• Solaris: Inner Space

    By Phillip Lopate

    Andrei Tarkovsky belongs to that handful of filmmakers (Dreyer, Bresson, Vigo, Tati) who, with a small, concentrated body of work, created a universe. Though he made only seven features, thwarted by Soviet censors and then by cancer, each honored his ambition to crash through the surface of ordinary life and find a larger spiritual meaning, to heal modern art’s secular fragmentation by infusing it with metaphysical dimension. To that end, he rejected Eisensteinian montage and developed a demanding long-take aesthetic, which he thought better able to reveal the deeper truths underlying the ephemeral, performing moment.

    Since Tarkovsky is often portrayed as a lonely, martyred genius, we’d do well to place him in a wider context, as the most renowned of an astonishing generation—Larisa Shepitko, Alexei German, Andrei Konchalovsky, Sergei Parajanov, Otar Iosseliani—that effected a dazzling, short-lived renaissance of Soviet cinema. All had censorship problems. In the early 1970s, Tarkovsky, unable to get approval for a script that was considered too personal-obscurantist, proposed a film adaptation of Stanislaw Lem’s novel Solaris, thinking it stood a better chance of being green-lit by the commissars, as science fiction seemed more “objective” and accessible to the masses.

    His hunch paid off, and Solaris (1972) went on to take the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes. Tarkovsky had arrived on the world stage with his most straightforward, accessible work. While hardly a conventional film, Solaris is less long-take-driven, and stands as a fulcrum in Tarkovsky’s career: behind him were his impressive debut, Ivan’s Childhood (1962), and his first epic masterpiece, Andrei Rublev (1966); ahead of him lay The Mirror (1975; brilliantly experimental and, yes, personal-obscurantist), Stalker (1979; a great, somber, difficult work), and finally, two intransigent, lyrical, meditative pictures he made in exile, Nostalghia (1983) and The Sacrifice (1986). He died shortly after completing this last film, at age fifty-four.

    We know that Tarkovsky had seen Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and disliked it as cold and sterile. The media played up the cold-war angle of the Soviet director’s determination to make an “anti-2001,” and certainly Tarkovsky used more intensely individual characters and a more passionate human drama at the center than Kubrick. Still, hindsight allows us to observe that the two masterworks are more cousins than opposites. Both set up their narratives in a leisurely, languid manner, spending considerable time tracking around the space sets; both employ a widescreen mise-en-scène approach that draws on superior art direction; and both generate an air of mystery that invites countless explanations.

    Unlike 2001, however, Solaris is saturated with grief, which grips the film even before it leaves Earth. In the moody prelude, we see the protagonist, a space psychologist named Kris Kelvin, staring at underwater reeds as though they were a drowned woman’s tresses. Played by the stolid Donatas Banionis, a Russian Glenn Ford with five o’clock shadow and a shock of prematurely white hair, Kris looks forever traumatized, slowed by some unspeakable sorrow. His father and aunt worry about his torpor, chide him for his plodding, bookkeeper-like manner. He is taking off the next day for a mission to the space station Solaris, a once thriving project that has gone amiss; it will be his job to determine whether or not to close down the research station. In preparation, he watches a video from a scientific conference about the troubles on Solaris (allowing Tarkovsky to satirize bureaucratic stodginess).

    Humans seem in thrall to machinery and TV images, cut off from the nature surrounding them (underwater reeds, a thoroughbred horse, a farm dog). In his haunting shots of freeways, Tarkovsky disdains showing any but contemporary cars, just as Godard did with the buildings in Alphaville (1965): why bother clothing the present world in sci-fi garb when the estranging future has already arrived?

    At Solaris, Kris finds a shabby space station, deserted except for two preoccupied, if not deranged, scientists, Snaut and Sartorius. A colleague Kris expected to meet has already committed suicide, leaving him a taped message warning of hallucinated guests who have “something to do with conscience.” Sure enough, Kris’s dead wife, Hari, materializes at his side, offering the devoted tenderness for which he is starved. Kris, panicking, shoves her into a space capsule and fires it off; but Hari II is not slow in arriving. As played by the lovely Natalya Bondarchuk, this “eternal feminine” is the opposite of a femme fatale: all clinging fidelity and frightened vulnerability. We learn that the real Hari committed suicide with a poison Kris had unthinkingly left behind when he left her. The hallucinated Hari II, fearing Kris does not love her, takes liquid oxygen and kills herself as well. By the time Hari III appears, Kris will do anything to redeem himself.

    Solaris helped initiate a genre that has become an art-house staple: the drama of grief and partial recovery. Watching this 166-minute work is like catching a fever, with night sweats and eventual cooling brow. Tarkovsky’s experiments with pacing, to “find Time within Time,” as he put it, have his camera track up to the sleeping Kris, dilating the moment, so that we enter his dream. As in Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), to fall asleep is to risk a succubus’s visit. This time, however, the danger comes not from any harm she may do the hero. True horror is in having to watch someone you love destroy herself. The film that Solaris most resembles thematically is not 2001 but Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958): the inability of the male to protect the female, the multiple disguises or “resurrections” of the loved one, the inevitability of repeating past mistakes.

