I am apt to wonder what the Solaris might look like for someone who is a much more enlightened and pure individual; one who reconciles their past, and looks to the future with a positive light. Perhaps instead of Solaris merely re-creating memories, it would have shaped itself according to the creative impulses of the person, and allowed humans to make the connection to the alien entity that lets both discover a great deal about themselves as well as each other. But are we all like kris?
The alien entity desperate to communicate with human beings and failing mirrors Kris's own struggle to reconcile the pain of those he lost. He struggles and fails to re-create the love he once had - and also must face the pain of the past, as re-living memories merely creates more pain. Kris is a man doomed to repeat himself instead of seek out new loves, and new life. Perhaps it would have ended happily had Kris made this insight - but his struggle and failure is something we all fear.
Kris not returned on Earth, he remained in ocean. All people, who he loved (his mother, his father, his wife) have died. Nobody and nothing attracted him to back home. The ocean have created his father`s house and his father too, and could have created everyone who he loved and lost on Earth...
I really don't understand why Solaris is so often referred to a s "sci-fi". Sure, it uses sci-fi elements as backdrop and plot helper, but, unlike for example 2001, that's not the focus of the film at all.
I'd rather call it a psychological drama masterpiece.
When he left to Solaris, he knew it was the last the time he'd see his father. While there he felt connected to his dead wife-but you later find out her face isnt really the face of his past wife. He grows feelings and emotions regardless knowing it wasnt reality-and Hari does too. They projected his thoughts on the ocean thinking it would make the guests stop and it did. Just like the fog created illusions in the end he chooses to stay because it is no different, if not better than reality.
The island represents Chris' subconscious itself. You cannot take the boat to reach it nor Chris can, just he is here also all the time, out of conscience. No one can understand its own subconcious nor even grasp it. It's extremely personal and in the same time very antiquated, universal. Solaris is univers' subconcious and universal one. He kneels in front of his father (god himself),asking for forgiveness because as a scientist he wasn't humble unlikely the dog. He didn't trust in god.
The island represents Chris' subconscious itself. You cannot take the boat to reach it nor Chris can, just he is here also all the time, out of conscience. No one can understand its own subconcious nor even grasp it. It's extremely personal and in the same time very antiquated, universal. Solaris is univers' subconcious and universal one. He kneels in front of his father (god himself),asking for forgiveness because as a scientist he wasn't humble unlikely the dog. He didn't trust in god.
@Ahelphand But i can't see any meaning. I want to know what it _should_ mean. What was the meaning of the end intended by Tarkovsky? Any ideas?
"But what Tarkovski want to say with the water? And what does the father-son hug (Vather stands, Kris kneels) mean? It seems that Kris asks vor vorgiveness and his Vather vorgives him. But why?"
@Ahelphand But i can't see any meaning. I want to know what it _should_ mean. What was the meaning of the end intended by Tarkovsky? Any ideas?
"But what Tarkovski want to say with the water? And what does the father-son hug (Vather stands, Kris kneels) mean? It seems that Kris asks vor vorgiveness and his Vather vorgives him. But why?"
@cube2fox The man wakes up to a memory of his or his father land, pond, and house as well as the father and dog. one flaw, solaris had it raining inside of the house instead of outside. it than pulls back the whole scene to reveal that this is an island in the middle of solaris.
@desiguy55 This is clear, but WHY does this happen, and more important, why does Kris seem to ask for his fathers forgiveness? Or why he kneels in front of his father?
@cube2fox I think we all owe a great debt to our fathers, specially as we get older. But if that was meIi would tell Solaris, " Hey sol, forget the old man and a cold and wet piece of land, How about YOU making ME a tropical paradise full of beautiful women and me as the king? Then you can study all the human behavior that you nwant.". Yes, thats what I would do.
@desiguy55 Okay. This doesn't make much sense to me. So I like the original ending better: It is less mysterious and confusing. But it has a clear meaning which is not banal. Maybe Tarkovsky considered it as too sobering and depressing.
@AlanCanon2222 You have to read the novel "Solaris" by Stanisław Lem. :) Lem is a great author and philosopher, it's a shame that he is little known in the US.
@flaminia5 no Kubrick was nothing like Tarkovsky. But with this one film (2001) i think he managed to do something (not aesthetically, but spiritually) worthy of Tarkovsky. I'm not saying anything other than that they're sharing the main theme: that man will never understand the mysteries of the universe and that he will lose his mind when trying.
@flaminia5 don't think so: Tarkovsky (and Kubrick) showed us how the logic of the universe is somewhat impenetrable. In our arrogance, we think we can comprehend everything, but exploration of the universe will (ultimately) not lead ud to scientific insights, merely psychological knowledge of ourselves. And that is what the film ends with: the return of the "lost son", also the last frame is a reference to the panting of the same name by Rembrandt.
@Vesters1 My opinion about the movie's ending was kind of different. you see, i think that the whole idea of the "guests" and then the son that returns but he is in an island of the ocean, shows us that truth has many levels. I mean that Tarkovsky wanted to show us something similar to what Friedrich Nitsche said: no one is ever going to get to the real truth. anyway that's just my opinion
@flaminia5 In addition, Tarkovsky was an admitted "anti-intellectual" and once said: "The more we know the less we understand.". He was acquainted to the idea that everything exists both phenomenologically and platonically (he wanted to view things platonically through his art) - he was attracted to the idea of artistic intuition and of an "absolute truth" - a "justice" - within pictures of aesthetic value. He was a true anti-scientifical romantic in that sense and so is the movie.
@Vesters1 sorry, i might admire Tarkovski for his films, but i strongly disagree with his "anti-intellectualism" (in your reproduction); anyway, the arts can be a way of understanding or interpreting of the reality
I'm looking for the ending scene of the new movie SOLARIS. THe part where he is on the steps saying how he does the everyday thing just to feel human again.
