Solaris directed by Steven Soderbergh, was influenced by Andrei Tarkovsky Russian science fiction classic of the same name, originally released in 1972. Soderbergh says in an interview, “I hadn’t ever really come near science fiction before, mostly because the hardware aspects of science fiction don’t really interest me. What appealed to me about this story was it wasnt about that at all, i mean it is a love story at its core.” Film as an art form is meant to be explored and expressed through various lenses of people. What may seem like the same idea may add up to two completely different films. These perspectives are what make film an art form as well as a form of media that can be warped dramatically from creator to creator. Author Patrick Nabarro writes in an article titled, Soderbergh’s Solaris: A Superior Hollywood Remake, “The tale is age-old: an examination of the poignancy to be found in remembering a lost love. Whereas Tarkovsky’s film was a cerebral engagement with concepts of memory, relativity and Lacanian theory, Soderbergh’s is a classy, narrative piece – no more, no less.” Solaris is a film that tells a story of a planet that can read people’s minds, and traps its visitors by providing physical thoughts of loved ones that they miss. The catch is that the planet only knows as much as the visitors know about their loved ones. As the film opens, we learn two astronauts have died in a space station circling the planet, and the survivors have sent back alarming messages. A psychiatrist named Chris Kelvin played by George Clooney is sent to the station. When he awakens after his first night on board, his wife, Rheya played by Natascha McElhone, is in bed with him. We later learn that some time earlier on earth, she had committed suicide. Soderbergh’s approach to a romance plot with elements of sci-fi and unexplainable instances come from much of the dialogue from Chris and Rheya accompanied by slow movements within the frame. Although the film did not do so well when released and has been seen as a failure film in comparison to other films Soderbergh directed. Patrick Nabarro interestingly notes that, “The obstacles to remaking Solaris must have been obvious even at the outset. To some extent, they are still identifiable in the end result. It always had the whiff of something that could end up falling between two stools. On the one hand, it was never going to satisfy the purists likely to claim sacrilege against Soderbergh’s temerity to even deign to remake a film by the great Tarkovsky. On the other hand, genre buffs would be frustrated by the almost complete lack of action or spectacle. Furthermore, by chopping an incredible 70 minutes off the original film’s running time, Soderbergh naturally had to compromise on Tarkovsky’s abstract, languorous approach to the subject matter in exchange for a much more concise, structurally-refined approach (although many might argue there is real skill in abbreviating a dense and unwieldy 166 minutes of Soviet arthouse solemnity into a precise and slick 98-minute Hollywood vehicle).” There are many opinions on what a film has to have or shouldn’t have within the cinematic universe of style and design. Soderbergh tells the story in a clean and easily comprehensible way. Tarkovsky demands patience from his audience. Although the main ideas are similar people tend to tell their own stories through their own perspectives based on their experiences. Film as an art form can be used to illustrate personal experiences, political protests and questions, or be a simple experiment within the cinematic universe. Through the film Solaris, Soderbergh incorporates multiple genres into one film creating an easily digestible story for a mainstream audience as well as expanding his own experience with filmmaking and cinematography. Sources: https://oneroomwithaview.com/2017/08/22/soderbergh-solaris-superior-remake/ https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/solaris-2002 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/solaris-2002 Night Moves [2013]Kelly Reichardt always includes her personal expression as a female into her films through content and style. Commonly rejecting mainstream film making methods, for example her unique work with westerns through Meek’s Cutoff. She focuses on issues of gender, where most of her films have female characters as the lead, but rejects the label of a feminist filmmaker. As an independent filmmaker she uses small budgets, filming on location, and refusing to romanticise the relationship between character and struggles. Often addressing gender issues in her films, in her thriller, Night Moves, Dakota Fanning's character serves as a strong female counterpoint to Jesse Eisenberg's male protagonist, and the film's environmental story line reflects eco-feminist values. Reichardt expresses her values as well as proposes questions for the audience to reflect on throughout her films. In Night Moves, Reichardt pointedly studies a trio of eco-activists determined to claim a kind of justice for nature by destroying a hydroelectric dam and monumental symbol. As the film continues, “Reichardt carefully destabilizes the tight group of activists by setting in motion a triangle of distrust that ratchets up the film’s carefully measured tension, pitting Jesse Eisenberg’s nervously intense, self-righteous leader against Peter Sarsgaard’s ex-Marine with a secret past and Dakota Fanning as the group’s troubled conscience. A New Age spa and back-to the-earth communal farm are viewed with measured, but sympathetic, distance by Reichardt, who asks the viewer to ponder why declared concern for the environment is all too often translated into self-serving