How did Tarkovsky regard cinema as a medium and what role did Time play in his movies?

[image credits: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/ThePhotos/SolarisPressPhotos/Tarkovsky-directs-Solaris.jpg  – accessed on 26.10.2009]

“Some critics argue that horror is defined not by its conventions, but by the emotional response it elicits from the audience. As its name implies, the horror film is designed to make the audience feel fear, revulsion and disgust. This is why most viewers would definitively label Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky 1972; Steven Soderbergh 2002) a science fiction film, even though it shares the same basic premise as Alien (Ridley Scott). Both alien and solaris feature astronauts threatened by an alien presence while they are holed up in a remote outpost. But Alien provokes shock and surprise, whereas both versions of Solaris are slowly paced, philosophical meditations on the nature of memory, life and death. (Even this distinction can be murky as audiences’ propensity for shock have evolved since the earliest days of the genre. Whereas viewers in 1931 may have been frightened by Frankenstein’s monster, contemporary audiences probably respond more to the pathos Boris Karloff’s performance than to the monster’s grotesqueness.)” Pramaggiore, Maria; Wallis, Tom. Film. A critical introduction. 2nd ed. (Laurence Koing Publishing Ltd.- London.) – p. 378

By elaborating on the initial plot (presented in Lem’s novel) Tarkovsky is creating a new setting, a new experience to be shared to the audience. The director is bringing new connotations with each detail insered into the image and he is painting a new atmosphere. The story presents the viewer with key questions about humanity, the purpose of Life, the boundaries of human knowledge, experience (love) and certainty regarding the knowledge aquired. Such questions link the psychological message with the philosophical perspective. There are also questions of morality and positive values while we can still recognise elements that belong to politics and social interaction. Tarkovsky wanted to use the tools of classical arts in the newly discovered/explored medium of film.

(The purpose of film) – „Recent [i.e., Gestalt] psychological thinking encourages us to call vision a creative activity of the human mind. Perceiving achieves, at the sensory level, what in the realm of reasoning is known as understanding. Every man’s eyesight also anticipates in a modest way the admired capacity of the artist to produce patterns that validly interpret experiences by means of organized form” – published in Arnheim, Rudolf. Art and Visual perception. (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1969), p.viii – quoted from: Dudley, Andrew J. ed. (1976). The major film theories. An introduction. (Oxford University Press: London, Oxford, New York) p.35

“No matter how much interplay Arnheim calls for between man and nature in the creation of art, his is finally a mentalist theory of art. He looks for those moments when an equilibrium of forces, yoked by an artist’s mind from the stimuli of the world, succeeds in expressing aspects of both the artist and the world which we had never been fully aware of before. Inspiration, in the scientific and artistic spheres, is achieved when the material before one suddenly recognizes itself into a new and satisfying structure. Both artist and scientist create the “figure in the carpet”, the pattern in the Rorschach patch we call reality, a pattern which reality is already predisposed to receive. Thanks to such scientific and artistic restructurings, we can see more deeply, live more fully. As a photographic medium film provides us with more material to pattern. As an artistic medium it can help us pattern that material and show us the ways in which our minds are jointed to the physical universe we live in.” Dudley, Andrew J. ed. (1976). The major film theories. An introduction. (Oxford University Press: London, Oxford, New York) p.40

(The final purpose of film) – „Each montage piece exists no longer as something unrelated but as a given particular representation of the general theme that in equal measure penetrates all the shot-pieces. The juxtaposition of these partial details in a given montage construction calls to life and forces into the light that general quality in which each detail has participated and which binds together all the details into a whole, namely, into that generalized image wherein the creator, followed by the spectator, experiences the theme. “ – published in Sergei Eisenstein. The Film Sense. p.11 – quoted from: Dudley, Andrew J. ed. (1976). The major film theories. An introduction. (Oxford University Press: London, Oxford, New York) p. 73

We regard time as a central focus of our lives. All our activities are based around the division of the day. When we decide to spend a certain amount of time immersed in a cinematic experience, we are expecting to be either distracted from the routine of daily life –> entertained or –>informed, that is when we gain a new understanding on a certain issue or going deeper, if we consider the artistic side of the medium, we expect it (the message) to stirr puzzlement and to excite our exploration (of a certain issue, of our lives) and in the end leave an impact on our perception of life/ perspective/ mentality.