Solaris only got one thing wrong from Kelvin's memories: it being that it rains outside of a house not inside, otherwise Kelvin may not have realized that he was not on earth at all.
@jordanforever21 It's NOT 'wrong' (rain inside the house). It's done on purpose. The sudden appearance of the rain is so Kris - AND us (viewer) suddenly realise this ISN'T reality. In simpler terms, It's SUPPOSED to be a shock to everyone - Kris AND the viewer.
@uszoninyc Thank you for clearing up your last comment! I suppose the director wanted everyone (viewer) to know that Kris was on an island on Solaris and not on earth, but I doubt that the planet wanted to let Kris know that, I think that the planet misinterpreted that part of Kris' memory.
I followed a link from imdb claiming this scene was a trailer. Of course I realized this wasn't a trailer when it started but I watched it anyway because surely it wouldn't be the last scene of the movie, right? God dammit.
@Todd200 I'm sure that there is no any use in a trailer to Tarkovsky's movies. Tarkovsky is a worldwide "brand-name" by himself for more than 50 years and I personaly always knew that his films are the very seldom chance (especially now) to meet on the screen the place and the time to THINK, to DOUBT about myself... However, this quoted scene is the last one of the movie. (Advice: never use digests from such Artists as Tarkovsky, Bergman..)
@MrLapeko You are absolutely right. This film is Tarkovsky. Not Solaris - Lem. This is an important distinction, because the novel itself is absolutely nothing like the movie. So for people interested in the remakes etc., are looking for something other than what Tarkovsky has to offer.
Etot film zastavliaet zadumat'sia o zhizni, o smysle zhizni voobshe. Vrode net nikakix osobyx specefektov, no on dinami4en sam po sebe, v nem est' kakaya-to nezrimaya sila. Ya s4itayu 4to etot Film realno vospitivaet dushu 4eloveka. Eto etalon dlia sovrmennoy fantastiki. Puskay amerikosy pou4atsia.
S 1972-go proshlo mnogo let.....Ya eshe togda ne zhil, no.... SOLARIS zhil vo mne....LEGENDA!!!!!!.......I Love SOLARIS!!!...
why do most commentspeople make are a bunch of yippidy yap and nonsense? why can't people keep on the subject about the story, about the movie, wouldn't be interesting to hear what people think about where this fictional planet may be, how far it is from earth, did he went on to live on this planet etc... instead most of these comments are "this is a remake" "this movie suck" "this movie is based on a book" blah blah blah, who gives a fuck about your smart ass info and comments
The metal lunch box shows up repeatedly in this mind-blowing film from the very beginning.
Solaris "probed" the plant that Kris brought on board the space station in the lunch box, and Solaris recreated the dacha (on an island) using the information that it obtained from the plant...
@bsc1086 Oh I *have to* see it now that I know it exists and I usually choose the originals over the remakes so it'll probably be the case here as well lol :)
@VitasWishList 2001 is very humanistic too. There is no honor, dignity or comradeship at all. Haven't you seen the ending? It's about the individual human being, his alienation and synthesis with the greater whole (the starchild).
@Vesters1 This film explores memory and consciousness and its very organic, it has absolutely nothing in similarity to 2001 albeit a great work of art but of a different sort.
@Ahelphand they're both esentially dealing with deconstruction of the individual and with transcendence. i can agree with you that the two of those are somewhat different in style, but their content is very similar. I don't know exactly what you're referring to with "organic", but if you think of "organism thought" relating to a metaindividual cosmis/organic kind of consciousness, this is very relevant for 2001 too. And i wouldn't say 2001 is not about memory and consciousness either.
@Vesters1 There is no 'deconstruction' as you put it in Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky fortunately never suffered from postmodernist/structuralist diarrhea, his films are pure and simple like Tolstoy but with humanity.
@Ahelphand didn't mean anything postmodern with "deconstruction", just de-construction, solution, transcendence of individual boundaries, whatever. Also both 2001 and Solaris are indeed modernist films. 2001 is also very humanist, not necessarily in style but in message and symbolism.
@VitasWishList Anyway, i love Tarkovsky, but this is not his best film. Zerkalo is, i think. To the point: this movie LOOKS outdated, look at the graphics in this scene. They're that pleasant!
Eddie & the Showmen were a surf rock band of the 1960s. Formed in Southern California by Eddie Bertrand, formerly of The Bel-Airs, they released several singles on Liberty records though never a full album
Solaris is my favourite movie of all time.Tarkovsky is a great director also Lem's book is so impresive .Forget the remake.also better than 2001 I think.
Beautiful movie, and I was shocked by the ending. In response to some comments, Part 1 makes it clear that the father will be dead by the time he returns to earth; the father says something like "are you jealous that he will get to bury me instead of you?" Also, I like how the Ocean 'got it wrong' with the water falling inside the house, really terrifying ending.
in not following up on who the other guests are, i was left with an idea of how each person has their own inner life that is ultimately mysterious. some writers love to answer all questions, a better writer leaves the reader asking more.
i thought that the midget was the director's silly way of showing that the Ocean was getting the guests wrong, maybe that it was supposed to be a child. there is a scene that shows Sartorius' lab, with a sort of picture analysis of a child.
Tarkovsky uses rain faling indoors in another great movie "Stalker", asi-fi film which ultimatly killed him,as it was filmed in a disused nuculer power station.
sad.but another great movie pregnant with meaning.
Here is the ending of the book and if someone is reading this and don't want to know what happends, stop reading now! If I remember it correctly, he and Harey desides that he will go back to earth without her. But I am certain of the fact that on the final pages he is on an island but not like in the film. In the book it is a very strange island, with life at all except him, that the planet has created and he is observing it. It all ends with him, puting his hands in the water.
@TheMarkodream >> I agree, but we can't really talk about a remake, considering the original is a book. Ohter version would be more appropriate. I much more prefere this Tarkovski version than the new one.
