This is strange because the film is very faithful to the novel with some extra pre-flight scenes which pay off in the very last shot, also not in the novel. A major theme in Lem's scifi novels is literally that alien contact CANNOT make any sense, due to having nothing in common.

When someone asks me what Solaris is about, I tell them, "It's many things, but most of all, it's a love story. A tragic, beautiful, Shakespearean love story."

There are actually three adaptations of Solaris. There's also a 1968 Soviet television play that follows the novel more closely.

I kind of love that the auto-captioning for this video spells "Lem" as "LM", as if he were the Apollo Lunar Module (pronounced that way by the astronauts because it was called the LEM in the early parts of the project). That's a pun that Lem himself used more than once, and the idea of it coming out of a machine transcription system would have tickled him as well, given that he seems to have predicted a lot of details of our modern struggles with AI. The movie does take a long time to get going, but the sets of the Solaris station are *so perfect* a depiction of Lem's setting, I love it just for that alone. And the cast are perfect too. I think it's interesting that both Tarkovsky and Soderbergh decided to give the movie a twist ending. Lem's ending isn't a twist at all, it's just very unresolved, as Lem's writing often was.

A wonderful pick! I am an utter Tarkovsky nerd, so I’m happy to watch any viewpoints on work that is so deliberately enigmatic and stunningly beautiful at its best. And your analysis on this one is spot-on. Bring on the Stalker video!

I think there's a lot of shared DNA between this film and Stalker, in that both have a situation where the cast's deepest desires are made manifest, and it does not typically end up well. One of the more subtle bits from the novel is one of the other people on the station expressing envy of Kelvin because his deepest desire of having a second chance with his wife is something he could admit to in public. This makes the construct of a little girl extremely dark, but I think it's what they intended. It's a happy ending in the sense that Kelvin reconnecting with his father is attainable in reality.

Your professor is wrong; the greatest scene in all of film is Slim Pickens riding the bomb in Dr. Strangelove. Nothing captures the very concept of making lemonade so well.

I think your interpretation of the ending is better than mine and more positive. Mine was that Solaris recreated that environment so Kelvin could reconcile his relationship with his father from the guilt that he had pent up similar to the relationship he had with Hari. As for the 2002 version I helped design the one-sheet. The way I got the job was I was invited to the design studio where they were doing the marketing campaign and no one had ever seen the original movie so, they thought it was just another Star Wars sci-fi film so I came up with a concept that they used.

A new TV channel launched in the UK in 1982 called Channel 4 with the goal of being arty and edgy. This was one of the first films they showed and 15 years old me was the only one in our house who could pick up the new channel on my portable 14inch B/W TV. I was completely hypnotised by this movie and it still remains my favorite art house movie ever.... until they showed Fitzcoraldo a few months later lol.

I've read the novel and really enjoyed it, as brain-melting as it is. I'm sure a lot of it went over my head; it's a _lot_ more philosophical than the film. I've always loved Lem's reaction to all the adaptations of Solaris, though (there was an earlier TV adaptation in the 60s): he said something like "If that's the kind of story I wanted to tell, I'd have named it The Erotic Problems of People in Space rather than Solaris."

Well, TUG, I have been eagerly awaiting your reviewing Solaris, and I am not disappointed. You knocked this one out of the park! I saw this extraordinary movie many years ago, when I was a young man, and it left an indelible imprint on my brain. Reading the book by Lem helped somewhat, but that also was a long time ago. I have not returned to either since then, despite having purchased the DVD more than 20 years ago! It has been waiting until I was ready to invest the time. 😂You made fair comment about the interminable car drive, and it is indeed a long movie. Your explanation about the shoot in Tokyo helped to explain this anomaly, but Tarkovsky has always been leisurely in his editing. Despite these misgivings of mine, I side with you about its importance: I have a list of just over 30 greatest SF movies of all time, and Solaris is in there. However, because of its unjustifiably long car drive, I could not even put it amongst the top 100 movies of all time, despite its considerable emotional and intellectual impact. For comparison, a movie that did make my top 30 movies of any kind, The Leopard, has a ballroom scene that was around 45 minutes long - but every minute of that scene was justified! Thanks for a thought-provoking review, as always including useful historical detail. 👍

THANK YOU for explaining the length of the Tokyo drive, which has bugged me for decades. Yes, absolutely -- there are movies which we individually love and respect but recommend to a general audience at our peril. I think I like Solaris because it reminds me of Ray Bradbury, and this movie shows more respect for its source material, or at least the spirit of it, than a TV miniseries did for Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. (As a tribute to the power of love, I take Solaris over Interstellar.) Finally, would you like to know why I like some -- but only some -- "pretentious" movies? Because they have PRETENSIONS, ambitions, and that can be a good thing.