‘The clock was pioneered in Benedictine monasteries. In the seventh century Pope Sabinianus had decreed that Benedictine monks should pray seven times every twenty-four hours (the ‘canonical hours’). Some means of keeping time became necessary. The water-clock, already known to ancient Roma, was reintroduced. Around 1345 the division of the hour into minutes and seconds became common. In 1370 the first mechanical clock was built. In Lewis Mumford’s words (1934: 13): ‘Benedictine rule have human enterprise the regular collective beat and rhythm of the machine; for the clock is not merely a means of keeping track of hours, but of synchronising the actions of men.’
Outside the monastery, clocks were initially an object of cultural fascination. There were elaborate clocks in the churches and on the market squares of the towns, showing not only time but also the movements of the moon and the planets. And there were clocks in the houses of the new merchant class, often decorated with manikins performing stiff, robotic movements in perfect synchrony with mechanical time. In the Industrial Revolution the clock became a major tool for the control, first of labour, then also of other human activities. In industries such as weaving, the guilds that have traditionally controlled labour had had to increasingly rely on merchants, as they alone could supply the capital and raw materials needed, or provide insight into what the market demanded. The merchants resented the guild’s control over labour and started to ‘farm out’ work, which they could do because the guild’s rule did not extend to the country. But that was unsatisfactory too, as the rural workers worked more or less when they pleased and were difficult to discipline. Thus the factory was conceived, where workers could be under the watchful eye of an overseer, and where constant attendance and punctuality could be enforced. Soon the discipline of the clock would extend to other major social institutions, the school, the hospital, the prison and so on and punctuality would become a key virtue of bourgeois society. As Mumford put if (1934: 14): ‘Time-keeping passed into time-serving and time-accounting and time rationing. As this took place, Eternity ceased gradually to serve as the measure and focus of human actions.’ Van Leeuwen, Theo. (1999). Speech, Music, Sound. (Macmillan Press Ltd. – Hampshire and London) p.Page 36-37

“Measured time divides the flow of time into measures which are of equal duration and which are marked off by a regularly occurring explicit pulse (‘accent’, ‘stress’, ‘beat’) which comes on the first syllable or note or other sound of each measure and is made more prominent than the surrounding sounds by means of increased loudness, pitch or duration, or some combination of some or all of these.” Van Leeuwen, Theo. (1999). Speech, Music, Sound. (Macmillan Press Ltd. – Hampshire and London) p.39

The first sound that we become familiar with in our human existence is the sound of the mother’s heartbeat. This is the first language we get to experience. Its rhythm sets the tone of a ‘hum’ that becomes comforting throughout the first 9 months, when ‘another entity’ is communicating with us although we do not have the means to understand or explain what is going on. This ‘time’ is willingly invested in our growth, we are connected to a natural bioryhthm, a natural pace and rule.

The opening scene of Solaris describes the pace of life, its constant fluid flow… we are observing an autumn leaf run along a stream. Surrounding it is the abundance of the algae, still that one leaf carries her journey forward. Comparable to this image, the main character of the film, Kris Kelvin is trying to alter his journey, trying to control it, he is not surrendering to the natural flow.. he is exploring other ways of understanding the flow itself.

‘Our time has been distinguished, more than by anything else, by a drive to control the external world, and by an almost total forgetfulness of the internal world. If one estimates human evolution from the point of view of knowledge of the external world, then we are in many respects progressing. If our estimate is from the point of view of the internal world, and of oneness of internal and external, then the judgement must be very different.’ Laing, R.D. (1981, 1st ed. 1967). The politics of experience and the bird of paradise. (Penguin Books – Middlesex, England).