@lepivert - haven't seen the new American version but i'm assuming it's certainly a good movie considering the production and good actors and all ... but this Tarkovsky version is THE original one no matter what and a good one, i mean a "good" one ... this is not just poetry or mysticism or ... this is IT ... an experience that sets in both in your mind as well as in your heart forever ... watch it again once in a while, and it's still just as good as day one ... few movies are like that really.
S. Lem did not like the movie... Its kind of funny, him not liking one of the greatest masterpieces of all time....even if i understand the fact of him rejecting it (since he believed it wasn't reproducing genuinely his work).
Tarkovsky said S. Lem rejected the movie because Lem didn't understand cinema as art. Tarkovsky never set about to try to merely illustrate the book. He was creating a work on it's own.
I don't reject illustration as art though. Watchmen was painfullly faithful to the comic, and still a great movie IMHO. But I'd identify "levels" of art there. The movie Watchmen is "genre literature". Lesser art. The movie Solaris is literature period. Art proper.
the rain inside the house means nothing... Solaris is making a reproduction of earth from the subconscious of Kris. But it doesn't knows that rain shouldn't fall inside the house. The reproduction isn't perfect.
It is clear to me that the scene with the father is redemption.
According to the commentary, the rain falling in the house is symbolic of the holy spirit—derived from traditional Russian theology. And yes, it suggests that Solaris isn't reproducing an Earthen scene perfectly. Tarkovsky is notorious for his depiction of double-meanings.
As for the long water shots, that's just Tarkovsky for you. He was obsessed with using water as a visual metaphor. Just watch Andrei Rublev, Mirror, or Nostalgia.
But what Tarkovski want to say with the water? And what does the father-son hug (Vather stands, Kris kneels) mean? It seems that Kris asks vor vorgiveness and his Vather vorgives him. But why?
His father would have been dead by the time of his return (do the lorentz transformations). If it were my father, I might do the same.
For Tarkovsky water could mean many things. It's transient aspect often relates it to change: time, place, or world. Flowing water amongst the reeds could represent some of these things, while offering an interesting parallel to the blowing grass at the start. The unearthly stillness in the water not only suggests something is wrong, but...
( unchanging artificial world. real world water at the beginning flows, but here everything is still. The liquid hitting father's back could reflect that he's dead, as the steam reminds us of the liquid oxygen that...)
His father wouldn't be dead at his return, because they have a hyper space machine or something like this (they can travel with superluminal velocity). Why? Because the emergency call from the solaris station came to the earth and Kelvin then traveled to solaris - but apparently with only a very short time difference...
Have you read the original book by Stanisław Lem? It is ingenious, like nearly all of his books. Unfortunately he died in 2006. He was one of the most important (if not THE most important) author of "hard SF" in the world.
i guess, every one may feel guilty just because one is young and the father is old, in the usual way of things the father dies before, which makes the son feel guilty
"in the usual way of things" I can't fly to another continent but have to go by foot. But would someone these days feel guilty (and why?) because the grandfather _would_ die before I reach him by foot? sure not. strange argument.
Maybe I should mention that the intention of the story originally wasn't like Tarkovskys special (and strange) ending with this... uh - feelings.
"[As] Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space."
For me, the most haunting of all movies. As for Tarkovsky vs Kubrick, they were both brilliant, from different traditions and different working environments. Who cares whose IQ or inspiration was greater? They both left us with gems.
It's all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever. Yet we stand here in the middle of no man's land.
Solaris and 2001 are both philosophical, using a space story as a mere backdrop.
In ancient legends, the hero discovered weird things on an island (like in Gulliver's Travels). In 2001, they find what might be the origin of civilization on a distant planet. In Solaris, they find energies that manifest their thoughts.
Tarkovsky is certainly one of the greatest filmmakers, and important artists of the 20th century. But I don't understand why people are attacking 2001 here. 2001 is a masterpiece. Solaris is Tarkovsky's worst film. He even disliked it himself, and it was his only film he was unhappy with. Stalker is a much better Tarkovsky sci-fi.
He was happier with Stalker because he believed he managed to transcend the sci-fi genre with it and not with Solaris... Maybe that makes Stalker better *art*, or perhaps even a better *movie*, but better "sci-fi"? Personally, I don't think so. Solaris is the greatest sci-fi movie. Ever.
Don't be ridiculous. Solaris is a great film and Tarkovsky is a great director, but Kubrick is one of the great geniuses of cinema. 2001 is a work of art, profound and mesmerising. Every frame of that film is beautiful, and watching it is the nearest I have come to experiencing a religious experience. Kubrick is popular, but that doesn't detract from his artistic achievements. In fact it makes them even more remarkable.
I'm a huge Kubrick fan but I think that the ending of 2001 reaches too hard to be more important than it comes across. Mainly because the imagery doesn't do enough to put across Kubrick's "spiritual" or philosophical position. Solaris on the other hand is methodical with Tarkovsky's vision and philosophy. It reaches far deeper than 2001. I would never knock Kubrick as he's my favorite director of all time but in comparison of depth between 2001 vs. Solaris you have to give it to Tarkovsky.
when the tone changes around 2:40, i get chills.. the first viewing of this movie is a unforgettable experience when the realization dawns upon you..
buddhabunnee 3 weeks ago
I am apt to wonder what the Solaris might look like for someone who is a much more enlightened and pure individual; one who reconciles their past, and looks to the future with a positive light. Perhaps instead of Solaris merely re-creating memories, it would have shaped itself according to the creative impulses of the person, and allowed humans to make the connection to the alien entity that lets both discover a great deal about themselves as well as each other. But are we all like kris?
HisEmptyHouse 4 weeks ago
The alien entity desperate to communicate with human beings and failing mirrors Kris's own struggle to reconcile the pain of those he lost. He struggles and fails to re-create the love he once had - and also must face the pain of the past, as re-living memories merely creates more pain. Kris is a man doomed to repeat himself instead of seek out new loves, and new life. Perhaps it would have ended happily had Kris made this insight - but his struggle and failure is something we all fear.
