![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I read Solaris, followed by rewatching the 1972 Tarkovsky adaptation and watching for the first time the 2002 George Cloony version.
I really enjoyed the book. The analog Soviet future vibe was really fun, and the descriptions of "Solaristics" perfectly nailed the feeling of a moribund field that, failing to become a real science, has fallen back on exhaustive stamp collecting. The creepiness of the situation was conveyed perfectly.
I watched the Tarkovsky version in the summer of 2001, yes, literally in the before times. Almost before I started keeping records properly, even! My comments at the time were: "Tarkovsky is dull, dull, dull! Pretty. but dull." I've gained some skill points in slow media since then, leaving me happy to say I enjoyed it a lot more this time. (I rewatched Stalker a few months ago when the Grand Illusion held a screening locally, with a similar change of heart.) I didn't find it as tense as the book -- Kris' deep horror at the appearance of his "guest" isn't conveyed as well as I would have liked, nor the feeling of being trapped by a dangerous impossibility. But the sets were great, the analog effects for the Ocean were perfect, and all around the subject matter perfectly fit Tarkovsky's aesthetic.
With this background, I went into the 2002 adaptation with high hopes. They were all dashed. Somehow, astonishingly, I can't think of a single way in which it was an improvement over Tarkovsky. Not one! There was even less sense of danger from the guests, the station looked generically new and clean instead a dingy, half-abandoned bunker, the CGI was boring, the script even MORE focused on the romantic elements, the happy ending unwanted. The reveal with Snaut/Snow was kind of cool, I guess.
And neither movie used the "the time of cruel wonders was not yet over" line, which is a damned shame. That's like cutting out the "If any young men come for Mary or Kitty, send them in, for I am quite at leisure." line from the end of Pride and Prejudice! *stares at the BBC version crossly*
I really enjoyed the book. The analog Soviet future vibe was really fun, and the descriptions of "Solaristics" perfectly nailed the feeling of a moribund field that, failing to become a real science, has fallen back on exhaustive stamp collecting. The creepiness of the situation was conveyed perfectly.
I watched the Tarkovsky version in the summer of 2001, yes, literally in the before times. Almost before I started keeping records properly, even! My comments at the time were: "Tarkovsky is dull, dull, dull! Pretty. but dull." I've gained some skill points in slow media since then, leaving me happy to say I enjoyed it a lot more this time. (I rewatched Stalker a few months ago when the Grand Illusion held a screening locally, with a similar change of heart.) I didn't find it as tense as the book -- Kris' deep horror at the appearance of his "guest" isn't conveyed as well as I would have liked, nor the feeling of being trapped by a dangerous impossibility. But the sets were great, the analog effects for the Ocean were perfect, and all around the subject matter perfectly fit Tarkovsky's aesthetic.
With this background, I went into the 2002 adaptation with high hopes. They were all dashed. Somehow, astonishingly, I can't think of a single way in which it was an improvement over Tarkovsky. Not one! There was even less sense of danger from the guests, the station looked generically new and clean instead a dingy, half-abandoned bunker, the CGI was boring, the script even MORE focused on the romantic elements, the happy ending unwanted. The reveal with Snaut/Snow was kind of cool, I guess.
And neither movie used the "the time of cruel wonders was not yet over" line, which is a damned shame. That's like cutting out the "If any young men come for Mary or Kitty, send them in, for I am quite at leisure." line from the end of Pride and Prejudice! *stares at the BBC version crossly*