“If we understand and feel that here in this life we already have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change… In our relationship to other men, too, the crucial question is whether an element of boundlessness is expressed in the relationship… The feeling for the infinite, however, can be attained only if we are bounded to the utmost. In knowing ourselves to be unique in our personal combination – that is, ultimately limited – we possess also the capacity for becoming conscious of the infinite. But only then!” – C.G. Jung – published in Memories, Dreams, Reflections 325/300 recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe (Pantheon Books, New York; copyright 1961, 1962, 1963 by Random House, Inc.; Collins and Routledge & Kegan Paul) translated by Richard and Clara Winston – quoted in Jung, C.G. (). Word and Image (1977). (ed. By Aniela Jaffe). Bollingen Series XCVII: 2. (Princeton University Press – New Jersey, USA) – p. 214

By looking at the primal resources; the Film and Tarkovsky’s interviews, his intention of addressing a message at a deep philosophical level becomes clear. He wishes to liberate the audience from the constructed limits and the imposed boundaries of the social, religious and political nature. His images develop realistic qualities, become palpable. He is bringing his contribution, his vision but he allows the human feelings to be identified and relieved along with the characters, all to form an organic work that comes to life along with the experience of it on film.

Gianvito, John. ed (2006). Andrei Tarkovsky Interviews. (University Press of Mississippi/ Jackson)
-page 82: ‘Q: How are your films received there (in the Soviet Union)?
T: The official viewpoint is that they are difficult to understand. Sergei Bondarchuck expressed this idea in Italy during a press conference. Nervertheless, young people especially view my films with enormous interest. I would even say that there’s a contradiction between that which Bondarchuck declares and the truth.’
(…)
– page 85: ‘Q: You would preffer to defend spirituality as opposed to emotion?
T: Emotion is the enemy of spirituality. Herman Hesse said a good thing about this with regard to passion. In the Glass-Bead Game, he wrote that passion is a friction between the outer world and the inner world, the soul. It seems to me that Hesse properly considered emotions as the encounter of man with material reality. Emotionality has nothing to do with true spirituality.’
Q: Would your films prove that you’re attracted to metaphor?
T: Our life is a metaphor, from the beginning until the end. Everything that surrounds us is a metaphor.’
(…)
-page 86: ‘Q: But in your films, what part of the real, what part of the unreal, and what part of yourself do you place there?
T: It’s impossible to create something unreal. Everything is real and unfortunately we aren’t able to abandon reality. We can express ourselves toward the world that exists in a poetic way or purely descriptive manner. Personally, I prefer to express myself in a metaphoric way. I insist on saying metaphoric and not symbolic. The symbol intrinsically comprises a specific meaning, an intellectual formula, while the metaphor is the image itself. It’s an image that possesses the same characteristics as the world represents. Contrary to the symbol, its meaning is undefined. We aren’t able to speak about a world that is truly boundless utilizing means which themselves are definite and restricted. We can analyze a formula, that is to say, a symbol, but a metaphor is an entity unto itself, a monomial. If one tries to describe it, immediately it falls to pieces.’
(…)
– page 87: ‘Q: When you speak of the soul, do you mean it as a kind of sculpture which a man should secretly accomplish during his life?
T: Man doesn’t have to construct it, but rather liberate it. It is already constructed.’
…..
– page 93-94: ‘Only one kind of journey is possible: the one we undertake to our inside world. From running about on the surface of the planet, we don’t learn much. Nor do I believe that one travels in order to return. Man can never return to his point of departure, because he himself, in the meantime, changes. And, of course, you can’t escape from yourself; what you are, you carry with you. We carry the house of our souls like the tortoise its shell. To travel the countries of the world is only symbolically a journey. Wherever you get to, you are still seeking your own soul.
I see the only meaning of human existence in the effort to overcome yourself spiritually, to become different from what you are at birth, in growing. If in that span, between the poles of birth and death, we manage to achieve this – even if it is hard and the advance is small – we will have served humanity. (…) It appears to me that mankind has stopped believing in itself. That is, not “mankind” – such a thing does not exist – but each person for himself. When I think of today’s man, I see him like a singer in a choir opening and closing his mouth in rhythm with the singing, but producing no tone. Afetr all, the others are all singing! He just pretends to sing along, since he is convinced that the voices of the others suffice. He behaves this way because he no longer believes in the importance of his own, personal actions – a man without faith, totally without hope of influencing through his own behaviour the society in which he lives.
I am convinced that ‘time’ is no objective category, since time cannot exist without man. Certain scientific discoveries tend to reach the same conclusion. We do not live in the “now”. The now is so short, so close to zero without being zero, that we have no way of perceiving it. The moment which we call “now” immediately becomes past. The only possible present is our fall into the abyss which exists between future and present. That’s why “nostalgia” is not regret for the past but sadness for the lost span during which we did not manage to count our forces, to marshal them, and to do our duty.’ – Andrei Tarkovsky in interviews with Gideon Bachmann from American Film, November 1983, 14, 75-79.