    The real power of the film comes from the anguish of Kris’s reawakened love for Hari—his willingness to do anything to hold on to her, even knowing she isn’t real. (Like Mizoguchi’s 1953 Ugetsu, this is a story about falling in love with ghosts.) The alternation between color and monochromatic shots conveys something of this ontological instability, while the jittery camera explorations over shelves and walls suggest a seizure. Hari wonders aloud if she has epilepsy, and later we see her body horrifically jerking at the threshold between being and nonbeing. A gorgeous, serene floating sequence, when Kris and Hari lose gravity, offers another stylized representation of this transcendence borderline.

    Meanwhile, Tarkovsky peppers the dialogue with heady arguments about reality, identity, humanity, and sympathy, buttressed by references to civilization’s linchpins—Bach, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Goethe, Brueghel, Luther, and Cervantes. The Soviet censors, who demanded that the filmmaker “remove the concept of God,” may have been mollified by the absence of the G-word, but Tarkovsky took the standard science-fiction theme of spacemen establishing “contact” with other forms of intelligence and elevated it implicitly to Contact with Divinity (the planet’s ocean, granted sentient powers).

    Both the Eastern European Lem and Tarkovsky were critical of what they saw as Western science fiction’s shallowness and wanted to invest the form with intellectual and emotional depth. Tarkovsky took a good deal directly from Lem’s book, but he also expanded, reordered, and beclouded it (if there is a dubious side to Tarkovsky’s achievement, it is that his spiritual agenda can seem pompous and simplistic, and his messages do not always ascend to the level of his visionary visuals).

    As it happened, Lem did not much care for Tarkovsky’s elliptical reworking of his material and was looking forward, before he died, to the remake by Steven Soderbergh. The Soderbergh version, starring George Clooney in the leading role, proved to be an intelligently restrained, uncluttered, if becalmed, version of the Lem novel. Soderbergh had promised a cross between 2001 and Last Tango in Paris, but the resulting film was measured, not nearly as sensationalistic as threatened. Just as Tarkovsky had sought to reverse Kubrick and ended up extending him, so Soderbergh’s version could not help but honor his majestic predecessor. It was a fittingly filial, Freudian coda to Tarkovsky’s Solaris, which concludes with the space station’s claustrophobic concavities yielding to the rain-sodden beauty of this island Earth, and the returning Kris embracing his father’s knees.

    Phillip Lopate's most recent books are Two Marriages (fiction), Notes on Sontag (nonfiction), and At the End of the Day (selected poems). This piece previously appeared in the Criterion Collection’s 2002 edition of Solaris.

36 comments

  • By Alexander Peacock
    April 20, 2011
    07:57 PM

    Stalker is owned by Kino, as is Mirror and The Sacrifice. So you are wasting your breath begging Criterion for them. Ask them for Nostalghia which they possibly could get.
    Reply
    • By Kube
      November 12, 2012
      04:12 PM

      They once had ANDREI RUBLEV in their stable of films too. Did they lose the rights to that too since I'd love to have it in anamorphic...?
  • By John Sellers
    May 14, 2011
    09:57 AM

    Please, please try for Stalker - if Mosfilm have the rights they are showiing no sign of using them! So glad that my top film of all time, Solaris i s coming out in a Criterion Blu-ray in a few days...
    Reply
  • By Calum Macaulay
    May 24, 2011
    02:49 PM

    I came Criterion through a RT of your tweet of Tarkovsky's polaroids. & now to read this gorgeous piece. I must look, again, at the lowfi dvd's of Tarkovsky's sculpting with light. Also to reread Roadside Picnic, after Hari Kunzru's recent reminder in The Guardian.
    Reply
  • By L.Hunter
    May 25, 2011
    09:23 PM

    "...elevated it implicitly to Contact with Divinity" - Perhaps you are religious? I am not, and though I have seen this film many times, it has never, ever seemed to me that there was anything god-like about the planet. It seemed to me to be just a SciFi idea. Something unknown discovered during human exploration of space, a planet that seems to be a kind of organism, that has effects on the human mind, just as a different kind of planet may have electromagnetic fields that can affect a spaceship's instruments. It could be a highly sophisticated defense system of a non-violent society that uses this technology to keep visitors away. It could be a natural phenomenon. It is medieval and unscientific to make up a deity to explain an encountered phenomenon. A modern human would try to think of theories that might explain the phenomenon, and experiments to test the theories. Otherwise you are creating Thor to explain thunder, instead of inventing meteorology.
    Reply
    • By Colin Cundy
      November 23, 2013
      09:35 AM