HisEmptyHouse 4 weeks ago
Was this the same ending in Stanislaws Lems book also?...
TheRandomSweed 4 months ago
There wont be a lots of comments on this Cause its make Observer Speechless
CenterOfAllCities 4 months ago
Kris not returned on Earth, he remained in ocean. All people, who he loved (his mother, his father, his wife) have died. Nobody and nothing attracted him to back home. The ocean have created his father`s house and his father too, and could have created everyone who he loved and lost on Earth...
LedyAmetis 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
LedyAmetis 5 months ago
Remedy's Alan Wake ending was a bit similar to this.
"It's not a lake; it's an ocean...".
getclutch72 5 months ago
OH MY GOD,what an art.
Truly genius mind
rainsongalone 6 months ago 2
Like 2001, a ci-fi masterpiece. Tarkovski, a master.
guzmanbatista67 7 months ago 2
@guzmanbatista67
I really don't understand why Solaris is so often referred to a s "sci-fi". Sure, it uses sci-fi elements as backdrop and plot helper, but, unlike for example 2001, that's not the focus of the film at all.
I'd rather call it a psychological drama masterpiece.
ekszentrik 3 months ago 2
Kris Kelvin is the brother of Bruce Dickinson.
cafetenorio 8 months ago
When he left to Solaris, he knew it was the last the time he'd see his father. While there he felt connected to his dead wife-but you later find out her face isnt really the face of his past wife. He grows feelings and emotions regardless knowing it wasnt reality-and Hari does too. They projected his thoughts on the ocean thinking it would make the guests stop and it did. Just like the fog created illusions in the end he chooses to stay because it is no different, if not better than reality.
baller84milw 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The island represents Chris' subconscious itself. You cannot take the boat to reach it nor Chris can, just he is here also all the time, out of conscience. No one can understand its own subconcious nor even grasp it. It's extremely personal and in the same time very antiquated, universal. Solaris is univers' subconcious and universal one. He kneels in front of his father (god himself),asking for forgiveness because as a scientist he wasn't humble unlikely the dog. He didn't trust in god.
vincentement 10 months ago
The island represents Chris' subconscious itself. You cannot take the boat to reach it nor Chris can, just he is here also all the time, out of conscience. No one can understand its own subconcious nor even grasp it. It's extremely personal and in the same time very antiquated, universal. Solaris is univers' subconcious and universal one. He kneels in front of his father (god himself),asking for forgiveness because as a scientist he wasn't humble unlikely the dog. He didn't trust in god.
vincentement 10 months ago
Comment removed
vincentement 10 months ago
Comment removed
vincentement 10 months ago
can someone explain the meaning of this scene to me ? :)
stiggyh 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the best films ever made.
BlackRaven156 11 months ago
tripping out after 4:20
TotenAngel 11 months ago
Can somebody explain the meaning of the ending?
cube2fox 11 months ago
@cube2fox the meaning is what it means to YOU.
Ahelphand 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ahelphand But i can't see any meaning. I want to know what it _should_ mean. What was the meaning of the end intended by Tarkovsky? Any ideas?
"But what Tarkovski want to say with the water? And what does the father-son hug (Vather stands, Kris kneels) mean? It seems that Kris asks vor vorgiveness and his Vather vorgives him. But why?"
cube2fox 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ahelphand But i can't see any meaning. I want to know what it _should_ mean. What was the meaning of the end intended by Tarkovsky? Any ideas?
"But what Tarkovski want to say with the water? And what does the father-son hug (Vather stands, Kris kneels) mean? It seems that Kris asks vor vorgiveness and his Vather vorgives him. But why?"
cube2fox 11 months ago
@Ahelphand bullshit
Vesters1 11 months ago
@cube2fox The man wakes up to a memory of his or his father land, pond, and house as well as the father and dog. one flaw, solaris had it raining inside of the house instead of outside. it than pulls back the whole scene to reveal that this is an island in the middle of solaris.
desiguy55 11 months ago 2
@desiguy55 This is clear, but WHY does this happen, and more important, why does Kris seem to ask for his fathers forgiveness? Or why he kneels in front of his father?
cube2fox 11 months ago
@cube2fox I think we all owe a great debt to our fathers, specially as we get older. But if that was meIi would tell Solaris, " Hey sol, forget the old man and a cold and wet piece of land, How about YOU making ME a tropical paradise full of beautiful women and me as the king? Then you can study all the human behavior that you nwant.". Yes, thats what I would do.
desiguy55 11 months ago
@desiguy55 Okay. This doesn't make much sense to me. So I like the original ending better: It is less mysterious and confusing. But it has a clear meaning which is not banal. Maybe Tarkovsky considered it as too sobering and depressing.
cube2fox 11 months ago
@cube2fox This isn't the original ending? It's the only ending I've ever seen (Criterion Collection)
AlanCanon2222 8 months ago
@AlanCanon2222 You have to read the novel "Solaris" by Stanisław Lem. :) Lem is a great author and philosopher, it's a shame that he is little known in the US.
cube2fox 8 months ago 6
Can somebody explain the meaning of the ending?
cube2fox 11 months ago
Kubrick was never like Tarkovski, you should realize this simple thing, dear pal!
flaminia5 11 months ago
@flaminia5 no Kubrick was nothing like Tarkovsky. But with this one film (2001) i think he managed to do something (not aesthetically, but spiritually) worthy of Tarkovsky. I'm not saying anything other than that they're sharing the main theme: that man will never understand the mysteries of the universe and that he will lose his mind when trying.
Vesters1 11 months ago
@Vesters1 i can not agree with your last sentence: one loses ones mind if one does not try to understand
we are born to solve riddles; greet ings
flaminia5 11 months ago
@flaminia5 don't think so: Tarkovsky (and Kubrick) showed us how the logic of the universe is somewhat impenetrable. In our arrogance, we think we can comprehend everything, but exploration of the universe will (ultimately) not lead ud to scientific insights, merely psychological knowledge of ourselves. And that is what the film ends with: the return of the "lost son", also the last frame is a reference to the panting of the same name by Rembrandt.