Connotations of the name ‘Solaris’

[image 1: http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/images/solaris.jpg, 2: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3594623232/tt0069293, 3: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1070242816/tt0307479 – accessed on 19.10.2009]

“The Sun has no official name according to the International Astronomical Union, the body responsible for naming celestial objects.[162] The name Sol (pronounced /ˈsɒl/, from Latin Sol, the Sun god), is accepted but not commonly used; the adjectival form is the related word solar.[163][164] “Sol” is the modern word for “Sun” in many other languages.[165] The term sol is also used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a solar day on another planet, such as Mars.[166] A mean Earth solar day is approximately 24 hours, while a mean Martian sol, is 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35.244 seconds.” [from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Terminology accessed on 21.10.2009]

“It seems that the Sun does not even “respect” gravity. The mass of charged particles expelled by the Sun as the solar wind continues to accelerate beyond Mercury, Venus, and Earth. Solar prominences and coronal mass ejections do not obey gravity either. Nor does sunspot migration. Nor does the movement of the atmosphere, since the upper layers rotate faster than the lower, reversing the situation predicted by theory, while the equatorial atmosphere completes its rotation more rapidly than the atmosphere at higher latitudes, another reversal of predicted motions.If the Sun’s atmosphere were subject only to gravity and the hot surface, it should be only a few thousand kilometers thick instead of the hundred thousand kilometers or more that we measure. Even the shape of the Sun defies the expectations of theory. The revolving Sun should be an oblate sphere. But it is a virtually perfect sphere, as if gravity and inertia have been overruled by something else. For the electrical theorists, the “something else” should be obvious from the dominant observed features of the Sun (in contrast to things assumed but never seen).” from:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050517fusion.htm – accessed on 17.10.2009

From the above explanation we can link the image of the Sun; a central point of energy (key star) in a galaxy with time-keeping. The Sun’s distinct impact, that of setting a standard in relation to the other celestial bodies of the galaxy underlines its prominence and authority. We can further connect the idea of time-keeping with the human experience/ life. Human life is revolving around the apparition and disappearance of the sun from the horizon, imposing a biorhythm according to its movement. Solar energy is naturally identifiable as life-generating and essential for evolution, preservation and survival. It is only recent that man, through his technological achievements atempted and succeded to tresspass the boundaries set by the availability of daylight. Therefore we could state that what set this liberation in the first place – what shaped this achievement was creative thought; inventions. A key factor for the realisation and materialisation of human inventions is Language, because there is a prerequisite need for the existence of a language that would dictate the action – this including the idea of communication.

“(Atlas): A great Star-Angel, the intelligence of Polaris, the Pole Star, maintaining the stream of light and consciousness into the galaxy from beyond. Also known as Axis Mundi, cosmic mountain, Dhruva, Enlil, grahadhara, Polaris, Sacred pole, Shu, Taane-mahuta, World Tree.” Leviton, Richard (2005) – Encyclopedia of Earth Myths. (Charlottesville, VA – Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc.) p.19

In order to connect this information with the film we would first have to look at the initial storyline from its literary basis. At the time when Stanisław Lem came with the name ‘Solaris’ the international media was paying attention to the exploration of our galaxy, space travel was seen as an aproachable goal, a means of travel that would gradually become more accessible to the masses. This raised questions about our habitat and attachment to the life-sustaining conditions provided on Earth. The enthusiasm of the masses proved that despite the diversity of life existent/available here we would still consider abandoning Earth; out of curiosity for something new, even if in such an attempt we would be living in an artificial space.

