One seldom comes across a film quite like Steven Soderbergh's Solaris. Usually we're subjected to the same boring restrictions of structure and exposition in films that effectively treat audiences like idiots. And in that way Solaris is a worthwhile experience, if for no other reason than that it strays from the norm. But ambiguity and uniqueness can’t always carry a film and it doesn’t here.
Based on a novel by Stanislaw Lem, Solaris follows a troubled psychologist (Clooney) sent to investigate strange events occurring on a space station in orbit around a mysterious planet known as Solaris.
Everything about the advertising suggests an entirely different film. The cover art, the synopsis, and even the film’s star suggests a run-of-the-mill sci-fi blockbuster. In fact, it's a very slow-moving film that challenges the viewer with its ambiguity and mystery. This type of film is much needed in light of some of the boring fare we get subjected to, particularly in the sci-fi genre, so it saddens and irritates me to see the potential to be something truly great severely falter because of how little the film makes sense.
Now, the lack of over-explanation is very much welcome here. You should want to be challenged with the art of filmmaking every once in a while and not just spoon fed the answers, but little about Solaris makes much sense. Nothing fits together and in retrospect it’s hard to sum up what happened or, more importantly, why. There’s an annoying sense of pointlessness to it all, a certain senseless meandering that irritates rather than engages the viewer.
There’s a lot about Solaris which reminds me of Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain (or should it be the other way round, since this was made years earlier?). Both have extremely ambitious ideas and take pride in indulging those ideas rather than focusing on any coherent plot. And Soderbergh falters here in much the same way as Aronofksy did; the ideas are impressive, ambitious, and have strong potential if handled correctly but they are employed in such an incoherent, jumbled, and indecipherable fashion that they just don’t work.
George Clooney is an actor whose level of fame and adoration by people around the world clouds the fact that he is one hell of an actor. He’s really shown his love for the art by starring in smaller, independent films (often about subjects he feels strongly about, such as Good Night and Good Luck and Syriana) and Solaris is, dare I say, an unusual role for such a typical Hollywood leading man. Clooney is in fine form here even if the material is as confusing as it is. It’s not a role that could be played easily by just anyone, and Clooney really nails the portrayal of this troubled man.
Article comments
1 - Jordan "Boss" Richardson
Andrei Tarkovsky's Solyaris is brilliant. This one? No.
2 - zingzing
tarkovsky is a fucking genius. one of the greats of modern cinema. i've not seen this version, so i won't comment on it. but any review of this movie needs more than one mention of tarkovsky, because the only reason soderberg made it was to bring attention to...
tarkovsky, tarkovsky, tarkovsky. go find mirror, if you want some real poetry.
ok, you mentioned that this one doesn't compare. i read, i read. whatever you can do to bring more acclaim and attention to tarkovsky is well worth the effort.