Vesters1 11 months ago
@Vesters1 My opinion about the movie's ending was kind of different. you see, i think that the whole idea of the "guests" and then the son that returns but he is in an island of the ocean, shows us that truth has many levels. I mean that Tarkovsky wanted to show us something similar to what Friedrich Nitsche said: no one is ever going to get to the real truth. anyway that's just my opinion
dopeanimal 10 months ago
@flaminia5 In addition, Tarkovsky was an admitted "anti-intellectual" and once said: "The more we know the less we understand.". He was acquainted to the idea that everything exists both phenomenologically and platonically (he wanted to view things platonically through his art) - he was attracted to the idea of artistic intuition and of an "absolute truth" - a "justice" - within pictures of aesthetic value. He was a true anti-scientifical romantic in that sense and so is the movie.
Vesters1 11 months ago
@Vesters1 sorry, i might admire Tarkovski for his films, but i strongly disagree with his "anti-intellectualism" (in your reproduction); anyway, the arts can be a way of understanding or interpreting of the reality
flaminia5 11 months ago
@Vesters1 (people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia . com/TheTopics/interview.html#On_Mirror)
Based of this interview, part that related to his attitude towards the romanitsm,
I'm guessing that he would not appreciate being called a romantic.
Which of course doesn't imply that he wasn't. Judging lui-même is a sisyphean task.
yurikuk 7 months ago
@Vesters1 (people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia . com/TheTopics/interview.html#On_Mirror)
Based of this interview, part that related to his attitude towards the romanitsm,
I'm guessing that he would not appreciate being called a romantic.
Which of course doesn't imply that he wasn't. Judging lui-même is a sisyphean task.
yurikuk 7 months ago
sometimes i think people really ain't watching those last 20 minuts of 2001.
Vesters1 11 months ago
This movie is very good, it make me think.
19tuureluur86 11 months ago
I'm looking for the ending scene of the new movie SOLARIS. THe part where he is on the steps saying how he does the everyday thing just to feel human again.
inachu 1 year ago
Solaris only got one thing wrong from Kelvin's memories: it being that it rains outside of a house not inside, otherwise Kelvin may not have realized that he was not on earth at all.
jordanforever21 1 year ago 15
@jordanforever21 The 'wrong' memory, is done, so you have one little glimpse inot the unreality. It's for us, the viewer.
uszoninyc 3 weeks ago
@uszoninyc Huh??? I have no idea what you just said!
jordanforever21 3 weeks ago
@jordanforever21 It's NOT 'wrong' (rain inside the house). It's done on purpose. The sudden appearance of the rain is so Kris - AND us (viewer) suddenly realise this ISN'T reality. In simpler terms, It's SUPPOSED to be a shock to everyone - Kris AND the viewer.
uszoninyc 3 weeks ago
@uszoninyc Thank you for clearing up your last comment! I suppose the director wanted everyone (viewer) to know that Kris was on an island on Solaris and not on earth, but I doubt that the planet wanted to let Kris know that, I think that the planet misinterpreted that part of Kris' memory.
jordanforever21 2 weeks ago 2
sebastian bach heard the gods voice.
hellraidzor 1 year ago
0:20-0:33 Seriously what other director could make underwater plants look that mezmerizing? Tarkovski was a master artist, definitly.
blakiecakes419 1 year ago
I wonder what presence of Kelvin's burning papers symbolizes?
urckrecords 1 year ago
I followed a link from imdb claiming this scene was a trailer. Of course I realized this wasn't a trailer when it started but I watched it anyway because surely it wouldn't be the last scene of the movie, right? God dammit.
Todd200 1 year ago
@Todd200 I'm sure that there is no any use in a trailer to Tarkovsky's movies. Tarkovsky is a worldwide "brand-name" by himself for more than 50 years and I personaly always knew that his films are the very seldom chance (especially now) to meet on the screen the place and the time to THINK, to DOUBT about myself... However, this quoted scene is the last one of the movie. (Advice: never use digests from such Artists as Tarkovsky, Bergman..)
MrLapeko 1 year ago
@MrLapeko You are absolutely right. This film is Tarkovsky. Not Solaris - Lem. This is an important distinction, because the novel itself is absolutely nothing like the movie. So for people interested in the remakes etc., are looking for something other than what Tarkovsky has to offer.
Ahelphand 11 months ago
Perfect. With poetry and boldness.
dcarrberry 1 year ago
BACH! :P
CHRISTMASBASTARD 1 year ago
Etot film zastavliaet zadumat'sia o zhizni, o smysle zhizni voobshe. Vrode net nikakix osobyx specefektov, no on dinami4en sam po sebe, v nem est' kakaya-to nezrimaya sila. Ya s4itayu 4to etot Film realno vospitivaet dushu 4eloveka. Eto etalon dlia sovrmennoy fantastiki. Puskay amerikosy pou4atsia.
S 1972-go proshlo mnogo let.....Ya eshe togda ne zhil, no.... SOLARIS zhil vo mne....LEGENDA!!!!!!.......I Love SOLARIS!!!...
aidon1987 1 year ago
Masterpiece! Most chilling ending I have ever scene.
arbide2 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
why do most commentspeople make are a bunch of yippidy yap and nonsense? why can't people keep on the subject about the story, about the movie, wouldn't be interesting to hear what people think about where this fictional planet may be, how far it is from earth, did he went on to live on this planet etc... instead most of these comments are "this is a remake" "this movie suck" "this movie is based on a book" blah blah blah, who gives a fuck about your smart ass info and comments
aonng1 1 year ago
The metal lunch box shows up repeatedly in this mind-blowing film from the very beginning.