lifestyle choices.” Within a similar structure to common heist films, including; the planning, the execution and the aftermath of success or failure the film executes a thrilling film through layers of implied ambiguities. Zachary Wigon interviews Kelly Reichardt, On the Nuance of 'Night Moves', Kelly Reichardt states, “Well, it's not a morality play, it really is a character film. They happen to be political people. The film, to me, is really also about how people operate when they're in a community versus how they operate on their own. There's the community of the co-op, there's the documentary film screenings community, the people who go camping in their RVs, people who enjoy nature while exploiting it, jet-skiing in a reservoir that used to be a forest. So there's all these different communities, and there's a lot of ideas floating around in them. There's different levels of radicalism. Some people grow their own food and only use rainwater. I hope that the film is asking questions. Obviously, the true radicalism is a dam that takes what was once a forest and makes it a playground for sports. I use electricity, but most dams aren't providing electricity. The shit the BPs of the world are doing is way more radical than anything in the movie - but you know, that's all legal. So there's all these different levels of what's radical. I think the film is asking, if their actions are not the right response to the state of things, what is? Are there any good answers out there? There's no message, but if there is, it's that question - it's not a message, it's a question.” Proposing that films should be reflected on, what questions can you ask yourself. Reichardt brings up a good point explaining the different levels of certain topics and what the appropriate response is to detrimental circumstances regarding the environment as discussed in Night Moves. Film creates a space in which ambiguities and layers of complexities, just like the real world, can form and the audience can react however. Whether it’s questioning the film, reflecting on possible meanings, or for simple enjoyment: the imaginative space that film offers is one of my favorite art forms and allows for open ended conversations and questions.
11 Comments
Ryan Lefever
5/14/2021 06:23:27 pm
I enjoyed reading your perspective on Solaris. I agree that even though Soderbergh and Tarkovsky's films are very different, both its not in a bad way. They both bring their own personal experiences to the films, which of course is going to have a very different result.
Reply
Eve Manzarenko
5/15/2021 11:19:07 am
I think thats the best part about films, is even if there centered around one idea theres so much space for creativity and just bringing impossible realities onto the frame. I really enjoy Soderbergh's version of Solaris it definitely tripped me out. I have Tarkovsky's version written down to watch and see how different they are!
Reply
Gino Mate
5/16/2021 12:40:52 pm
Hey Eve, awesome job this semester. Having videos and shots in your blog not only helped me a lot since I am a visual learner, but adds a whole another aspect to your blogs. I also enjoyed the shots you chose such as the trees and the boat in the water.
Reply
Tymoteusz Szylak
5/16/2021 12:47:14 pm
The images/ videos and articles cited did great of illustrating to me what you were conveying in your post. I like how you go more into detail of the political view on Night Moves. Explaining why they destroyed the damn that took away a forest.
Reply
julia kaleel
5/16/2021 02:15:47 pm
I really like how you talked about in night moves that there was an interview that happened and told a little bit more about how the actor thought of the movie.
Reply
Justin Samborski
5/16/2021 04:55:07 pm
I really like how you said what genre buffs would think of Solaris. Solaris is a very different kind of sci-fi movie, rather than action we got mystery, which makes it a nice change of pace.
Reply
Ngoc Ngo
5/16/2021 07:50:22 pm
amazing work as always. i like how you quote about Soderbergh is not very interested in sci-fi and indeed on the sci-fi/space travel aspect of the films is not really up to standards, at least to me. but the focus of the film is, like you said, about the story.
Reply
Haya Fahim
5/16/2021 08:18:44 pm
You gave very good analysis on both films. I enjoy watching Reichardt's films because she includes her personal expression as a female throughout them. Solaris was a little confusing as it does not relate to the actual title it's given. However, I enjoyed the techniques Soderbergh's use
Reply
Ben Vena
5/16/2021 08:46:52 pm
I loved the interview that you posted for Solaris. I didn't even know George Clooney did an interview about that movie. Thank you for pointing that out to me and I enjoyed reading your blog this semester and you did a fantastic job!
Reply
Aidan Geoffroy
5/16/2021 09:20:16 pm
I enjoyed reading your blogpost for the week. I liked how you mentioned how a similar story could be so much different when it's made by different directors. I mentioned this in my blogpost but I think it's great how directors can take a general idea from someone's film and make it into their own from their perspective.
Reply
Kayla Tomaszkiewicz
5/16/2021 09:41:54 pm
You did a great job explaining both films. I agree with you each film had their different approaches which gave each film their unique views in each film.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Film As Art:
From a college film course. Note: I haven't had time to write but I've seen many new movies since taking the class and hope to find spare time to continue writing reviews based on my interests rather than parameters of a class. THANK YOU! |