      But you are glossing over that the planet is infact an extraterrestrial intelligence and that it also has given life to people who only exist in the memories of those who come near the planet. The guests only started to appear after the scientists aboard solaris began to experiment by hitting the planets surface with beams of radiation. Perhaps the planet then began to experiment upon the scientists themselves?
  • By Jonas_Van_Dutch
    May 26, 2011
    04:42 PM

    @L.HUNTER The simple fact is that Tarkovsky was extremely religious and put it into all of his work. Just because you cannot (or do not want) see it, does not mean that it is not there...
    Reply
  • By auwri
    May 26, 2011
    07:00 PM

    @L.HUNTER The notion of the planet Solaris as a divine being is also apparent in Lem's original novel. There are lengthy passages with debates over whether the planet is sentient, and about coming to terms with its godlike manipulation of matter and energy. The idea of capital-C "Contact" becomes a form of religion for many of the scientists studying "Solaristics." ...so I think Mr. Lopate's wording ascribes a little too much agency to Tarkovsky, rather than Lem, in "elevating a standard science-fiction theme... to Contact with Divinity."
    Reply
  • By SCRAMer
    October 02, 2011
    06:20 AM

    Stalker! One of my all time favs
    Reply
  • By StephenM
    October 11, 2011
    10:40 PM

    Let me offer another vote for more Tarkovsky in the Collection! While Stalker and The Mirror have been put out in decent--not inspiring--editions by Kino, I think everyone would welcome Criterion versions. And Criterion should really get there hands on Nostalghia, which at present is still only available on VHS in the US (I believe)! Also, count me in for an upgraded Andrei Rublev. I would pay through the nose for that one. The old version is great, but, really, it's getting old. It's hard to navigate, and the formatting makes it hard to watch on any sort of conventional TV screen (though I'm not sure how you could improve that--the way the subtitles are set up may be unavoidable, but it's undeniably awkward.) It needs an upgrade. Please. Pretty please.
    Reply
  • By GK
    December 07, 2011
    09:51 PM

    STALKER, THE MIRROR, NOSTALGHIA, and SACRIFICE count++
    Reply
  • By David
    December 09, 2011
    05:50 PM

    Another vote for Stalker and The Mirror.
    Reply
  • By Aleksi
    December 09, 2011
    08:36 PM

    Another vote for Stalker and The Mirror.
    Reply
  • By maxwell g.
    December 09, 2011
    11:10 PM

    another vote for stalker, kino must relinquish this movie gem
    Reply
  • By E. D. Tremper
    December 10, 2011
    10:10 AM

    Andrei Rublev (1966) (preferably the 186 min. or so version which Tarkovsky himself thought was better, assuming that we know where the cuts would've gone, if not, never mind) The Mirror (1975) Stalker (1979) I'd probably still buy them, but I'd be a little cautious about his films while in exile, which Bergman, I believe, once referred to as disappointing when compared to his Russian works.
    Reply
  • By Batzomon
    December 10, 2011
    06:02 PM

    Stalker, Stalker, Stalker! Don't make me go to the Zone and get it myself. And I'm going to watch Andrei Rublev tonight, followed immediately by some deep introspection.
    Reply
  • By DrewalsoKermit
    December 11, 2011
    08:17 PM

    Always great to read Lopate on film and always good to see more about Solaris. One of the the things that distinguish both film versions from the novel is that neither chose or were able to follow Lem down his quiet path. Both ultimately took their endings from the playbook that 2001 provided, that is, the quasi-religious opening out into the beyond. Or whatever you want to call it. I've always thought this was a weakness, because the final chapter of the book ("The Old Mimoid") took Lem a very long to write--and is brilliant. More than that, it is the ending that belongs to the material. It isn't very adaptable. Still, it would have been interesting to see either director try.
    Reply
  • By reyaz
    April 23, 2012
    01:47 AM

    Yes Stalker please
    Reply
  • By NRW
    July 16, 2012
    11:24 PM

    well-thought essay. any film from tarkovsky is a master class in style, though 'solaris' is probably my favorite. would be great to see 'nostalghia' get the criterion treatment.
    Reply
  • By Jason B.
    November 02, 2012
    08:01 PM

    It does makes you wonder what 2001 would have been like if Kubrick had let us in on Haywood Floyd's inner life and dreams. Conversely, I would have liked to know what the Dr.'s visions of little girls in Solaris were all about. But I guess that's all subjective.
    Reply
  • By Johnnie
    March 13, 2013
    10:36 PM

    Fortuantely the movie left out any direct relgiious links forcing Tarkovsky to make a better film without such references - if youw ant to belive a sentient planet is an expression of religion so be it but lets thank the Soviet Censors.
    Reply
  • By manu
    September 23, 2013
    04:05 PM

    I am sure we all want The Sacrifice on blu ray... WHEN?!
    Reply