Solaris "probed" the plant that Kris brought on board the space station in the lunch box, and Solaris recreated the dacha (on an island) using the information that it obtained from the plant...
bsc1086 1 year ago
@bsc1086 I've never seen this version, but immediately I thought of the plant & shoe from Wall-E.
I bet it was a nod to Solaris :)
MusesMetaphorium 1 year ago
@MusesMetaphorium -- I have never seen Wall-E., but I will now.
If you have never seen Tarkovsky's Solaris, you should.
Cheers.
bsc1086 1 year ago
@bsc1086 Oh I *have to* see it now that I know it exists and I usually choose the originals over the remakes so it'll probably be the case here as well lol :)
MusesMetaphorium 1 year ago
lithuanian actor Donatas Banionis
evaldauskis 1 year ago 3
Великий фильм великого художника! Thank you!
vilaverlag 1 year ago
Вічна Вам пам`ять, Андрій Арсенійович. Ви були генієм.
00307891 1 year ago
thruout solaris all the characters r down + unhappy except 4 the space lab characters who r down,unhappy,disturbed,frightened,unstable.etc
universalself 1 year ago
2001 vs Solaris
Well, lets look at the numbers, shall we? :)
.
Budget for Kubrick's 2001 was 10 to 12 MILLION dollars.
Tarkovsky's Solaris had a budget of about 90 THOUSAND (!) dollars.
!!!That's over a 100 TIMES LESS!!!!
VitasWishList 1 year ago
So...
Production value: 2001! While Solaris folds his own and doesn't look cheap or outdated, it is a much smaller film.
Cinematic value: it's a draw, both films are masterpieces, different from each other, but unique and timeless.
Humane value: Solaris, Solaris, Solaris!!! While 2001 has honor, dignaty and comradery, it's too big to notice a tiny little human been.
VitasWishList 1 year ago
@VitasWishList 2001 is very humanistic too. There is no honor, dignity or comradeship at all. Haven't you seen the ending? It's about the individual human being, his alienation and synthesis with the greater whole (the starchild).
Vesters1 1 year ago
@Vesters1 This film explores memory and consciousness and its very organic, it has absolutely nothing in similarity to 2001 albeit a great work of art but of a different sort.
Ahelphand 11 months ago
@Ahelphand they're both esentially dealing with deconstruction of the individual and with transcendence. i can agree with you that the two of those are somewhat different in style, but their content is very similar. I don't know exactly what you're referring to with "organic", but if you think of "organism thought" relating to a metaindividual cosmis/organic kind of consciousness, this is very relevant for 2001 too. And i wouldn't say 2001 is not about memory and consciousness either.
Vesters1 11 months ago
@Vesters1 There is no 'deconstruction' as you put it in Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky fortunately never suffered from postmodernist/structuralist diarrhea, his films are pure and simple like Tolstoy but with humanity.
Ahelphand 11 months ago
@Ahelphand didn't mean anything postmodern with "deconstruction", just de-construction, solution, transcendence of individual boundaries, whatever. Also both 2001 and Solaris are indeed modernist films. 2001 is also very humanist, not necessarily in style but in message and symbolism.
Vesters1 11 months ago
@VitasWishList Anyway, i love Tarkovsky, but this is not his best film. Zerkalo is, i think. To the point: this movie LOOKS outdated, look at the graphics in this scene. They're that pleasant!
Vesters1 1 year ago
compare the image at 4.21 with rembrandt's the prodigal son. this is pure poetry.
11sweetjane11 1 year ago
stunning, just stunning
asdicarlo 1 year ago
Eddie & the Showmen were a surf rock band of the 1960s. Formed in Southern California by Eddie Bertrand, formerly of The Bel-Airs, they released several singles on Liberty records though never a full album
Porgot138 1 year ago
Solaris is my favourite movie of all time.Tarkovsky is a great director also Lem's book is so impresive .Forget the remake.also better than 2001 I think.
karademir1981 1 year ago
thanks for calling me a douche bag.
at least i know you whatched my vid :)
blogx113 1 year ago
Brilliant ending, ty for the upload
TheMultiOtherman 1 year ago
Comment removed
IDromikk 1 year ago
I tear up every time I watch this scene. So sad.
jordanforever21 1 year ago 14
Comment removed
IDromikk 1 year ago
the human ability to find peace in unreal things is a sad implication indeed
IDromikk 1 year ago
Where did you read that? Thanks!
carlosmuslera 2 years ago
i saw the entire movie at the museum in los angeles last night ... this has to be one of the weirdest movies ive ever seen ... ever!
pinkeyegasms 2 years ago
@pinkeyegasms lol you haven´t seen a thing
janohermano 1 year ago
Beautiful movie, and I was shocked by the ending. In response to some comments, Part 1 makes it clear that the father will be dead by the time he returns to earth; the father says something like "are you jealous that he will get to bury me instead of you?" Also, I like how the Ocean 'got it wrong' with the water falling inside the house, really terrifying ending.
deweeeese 2 years ago 6
What I really want to know is who were the other visitors?
The midget that pushed its way through the door?
The little girl?
I would love to know.
thegafferlives 1 year ago
in not following up on who the other guests are, i was left with an idea of how each person has their own inner life that is ultimately mysterious. some writers love to answer all questions, a better writer leaves the reader asking more.
i thought that the midget was the director's silly way of showing that the Ocean was getting the guests wrong, maybe that it was supposed to be a child. there is a scene that shows Sartorius' lab, with a sort of picture analysis of a child.
deweeeese 1 year ago 3
Thanks for your thoughts. I think you hit the nail on the head.
thegafferlives 1 year ago
Comment removed
jordanforever21 2 years ago
Woah, just saw the movie today, and this ending shocked me.