“The novel begins as the narrator, a scientist named Kris Kelvin, is descending toward the surface of the mysterious planet Solaris.(…) The ship that has brought Kelvin to Solaris is called the Promethus, a name associated with civilization and enlightenment in Greek mythology, but also with condemnation to terrible torment. As he enters the station suspended above the planet’s surface, note the many instances of wear, disorder and confusion. ” http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/solaris.html

“A work in one medium that derives its impulse as well as varying number of its elements from a work in a different medium. (…) Sometimes adaptations are loose, borrowing perhaps a general situation, an episode, a character, or even a title as the inspiration for the work; and sometimes adaptations try to be “literal”, presenting the original story, characters, and even dialogue as exactly as possible. But film is a different medium with its own aesthetics and techniques, and the original work must be transformed into what is essentially a different and unique form. (…) Film creates a fully defined and immediate physical reality that requires dramatisation and exploration; it brings characters visually realised into direct relationship with their environment and in immediate proximity to the viewer. The filmmaker’s concern is as much with the visual dimensions of each scene as with the drama; and the viewer’s eyes require as much visual action, in the camera’s presentation of character and setting, as verbal and psychological action.’ Konigsberg, Ira. (2nd ed. 1997, 1st published 1987). The Complete Film Directory. (Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. – London). – on ‘Adaptation’ p. 6

The mythological link that Lem inserts in the story acts as a preliminary hint to the connotations of the journey that Kris Kelvin is embarking on. Also we can observe that the fact that the novel is presented through Kris’s eyes renders the story more biographical while lacking on presenting an objective perspective from the other characters.

“… character is usually placed in an ethical (context), fate in a religious context. We must banish them from both regions by revealing the error by which they are placed there. This error is caused, as regards the concept of fate through association with that of guilt.” Benjamin, Walter. (1989). Reflections (ed. and with an Introduction by Peter Demetz). (Random House, Inc. USA) p.305

“Is happiness, as missfortune doubtless is, an intrinsic category of fate? Happiness is, rather what releases the fortunate man from the embroilment of the fates and from the net of his own fate. (…) It was not in Law, but in Tragedy that the head of genius lifted itself for the first time from the mist of guilt, gor in tragedy demonic fate is breached. (…) …in tragedy pagan man becomes aware that he is better than his god, but the realisation robs him of speech, remains unspoken.” Benjamin, Walter. (1989). Reflections (ed. and with an Introduction by Peter Demetz). (Random House, Inc. USA) p.306-307

There are more angles from which we can analyze the story; we can consider Lem’s version a sci-fi novel that incorporates all the puzzlement and torment of the human mind, with its own undeciphered fields as well as his thirst to explore the Unknown, but when we continue to compare this with the film, in our analysis, due to the different perspective that the film offers – a perspective that  confirms the fact that film as a medium can bring a new approach to the story – we come to realise that the film can bring added meaning and an even more complex perspective to the extent that the two versions become distinct despite their many common roots.

After the screening of Berton’s footage we are given more information on Solaris’s nature: “All of this could be the result of Solaris’s biomagnetic current acting on Berton’s consciousness. We now know (that) the current is not only a gigantic cerebral system, but a substance capable of thought processes.” This elaborate idea stirrs a psychological, philosophical and physical debate. It regards the multiple standpoint of the human perspetive.

‘When one reflects upon what consciousness really is, one is profoundly impressed by the extreme wonder of the fact that an event which takes place outside in the cosmos simultaneously produces an internal image, that is takes place so to speak, inside as well, which is to say: becomes conscious.’ – by C.G. Jung – [originally published in Basel Seminar, privately printed, 1934, p. I] – quoted in Jung, C.G. (). Word and Image (1977). (ed. By Aniela Jaffe). Bollingen Series XCVII: 2. (Princeton University Press – New Jersey, USA) – page 227

“From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe”.  David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill – in the book ”Thunderbolts of the Gods’ quoted on: http://www.thunderbolts.info/ accessed on the 23.10.2009

The connectedness between Kris’s venture and that of Solaris the entity is in the first approach (Lem’s novel) mysterious while in the second one (Tarkovsky’s film) it becomes identical in strength and almost mirror-like. It appears that Kris is trying to explore how an ‘alien’ consciousness acts while Solaris, with his many human materialisations – that are shaped and created with the use of the navigator’s memories – is trying to experience what humanity is.