I want to wait until you tackle Stalker before I weigh in, but I loved this video. Have already shared it with friends who have had to put up with me rattling on about Solaris since the 70's when BBC 2 premiered it for late night audiences in the UK. It has been my favourite film since ..

So why was that shot of the guy carrying the candle so great?

It's impossible not to cry during the levitation scene. And probably impossible to listen to that music without remembering this scene ever after. Thanks for this beautiful analysis. I personally see the book and the movie as two separate entities that somehow magically connect, but one is not a counterpart of other.

I would enjoy VERY MUCH your reading comparing both Solaris and 2001. Since these two films are unquestionably proven CLASSICS of cinema. By the way, must thank you very much for this episode. Greeitngs from São Paulo, Brazil.

12:23 The name Steven Soderbergh sounds like a parody of Steven Spielberg from some sort of TV show I would watch.

This is one of my favourite movies. I remember playing it for some friends a number of years ago and they were skeptical at first, complained that it was boring for a while, but when it was finished, they were blown away too. It is a remarkable film. I do like your assessment of the ending as well. Very intriguing.

Thanks for this very helpful and interesting video. Just watched Solaris for the first time and this video gave me a lot of context.

I have always viewed ending of this film through a slightly darker lens.. Imho the main character stays in space, forever living in an illusory world where the ocean reproduces his father’s home, where he is finally forgiven. I find this interpretation of the ending more bittersweet and therefore more touching, than him just returning home, and ocean recreating his inner traumas. But that’s the brilliance of this film - it can be viewed in many different ways. One of my all time favourite films. Thank you for this video!

Underrated channel, greetings from Argentina!

I'm more of a Tarkovsky respecter than fan, but the guy was incredibly talented, it's a chore to sit through his movies but they have an immense effect on people

Great video. Thanks.

Cheers man. Well done. Please keep it up.

Thank you for this. I'm a lover of both the novel and the film but have never seen a video where the cast and characters are so well investigated, i.e. there was a great deal of new information for me (and as a geek myself I know that's what we thrive on). I can understand Tarkovsky's view of not wanting to make a movie that is just a visual representation of a novel. Villeneuve has recently done that with Dune and, having read all the Dune novels, I can say I am not ''learning'' anything new. I would have much preferred to see Jodorowsky's interpretation because it was his own personal take (and at least would have had some colour in it!). Villeneuve's Dune might as well have been filmed in black and white. And no, I'm not asking you to do a deep dive into his version, but Jodorowsky's might make interesting viewing, even if it never did get made.

Lem wrote a great book called Futurological Congress. It’s one of those works where reality gets ripped away again and again and again. What seems reals simply isn’t. Nor is the next reality. Phil Dick does this, but Lem’s take is staggering and mind-altering . Seek it out!

This was excellently timed for me! Mrs IMO’s dad is a huge fan of Tarkovsky and has lent us his criterion collection… we watched stalker the other night, it took a while to put it together but when it clicked… wow! Next up… Solaris! Keep up the great work m8 😊

Just discovered your channel a few weeks ago. Enjoying your Sci-Fi Classic reviews. Would like to see reviews for Atlantis the Lost Continent, Master of the World, Journey to the Seventh Planet, Robinson Crusoe on Mars and A Boy and His Dog sometime. Keep up the good work!

Great review 😊

Thanks so much for this. Solaris and 2001 are both superb movies but almost polar opposites. 2001 is spectacle and storytelling, but with very little character (or dialogue). Solaris is a movie much more about emotions. What the scientists experience is something deeply personal and haunting. It's a movie I dip into every few years, and engage with differently each time as I mature. There are very few piece of art you can say that about.