Amazing film.
fiscornioman 2 years ago 46
Tarkovsky was a master!I love his movies...especialy Stalker & Solaris:)
rod2d3dbz 2 years ago 4
wow
blakelocke 2 years ago
Tarkovsky uses rain faling indoors in another great movie "Stalker", asi-fi film which ultimatly killed him,as it was filmed in a disused nuculer power station.
sad.but another great movie pregnant with meaning.
crispian2005 2 years ago
No nuclear station. Stalker was filmed in Tallinn, only few years ago places disappeared
059metafrast 2 years ago
I read that not only him died because of this,but the actors,cameraman,sound engineeer...everyone who was exposed on the zone:(
rod2d3dbz 2 years ago
Qhere did you read that?
carlosmuslera 2 years ago
Best sci-fi movie ever
hilarioph 2 years ago 2
This is one of the greatest movies ever made!
henhur12 2 years ago
this is one my favourite Bach organ pieces calm, peaceful haunting...
thebeatcreeper 2 years ago
what was the ending in the book?
masternate61 2 years ago
Here is the ending of the book and if someone is reading this and don't want to know what happends, stop reading now! If I remember it correctly, he and Harey desides that he will go back to earth without her. But I am certain of the fact that on the final pages he is on an island but not like in the film. In the book it is a very strange island, with life at all except him, that the planet has created and he is observing it. It all ends with him, puting his hands in the water.
Tionsity 2 years ago 3
Actually, I just did read Solaris, and it neither ends on earth, nor with Harey present. :)
CiszHelion 2 years ago
remake is a fake .this is great the original.
TheMarkodream 2 years ago 32
@TheMarkodream >> I agree, but we can't really talk about a remake, considering the original is a book. Ohter version would be more appropriate. I much more prefere this Tarkovski version than the new one.
lepivert 1 year ago
@lepivert - haven't seen the new American version but i'm assuming it's certainly a good movie considering the production and good actors and all ... but this Tarkovsky version is THE original one no matter what and a good one, i mean a "good" one ... this is not just poetry or mysticism or ... this is IT ... an experience that sets in both in your mind as well as in your heart forever ... watch it again once in a while, and it's still just as good as day one ... few movies are like that really.
dadautube 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ahelphand 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He really is just walkign near the pond looking for a place to pee.
inachu 2 years ago
Whoah! this is the original Solaris?
Solaris was a remake(clooney)????
inachu 2 years ago 4
GRANDE TARKOVSKI....GENIAL!!!
IngridAtenea 2 years ago 2
i dont think i could handle life orbiting Solaris for too long. at least, without getting pulled into the maze in replicant realities.
stybarrow 2 years ago
stybarrow, isnt that where we already are?
em23 2 years ago
He's still on Solaris?
bennihana123 2 years ago
In my opinion, yes. He has lost himself in his fantasy of his father (i think?).
Siegsdorfer 2 years ago
Même l'initiative est louable, c'est idiot de mettre en ligne la fin de ce film pour ceux qui ne l'ont pas encore vu...
Dieux merci je ne suis pas tombé dessus avant d'avoir vu Solaris.
Matchat31 2 years ago
Professor Trottelreiner: "Omnis est Pillula!" (S.Lem, "Kongres Futurologiczny")
TAMTOK 2 years ago
One Of the greatest endings ever
erikzzson 2 years ago 2
S. Lem did not like the movie... Its kind of funny, him not liking one of the greatest masterpieces of all time....even if i understand the fact of him rejecting it (since he believed it wasn't reproducing genuinely his work).
minasgekos 2 years ago
Tarkovsky said S. Lem rejected the movie because Lem didn't understand cinema as art. Tarkovsky never set about to try to merely illustrate the book. He was creating a work on it's own.
I don't reject illustration as art though. Watchmen was painfullly faithful to the comic, and still a great movie IMHO. But I'd identify "levels" of art there. The movie Watchmen is "genre literature". Lesser art. The movie Solaris is literature period. Art proper.
Eikinkloster 2 years ago
i bet the whole sequence with the father was made because of the last shot:
when Chris kneels before his father
flaminia5 2 years ago
One of the best movies I've ever seen in my whole fuckin' life.
jonathanbb 2 years ago 5
the rain inside the house means nothing... Solaris is making a reproduction of earth from the subconscious of Kris. But it doesn't knows that rain shouldn't fall inside the house. The reproduction isn't perfect.
It is clear to me that the scene with the father is redemption.
minasgekos 2 years ago 3
redemption? why? to what extent?
cube2fox 2 years ago
redemption or maybe mutual forgiveness about their difficult relationship (father / son). I felt that in the movie, but maybe i am wrong :)
minasgekos 2 years ago
According to the commentary, the rain falling in the house is symbolic of the holy spirit—derived from traditional Russian theology. And yes, it suggests that Solaris isn't reproducing an Earthen scene perfectly. Tarkovsky is notorious for his depiction of double-meanings.
chinopisces 2 years ago
itis absoulutlely important to use baltic ators at the right moment
470391871976 2 years ago
just understandt it was 30 eyars ago, and it was hapaned indeed....
470391871976 2 years ago
The ending is completly different from the book.
Does anybody understand the ending of the film? What should it mean?
cube2fox 2 years ago
I guess it implies that he lives on the planet.
As for the long water shots, that's just Tarkovsky for you. He was obsessed with using water as a visual metaphor. Just watch Andrei Rublev, Mirror, or Nostalgia.
NoOne3234 2 years ago
It's clear that he lives on solaris.
But what Tarkovski want to say with the water? And what does the father-son hug (Vather stands, Kris kneels) mean? It seems that Kris asks vor vorgiveness and his Vather vorgives him. But why?
cube2fox 2 years ago
His father would have been dead by the time of his return (do the lorentz transformations). If it were my father, I might do the same.
For Tarkovsky water could mean many things. It's transient aspect often relates it to change: time, place, or world. Flowing water amongst the reeds could represent some of these things, while offering an interesting parallel to the blowing grass at the start. The unearthly stillness in the water not only suggests something is wrong, but...
NoOne3234 2 years ago
Comment removed
NoOne3234 2 years ago
that whatever was changing has stopped. Maybe it reflects his life settling down on an artificial world. I don't know.
