Kris started the day before he left Earth still smolders as if it had been kindled recently. These clues make sense only when an aerial shot shows us that Kris is actually trapped on an island which has emerged on Solaris. The planet is mimicking Earth, but this imitation can never replace the real thing. This might be Tarkovsky's commentary on terraforming. In science-fiction, alien planets are "terraformed" by human colonists, who attempt to make the new planet look like Earth. Tarkovsky seems to be saying that no matter how much we might try to reshape alien landscapes in Earth's likeness, we can never truly replace it. br / br /Criterion's bonus features include commentary by two Tarkovsky scholars, with whom I occasionally disagreed. For instance, they consider Burton's drive through the city (shot in Tokyo) the weakest part of the film because it doesn't seem futuristic enough. However, the way I see it, what's important isn't that the sequence look futuristic (the future is always already both present and past in this movie), but that it contrast with the scenes shot in the country. Tarkovsky disliked the city, loved the county. He's saying that the modern technological city alienates people from nature; we don't have to travel into space for this uprooting to happen. The feeling of alienation is underscored by the bizarre electronic score that contrasts with the meditative Bach music and nature sounds that we heard previously. (By the way, the music, most of it composed specifically for the film, is amazing, but subtle.) Anyhow, the car scene is brilliant because of its strange, hypnotic quality. I see an influence on Chris Marker's SAN SOLEIL and Wim Wenders' TOKYO-GA. br / br /Some of the vicissitudes depicted in the movie parallel Soviet attempts to explore the surface of Venus. At the time, Venus, with its thick, nearly impenetrable atmosphere, was a huge mystery and caused the Russians a great deal of heartache.
|
|
|