‘The holographic idea also sheds light on the unexplainable linkages that can sometimes occur between the consciousnesses of two or more individuals. One of the most famous examples of such linkage is embodied in Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung’s concept of a collective unconscious. Early in his career Jung became convinced that the dreams, artwork, fantasies, and hallucinations of his patients often contained symbols and ideas that could not be explained entirely as products of their personal history. Instead, such symbols more closely resembled the images and themes of the world’s great mythologies and religions. Jung concluded that myths, dreams, hallucinations, and religious visions all spring from the same source, a collective unconscious that is shared by all people.’ Talbot, Michael. (1991). The holographic universe. Harper Collins Publishers. – page 59

“Everything is metamorphosed into its inverse in order to be perpetuated in its purged form. Every form of power, every situation speaks of itself by denial, in order to attempt to escape, by simulation of death, its real agony. Power can stage its own murder to rediscover a glimmer of existence and legitimacy. (…) To seek new blood in its own death, to renew the cycle by the mirror of crisis, negativity and anti-power: this is the only alibi of every power, of every institution attempting to break the vicious circle of its irresponsability and its fundamental non-existence, of its deja-vu and its deja-mort.” Beaudrillard, Jean. (1983) Simulations.trans. by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman. (Semiotext[e]: Columbia University) p.37

In the ‘light’ of the above perspective, let us consider two new posibilities:

1/ the reverse of the situation/ the possibility that Solaris would be a Field that has been created by the protagonists themselves, in their ambiguous mode of existence and from their curiosity to explore the universe.. they themselves provided the energy – by submitting their memories – to Solaris, in their unique communication and

2/ the fact that Kris’s account can actually be a large-scale metaphor of his own death, starting with the motifs of ‘the last day’, saying good-bye, the presence of the dog and the mourn-looking shal that the mother is wearing, repeated later on by Hari.. , connotations to incineration (in the Bonfire chapter of the film but also with the presence of fire and ashes as recurrent themes in the film), at the moment of the lift off: when Kris is asking ‘When is lift off?’, the answer is: ‘You’re already flying Kris, take care!’… but also of connotations to a new beginning, a new life; the allusion to the embrionic state of Fechner’s son on the surface of Solaris

Film Scene 2: Tarkovsky: Solaris excerpt – an initial analysis

SUBJECT:

Film Scene 2: Tarkovsky: Solaris excerpt

Sourced from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y2ZREQWJSM [accessed 14 October 2009] This scene occurs approximately 2h20m into the film and lasts for approximately 2m30s.

Solaris/ Solyaris [Russian: Солярис ] (1972), Dir. Tarkovsky, Andrei /USSR, Mosfilm

Writing credits:

Stanisław Lem (original literary source: novel Solaris*),

Fridrikh Gorenshtein (screenplay) & Andrei Tarkovsky (screenplay)

Produced by: Viacheslav Tarasov

Release dates:

Soviet Union:    20 March 1972

France: May 1972 (Cannes Film Festival)

USA: 6 October 1976 (New York City, New York)

Runtime: 165 min | Italy:115 min (first release)

Country: Soviet Union

Language: German | Russian

Color: Black and White | Color (Sovcolor)

Laboratory: Mosfilm, Moscow, Soviet Union

Film length (metres): 4596 m

Film negative format (mm/video inches): 35 mm

Cinematographic process: Sovscope

Printed film format: 16 mm and 35 mm

Aspect ratio: 2.35 : 1

Cinematography by: Vadim Yusov

Filming locations:

Akasaka, Minato, Japan (Berton’s car scenes)

Iikura, Tokyo, Japan (Berton’s car scenes)

Mosfilm Studios, Moscow, Russia (studio)

Osaka, Japan (City scenes)

Zvenigorod, Russia

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/locations]

Music by: Johann Sebastian Bach’s chorale prelude, ‘Ich ruf’ zu Dir, Herr Jesu Christ’ (heard 4 times throughout the film) and an electronic score composed by Eduard Artemyev

[technical information and credits above taken from:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/technical and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/fullcredits – accessed on 17 October 2009]

Analysis** of the dialogue in the excerpt:

Dr.Snaut: – It looks like it’s showing some activity. Your encephalogram helped.  –> We can observe that Dr.Snaut is wearing a beige blouse and a brown leather jacket. This reflects the 70s decade, it’s not a fitted work outfit or a complex futuristic suit but a casual simplistic look that portrays a natural and relaxed wear. He leans on one of the windows, the shape of which is similar to a boat window. He looks contemplative yet sceptical of the breakthrough. The mentioning of medical analysis introduces the idea of technology, human progress, it references the activity of the thought processes and the energy shift throughout the connexions of thought.