This is a fairly good analysis of Chris-- especially your conceptualization of the ending. To kind of further that point, this film is very existentialist. While the visitors initially present themselves as 'mirrors' for those on the station, Kris' relationship with his seems to push the ocean further and allows it to investigate it's own being. Initially, Hari is just a replication of Kris' memory, but as he engages with it and treats it as person, as opposed to Sartorious and Snaut, who treat them as alien or hallucinations (respectively), it realizes itself as a separate entity-- a distinct consciousness, a Dasein. Of course, as far as we know, the bodies which the ocean finds itself in are completely alien to it, and so are the emotions which it experiences as a consequence of that and the memories it 'has' from the researchers. However, this is not far off from our own human experience at time-- where we experience emotions without understanding why, where our bodies feel alien to us. What exactly this means, I don't yet have a conclusion. But it's none the less interesting, and I think food for thought.

Very methodical, slow burn however...brilliant film making. Beautifully shot & intelligent.The original haunted space station. This underrated gem grew on me after multiple viewings. Highly recommended. Just stick with it.

My take: It's a good thing the Soviets never found a way to weaponize boredom. It is possible to have a beautiful movie while still having a movie.

When I eventually read the works of Stanislaw Lem I was surprised how much humour was in his novels based this movie.

Good video as usual. Andrei Rublev is one of my all time faves and should be seen on the big screen. I'd love to see Solaris at the cinema. There is tons of Soviet era Sci-fi from Iron curtain countries. Often butchered by american versions. Ikarie XB1 is my fave but many others worth attention. Changing topic, what about the Harryhausen First Men in the Moon? Best wishes

Two things I don't understood at all but love dearly: Tartovsky's films, and "The Prisoner"

very cool brother

A question for anyone who cares to answer: Do you understand everything you enjoy and do you enjoy everything you understand?

Must watch it. Tom, Belgium.

Two scenes you caught come to mind (though I do vote for the Nostaghlia candle scene exposition) and I wanted to ask if you thought there was more than coincidence to them: The first was the mention that someone on Solaris had two wives. That immediately made me think of Commander Norton in Rendesvous with RAma (soon to be undertaken by Dennous Villousnouvous twenty years after we pegged our hopes on Morgan Freeman and David Fincher)-how in the text of the book he had two wives as a necessity of his career as an interplanetary space captain. I also think Clarke had used it as metacommentary on how progress can make society's values seem strange and alienating. As RAma was published a year after Solaris came out, and Clarke was closely connected with the production of 2001, do you think this was a case of cross pollination. Also you made it clear what Tarkovsky thought of 2001. I wonder what Clarke thought of Solaris. Third, I don't mean to emphasize the A in RAma. It's just easier to type i that way. Also Third: You dwelt on the scene of the rain falling in the Teacup-which still had Tea and I noticed how it showed the ruination of things appealing. The tea still tinted the liquid but it was diluted and settled into a subsurface layer. That immediately made me think of the soaked donut in ALIENS-which got a visceral reaction from the theater audience when I saw it. I never understood that shot completely. It wasn't evidence of the ALIEN attack on the colony in the way the acid burns and ruined barricades were. But it had that same ruined pleasure. I wondered if you knew of a connection between James Cameron and Tarkovsky's work exemplified here.

I took the long driving scene to be a representation of just how long (and boring) the space flight would be.

It's an examination of life. What constitutes life and what is consciousness. It's mystery is shown in the ocean, the people and nature. These are are just reacting within.

Solaris is still the only Tarkovskyy I've seen in a cinema, many, many years ago. Yet I've seen almost all of his films (The Sacrifice is the only one of his features I've not yet seen but I do have the Curzon Blu-ray of it) and would rank Stalker highest but then Solaris, Andrei Rublev, Nostalghia, Ivan's Childhood. I don't yet know where to place The Mirror; I need to watch it again, and probably again. And again, as with all Tarkovskyy's (and Kubrick's). The Tokyo scene in Solaris was, I thought, the Soviet take on the wormhole scene in 2001; I've laughed a few times while watching it. Can't not I'm afraid. I thought that Solaris' ending was Solaris providing Kris Kelvin a proper ending, but I was surprised and intrigued by your interpretation, which is I think a better answer. And please, I await your interpretation of Stalker, whenever you can do it.