One things for sure, that's one hell of an ending.
NoOne3234 2 years ago
( unchanging artificial world. real world water at the beginning flows, but here everything is still. The liquid hitting father's back could reflect that he's dead, as the steam reminds us of the liquid oxygen that...)
NoOne3234 2 years ago
His father wouldn't be dead at his return, because they have a hyper space machine or something like this (they can travel with superluminal velocity). Why? Because the emergency call from the solaris station came to the earth and Kelvin then traveled to solaris - but apparently with only a very short time difference...
cube2fox 2 years ago
You have a point there...
I don't actually know. If he really missed his father that much, then why wouldn't he just go home?
NoOne3234 2 years ago
Maybe only Tarkovsky knows.
Have you read the original book by Stanisław Lem? It is ingenious, like nearly all of his books. Unfortunately he died in 2006. He was one of the most important (if not THE most important) author of "hard SF" in the world.
cube2fox 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ahelphand 11 months ago
i guess, every one may feel guilty just because one is young and the father is old, in the usual way of things the father dies before, which makes the son feel guilty
(Rembrandt is the word)
flaminia5 2 years ago
"in the usual way of things" I can't fly to another continent but have to go by foot. But would someone these days feel guilty (and why?) because the grandfather _would_ die before I reach him by foot? sure not. strange argument.
cube2fox 2 years ago
well, that's a feeling, like love
one can't explain it, like it's said in this very film
flaminia5 2 years ago
;-)
Maybe I should mention that the intention of the story originally wasn't like Tarkovskys special (and strange) ending with this... uh - feelings.
"[As] Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space."
Stanislaw Lem, as quoted in Wikipedia.
cube2fox 2 years ago
you are right, Tarkovsky has changed the story very much
so that we should probably interpret the film and the book separately, which is interesting;
flaminia5 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Ahelphand 11 months ago
Comment removed
cube2fox 2 years ago
fabuleux ce film!
damiencholet 2 years ago
def. grandious !!
mypStyle 2 years ago
the look of the actor at around 1:40 says it all.
minasgekos 2 years ago
For me, the most haunting of all movies. As for Tarkovsky vs Kubrick, they were both brilliant, from different traditions and different working environments. Who cares whose IQ or inspiration was greater? They both left us with gems.
somewhere6 2 years ago 3
yes and made with a different budget.
bebert3000 2 years ago
Eine tödliche Umarmung schmerzhafter Bilder mit unerlöster Musik
Russenliebchen 2 years ago
wonderful!!
solaris is really hipnotyc...
daegiro 2 years ago
It's all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever. Yet we stand here in the middle of no man's land.
- Sergeant Steiner (1)
Porgot138 2 years ago
Solaris and 2001 are both philosophical, using a space story as a mere backdrop.
In ancient legends, the hero discovered weird things on an island (like in Gulliver's Travels). In 2001, they find what might be the origin of civilization on a distant planet. In Solaris, they find energies that manifest their thoughts.
benfamilyvideos 2 years ago
precious magical una novela preciosa una pelicula preciosa
gillianx68000 2 years ago 3
I love the hypnogogic limbo, combined with the lucid energy of the film! Brilliant.
Sacredtexter 2 years ago 3
this movie is no 2001 but it looks ok
matt11708 2 years ago
pure art
erikzzson 3 years ago 4
Tarkovsky is certainly one of the greatest filmmakers, and important artists of the 20th century. But I don't understand why people are attacking 2001 here. 2001 is a masterpiece. Solaris is Tarkovsky's worst film. He even disliked it himself, and it was his only film he was unhappy with. Stalker is a much better Tarkovsky sci-fi.
asielnorton 3 years ago
"Stalker is a much better Tarkovsky sci-fi."
He was happier with Stalker because he believed he managed to transcend the sci-fi genre with it and not with Solaris... Maybe that makes Stalker better *art*, or perhaps even a better *movie*, but better "sci-fi"? Personally, I don't think so. Solaris is the greatest sci-fi movie. Ever.
Eikinkloster 2 years ago 3
god that is so trippy. amazing.
zolpicrazed 3 years ago
Genialny film
Joniu1984 3 years ago 2
it's one of my favourite movies!!!!!!
daegiro 3 years ago 2
JESUS, I forgot how terrifying that last pan out from the house is.
Scares the living shit out of me every time.
pentherapy 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I totally don't get it!
Is this the German version of Brokeback Mountain?
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
Watch whole film and you will...
jasiuss 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I looked at some more Solaris clips on YouTube
Now it seems like an Alfred Hitchcock version of Kupricks 2001 Space Odyssey
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch the full movie!
doctorcaligarissss 3 years ago 4
Kubrick could only dream of being half as talented as Tarkovsky. Sergei Bondarchuk is a bit like a Russian Shatner in any case.
pastrychef1985 3 years ago
Don't be ridiculous. Solaris is a great film and Tarkovsky is a great director, but Kubrick is one of the great geniuses of cinema. 2001 is a work of art, profound and mesmerising. Every frame of that film is beautiful, and watching it is the nearest I have come to experiencing a religious experience. Kubrick is popular, but that doesn't detract from his artistic achievements. In fact it makes them even more remarkable.
Burrisant 3 years ago
I'm a huge Kubrick fan but I think that the ending of 2001 reaches too hard to be more important than it comes across. Mainly because the imagery doesn't do enough to put across Kubrick's "spiritual" or philosophical position. Solaris on the other hand is methodical with Tarkovsky's vision and philosophy. It reaches far deeper than 2001. I would never knock Kubrick as he's my favorite director of all time but in comparison of depth between 2001 vs. Solaris you have to give it to Tarkovsky.
Honuman32 3 years ago
Don't be ridiculous. Solaris is a great film and Tarkovsky is a great director, but Kubrick is one of the great geniuses of cinema.
Burrisant 3 years ago