When we mention communication we immediately need to identify a language, it can be visual or verbal but also.. a less tangible language, that of telepathy – because the humans are directing (towards ‘Solaris’ the entity) what they can at the present moment – which is their thoughts expressing their desire To communicate.

Throughout the film we can examine communication at ‘unknown’ levels between different sources of energy – between the humans that find themselves facing an entity they wish to communicate with: ‘Solaris’ – a non-human consciousness, but also between humans that are in different ‘states’ of existence (communication with a person that has died). A connection between the two would be the inaccessibility and puzzlement that man experiences when he is confronted with such a situation. The use of the ‘encephalogram’ stands for man’s attempt to cross the bowndaries of knowledge, conquer, create a map and decipher what is unknown to him.

His realization of his limits evokes the unquenched thirst from the human’s part to discover the world(s) external to him, his need to trespass the obstacles of the Unknown. The only obstacle though, is that man will only be able to initiate exploring the outer ‘spheres’  after having a clearer view of what He himself is, and this is why the journey outwards becomes an inward journey, in an attempt to discover the (human) soul, its purpose and path through exploring Life.

Kris Kelvin:  – You know…  –> By looking at the character of Kris we can tell that he has a different stance to Dr.Snaut. He is portraying a meditative pose during Dr.Snaut’s short comment. He is not continuing the idea, responding to the comment or stirring a dialogue. He is raising another argument, a deep philosophical remark which develops into a short monologue.

We can also see upon first observation that his shirt resembles a hotel or hospital-style shirt meaning that he could be in either a transitory state or in a fragile state. As he is standing, in a less than well balanced pose we start adding a a quality of weakness to his portrait.

Whenever we show pity, we ravage ourselves.  –> a moral value is associated with vulnerability, he is implying that when man is investing his trust he is going to be consumed by the response to his own action. This statement adds a rhetorical assertion and underlines the effects of communication and social interaction.

Maybe it’s true…  –>he starts walking, Dr. Snaut grabs his arm, paying attention to Kris’s words, while Kris is proceeding further with ‘heavy’ steps as if going ‘against a current’, drifting away in the idea he is verbalising.

Suffering makes life seem dismal and suspect. But I won’t accept that. No, I won’t accept that.  –> Kris is now leaning against the window for a brief moment, after which he is touching his head experiencing a headache, movement which is very naturally transformed into a gesture of defence, isolation, portrayal of the denial expressed in his words. This gesture is acted with subtlety, but still, it manages to transmit a complex series of signals; he is both similar to ‘a child in need of protection’, and an adult that is looking at his philosophical remark with decisiveness. At the same time unguarded (in front of the idea) and determined to fight its meaning/effects. Whilst making the second statement he is nodding his head, he is emphassing his commitment not to accept the before mentioned perspective, then he gazes out the window.. and appears mesmerised by the image, even if for a brief couple of seconds.

Is that which is indispensable to life also harmful to it?  No, it’s not harmful. Of course it’s not harmful.  –> these two lines are showing the duality of his thoughts, the inner struggle, at first an almost schizophrenical attitude; – a feeling of confusion while he is making the first statement, and approaching a different tone of voice and attitude while expressing the latter with conviction. He is offering himself the comfort he needs to hear with a reply.

Remember Tolstoy? His suffering over the impossibility of loving mankind as a whole? How much time has passed since then? –> He starts gazing out the window again, while mentioning Tolstoy, a reference to the Russian literary heritage and the analysis of the human spirit, a recurrent theme in the Russian culture. We are confronted with the issue of Time, and the idea that the human perspective and the ‘investment’ of emotion remain unchanged throughout time due to the fact that the social context seems not to have altered – from this point of view, despite all other changes.