I love so many sci-fi films of that genre. Do Anna To the Infinite Power. Great book... bit of an eerie movie. You'll find the book in the YA section on the library... At least I did in the 6th grade. But then that's where you'll also find Pinocchio and Bambi, both books of some violence.

I’m just gonna mention this for the benefit of anybody who may have taken your review to mean that Solaris is fundamentally incomprehensible. Wow the book never specifically states what Solaris is (beyond it, being a planet completely covered by an ocean) Dozens of little facts through the course of the book to add up to let us know what it is. This may or may not be a spoiler. The world and circling ocean of Solaris is alive, it is a one enormous organism, and it is intelligent. And until people from earth turned up, trying to study it, it was completely unaware, that anything intelligent existed beyond itself. It has no frame of reference with which to communicate with us, and even the idea of communication is something that the world ocean does not quite grasp because it has never had to communicate with anything before. But it still wants to. It is somewhat telepathic, and it is able to modify portions of itself to build physical representations of the things. The human researchers are thinking about. The humans are continually thinking about their fears, or guilt, or fetishes, or whatever, so naturally, these are the things that get the oceans attention, and it creates them as a attempt to communicate. This naturally has a wildly destructive effect on the psychologies of the humans. Limbs novels have a recurring theme of being unable to communicate with a fundamentally different intelligence, because there is no frame of reference, and this is probably his purest expression of that. This is never stated in the film, but I think it is a fundamental premise behind what we see on screen, even if the characters themselves never really understand it . In the book, Chris goes home and uses on how he doesn’t believe in God, but if he could, Solaris is pretty much, the only sort of God he could believe in . I politely disagree with your reading of the last scene. I think that is the real Chris, and I think the real Chris has given in to nihilism and nostalgia. And I think he plays out the rest of his days in that little fantasy world Island. The fantasy world he has caused the planet to create is both his heaven and his hell . That’s just my gut instinct though.. I can’t prove it, and as far as I can tell Tarkovsky himself never bothered to explain it

Thanks TUG! Must confess... this film always eluded me!

So why bother mentioning that candle scene if you aren't going to explain it and say you might do another video about it one day? Chekhov's candle? 😒

Deep.. like the Ocean.

Love hitch hikers guide to the galaxy? Looking for something that is just as crazy, surreal, off the wall & SF comedy? I highly recommend the german TV show: “ Ijon Tichy: Raumpilot” which is based on Star dairies and other books by Stanislaw Lem! I Can’t express how brilliant it is, it’s more hitch hikers than hitch hikers itself ! Stanislaw Lem is a genius with these crazy SF comedy tall stories, I’d argue Ijon Tichy is better, And should be more known in the west. 🤯🤯🤯😎😎😎

I watched about 1/2 the movie a few weeks ago. I need to get back to it. I want to watch it, but I hesitate because 1) it is a bit wild and 2) I don’t want it to be over. Weird, I know

Very good analysis of one of my favorite films, "Solaris." You pointed out a few symbolic things that I didn't catch, even after repeated viewings. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the ending. Lem's novel ends with Kelvin staying on the planet Solaris, hoping that Hari (Rheya in the novel) will reappear, and that "the time of cruel miracles was not yet passed." Yes I love pretentious art cinema. But I don't see it as "pretentious." I think that's a weasel word used by mediocre minds to dismiss honest cinematic efforts that they neither understand nor appreciate. "Meh, I thought it was pretentious" really means "WTF, I didn't get it." Most moviegoers prefer filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas, who pander to their lowbrow tastes. I do agree with you that Soderberg's version of "Solaris" is junk, with a phony Hollywood happy ending added on. Now THAT'S pretentious.

I’ll be honest with you: I’ve seen his films more than once but it feels as though I still don’t understand it’s true meaning. Sure, I may walk away with an interpretation from the film, but that’s just what my mind believes the film’s about. It’s not even close to what Tarkovsky may have aimed to do for the film. This is a very interesting video that I’m glad I watched. The impact Andrei Tarkovsky left and I know by now it’s gotta be painfully pretentious or cliched by now, certainly made a big impact on me as a cinema lover. Although I will admit there’s A LOT that I may not fully understand since I am not on the same wavelength of intelligence as Tarkovsky, but what I appreciate the most about him is how much he changed my perception on cinema. He showed me that art shouldn’t just be entertainment only, but as a way to directly affect the emotions of the audience that then awakens the thought process forward. Sorry for the long comment, but I love your analysis on Solaris. I think your analysis enhances my overall love and appreciation for this film. It’s such a shame that Tarkovsky views Solaris to be his least favorite film he’s directed, but am glad he gave us such a remarkable science-fiction film that feels more like a meditative experience rather than just a film.

I would be interested if anyone has an interpretation of the scene of traffic moving slowly through Tokyo. I think it's very specific from the director and a genius idea but other people don't see any reason for it.

Great video; makes me want to delve into Tarkovsky. Yes, by all means, I would love to see a video explaining the reasoning associated with the candle carrying scene. For one thing, it would, I am sure, include needed context. The Tarkovsky/Kubrick philosophical split brought to mind the reputed philosophical split between Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. Don't know if that is intentional of if I am projecting, but there you are. I have seen the American version of SOLARIS; I liked it more than a lot of people, but I am pretty sure that I will like the original better, even if only because other-than-American films handle philosophy so much better than American ones. Taking a wild swing at the next video, are you going for FRANKENSTEIN:THE TRUE STORY? I love that one; watched that one, both nights, in my yout'. It's no closer to the original source novel than any of the others (and, let's be fair, I would argue that an exact translation would make for a really awful movie, even ignoring the potential argument of whether to use the 1818 three-volume version or the 1836 revision), but it's a lot of fun.

I just read the book and watched the film for the third time. This info is interesting but does not help in understanding the film. In Mirror, Tarkovski depicts his mother as a serial smoker. You did a nice job, giving me new associations.

Read the book the Solaris is well explained by Lem he spent half of the book to refence what Humanity learned about the Ocean and how it was interacting with homo sapience before it lost interest. The end of the movie is just made up painting - The Return of the Prodigal Son which Lem BTW did not take very well.

Okay. The driving sequence... My interpretation of this has always been that the guy (Burton, if I remember) has that girl with him. And there's an implication that she's his visitor from Solaris who is still following him around. Because it's like she's pretty much ignored. Like she's some kind of a ghost.

I’ve tried this film a couple of times and ALWAYS doze off during the traveling through the city scene. It IS long. The main thing I remember about this is Chris burning all of his possessions before going to Solaris. I took that as him believing he would never return from Solaris, but there’s probably a deeper meaning there.

I have watched the American version with George Clooney, it was OK. I haven't seen Tarkovsky original because it just seemed to be over long (2 hours, 47 minutes) with the reputation of not having very much going on. After all the Marvel movies, the length seems lest daunting, but I don't feel motivated to see it over more recent movies.

I tried to watch this movie once but failed. I'll try another time maybe

My guess is Shadow of the Vampire is the next movie review.

Different topic but if you dig (or don't dig 😁) extremely long (and sometimes monotonous) shots, try watching "The Seventh Continent" by Haneke. (It is a good film btw!)

Andreis filmography for me is one filled with frustration. Like with Terrence Malick, I wonder if I wouldn't enjoy the experience of the ride through the narrative, if they were mute. What I mean is that while I agree that on pretty much all technical levels his craft is pretty much without failings... His dialog writings make me want to pierce my ears with steel nails just to make it stop. It is so simplistic, so much surface level teenage navelgazing, and regressive propaganda mixed with technophobia and incoherent anti-science ramblings. Nothing is actually challenged. Its spoken text devolving into essentially like a feature length episode of Black Mirror. Maybe I should turn off the subtitles in upcoming viewings. Maybe that way I won't be distracted by the contents of what they want to say.

It's been a super long time since I saw this movie, the book is on my TBR but I haven't read it yet.l The one thing I never got, is how confused people are about the guy whose "visitor" or apparition (whatever you want to call it) is the little girl. Gosh darnit they just can't figure out what's going on there. The f you mean bro? The people / apparitions that appear are all related to something they are profoundly ashamed / regretful for. So, why do you think that guy's is a very pretty, naive young girl.. It's clearly not his daughter etc. Not in the movie at least, not from what I remember. So to me it became very clear that this guy had let his lust take hold of him and was inappropriate with that girl. p.s. the last time I tried watching stalker I was high as a kite and I remember vague scenes. I'm not even sure if I actually finished the movie. I was 16 or something I think

Nothing says depressed Russian filmmaker than jumping into the future. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person and have attempted to watch the film more than few times. But waxing poet about this sufferable film doesn't change the general consensus about this film. It is strictly a movie for directors and that is it.

At the heart of every auteur is a child who wanted to be a painter. But, ultimately, they have to tell a story. And Tarkovsky, talented though he may be, never told stories that I cared for. I suspect it's the oppression he felt politically coming through in his films making them bereft of any joy. Although unintentional, his continuous overly drawn out shots also always struck me as a perfect symbol of the static nature of art under communism. Who knows? Maybe if he had been born into the type of society that he held in such disdain, .the artistic freedom and resources could have helped him create a film he could finally be happy with.

I found it interesting Andrei Tarkovsky didn't like 2001. H.G. Wells hated Metropolis. Big disagreement on what science fiction should be.

Honestly, at the time I first saw this film in theater, I was not colored impressed - especially since I was 15 at the time (what can I say?). Although it was pitched as "the Soviet '2001'," I saw nothing of the Kubrick classic in it, nor did I see a work of art; to me, it was just an overpriced waste of time. But art, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. I did watch it again as a young adult, but again was not impressed. I did see the American version of this film which sparked yet another rewatch of the Soviet film, but again was unimpressed, although the ending made more sense because of the influence of the American film. Three times (four, if you count the American film), is enough, however!

just saw the movie recently. it didn't need to be 3 hrs. yes, quite pretentious. I only understood the main events that happened after watching YT reviews. lol. the long scenes were in fact too long. it's weird seeing this in the days of the internet when we have sci-fi dust shorts that sometimes carry similar punch in a fraction of the time. the movie was ok. definitely very russian. I'm a bit bummed that Chris didn't particularly try to help his new wife figure out her humanity after he formed his attachment. he was a bit too busy acting like a distraught russian, doing too much naval gazing to be useful. this crew needed someone from star trek tng to teach them about first contact.

Tarkovsky literally filmed minutes-long sequences of paint drying. Watching people try to smear lipstick on that pig is always just hilarious.

I agree with Lem. This guy totally hacked up his book. He turned it into a anti-science screed. None of the interesting scenes in the book made it to the screen due to soap operatic additions. I thought the entire movie was a waste of time to view. I watched it in the theater. Even the American adaptation was a waste of time.

... three things I hate in life: parsnips, spiders, and pretentious foreign films. I've tried to watch this garbage movie three times, and each time I've fallen asleep within the first 10 to 15 minutes of viewing. If given a choice between watching Solaris or the vastly superior, Commando, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger ... please. If I want to think, I'll read a book. When I watch a movie, I want 'splosions, car chases, fistfights, and gunfights. If ... if a movie with said can also cause me to deeply contemplate the meaning of life, the Universe and everything, that's just gravy.

Stop talking about it then

If one views films purely as artwork created by the filmmaker through their own subjective creative impulses to satisfy their own needs...then ok solaris is fine. The director made it for himself so it can be whatever he wants it to be, saying whatever or saying nothing. To the extent that films are intended to be viewed by an actual human audience as a form of entertainment solaris is an abject failure. Turgid, dull, intellectually opaque relative to the source material and fundamentally boring (that driving sequence is pathetic). Anyone who suggests otherwise is a film student or a film school teacher or the director. Who apparently also realized it was a failure.

Probably the most overrated director in film history. A god among the pretentious.

i am sorry sir. but i understand Solaris perfectly....stop making vidoes about idiots...please

His name isn't pronounced that way. There is a stroke across the 'l' in Stanislav. In Polish that is pronounced as W. "StanisWav Lem" " In some Slavic languages, it represents the continuation of the Proto-Slavic non-palatal ⟨L⟩ (dark L), except in Polish, Kashubian, and Sorbian, where it evolved further into /w/. "