“To love mankind as a whole” is a statement that emphasizes the idea of making ‘an observation’ about the perspective that man is placed in. The acknowledgement of ‘suffering’ caused by the philosophical observation  and the circumstance of the ‘impossibility’ relate the difficulty of accepting the notion of mankind from an objective and generalizing angle.

Somehow I can’t figure it out. Help me.  –> he is feeling lost, in a way ‘outside’ the time when Tolstoy made that confession. Kris’s ‘lack of orientation’ also connotes timelessness; the feeling that such a statement could have been made at any moment in time. It adds to the philosophical aura of the moment by stressing the fact that mankind  will always confront itself  with this debate; it will always be a question of relating ourselves/ the individual with the collective.

See, I love you. But love is a feeling we can experience but never explain. –> this is another recognition of puzzlement – in front of Love itself and: the mechanisms of human psychology this time, which results in a conclusion of an aphoristic tone.

One can explain the concept. You love that which you can lose: Yourself, a woman, a homeland. –> He is defining the causes for which man has fought for all throughout history. The ‘values’ that man believes he should respect, treasure and preserve. This statement also highlights the strong bond between man and his environment, which subsequently identifies the connectedness of man with Earth as homeland.

Going back to the Russian context, and considering the social status of that time, of  the communist regime, we can distinguish the political remark that the film makes here, and at other moments – with subtlety. It is a statement of remorse in a way, a statement that delineates patriotism and questions the devotion to a country/ homeland.

Until today, love was simply unattainable to mankind, to the Earth. –> This line stresses the importance of ‘today’; the present moment/our current state of experience and of the goal/ Love. It also creates a link between mankind and the Earth, comparable to the way in which we identify Solaris as an entity. A simultaneous perception.

Do you understand me, Snaut? –> He is raising the questions of man’s need for a confirmation through Communication .

There are so few of us. A few billion altogether. A handful! –> In the perspective of the Cosmos/ infinity and the Universe/ man realizes and  needs to realize the unaltered, broad and objective perspective. His relationship within and as part of the nature together with the sense of responsability. All these come from the need to come to terms with his condition, as a result of the search for awareness.

Maybe we’re here in order to experience people as a reason for love. Aa? –> In the context, to be ‘here’ represents  an environment for souls to experience love, the offer/option of interaction between souls. While we had the condition with the statement before, now we have the process and the outcome. This sums up a possibility, an explanation of the quest that man/ the soul has embarked on./ Related to ‘the quest’ come, making use of apropriation the notion of the voyage and that of navigation.

//Cut to a scene on another corridor:

Dr.Snaut: – He seems to have a fever. –> We are associating and identifying hallucination: a state of altered health when the condition of fever is declared. It is also, from Kris’s point of view – a confirmation that the others are holding him back, stopping him from getting the answers he desperately needs.

Kris Kelvin: – How did Gibarian die? You still haven’t told me. –> Kris’s confusion and distress.

Dr.Snaut: – I’ll tell you. Later. –> a reassurance is in attendance, in order to clam Kris’s appeal.

Kris Kelvin: – Gibarian didn’t die of fear. He died of shame. – Death is perceived as the only gesture of freedom left for Gibarian. And Gibarian’s comments/ allusion to a potential suicide act  from Kris’s part stand as an added message of justification. Anyone that has spent long enough facing Solaris – an entity in front of which any human being lay naked; baring no secret thoughts, having no personal space but the most sincere communication – is facing the most difficult challenge. Submitting oneself to this Field that brings out all fears and remorse,  ‘allows’ all demons to run free, comes out of hope for finding healing along with confrontation. It can be a conscious or unconscious act. Gibarian, Sartorius and Snaut ended up on the station by chance, but they stayed there to analyse Solaris and its action. They answered the challenge out of curiosity but also out of duty. A duty towards the ‘spirit of the exploration’ together with the duty towards mankind’s explorations and secondly the duty towards their own ‘spirit’.

Shame – the feeling that will save mankind. –> By connecting ‘shame’ with the act of suicide, Kris does not defend the act itself, nor recommends it to the whole of mankind when faced with all possible ‘inner demons’ true or invented.. he is in actual fact stating that the most important value for a human being is Honesty; only when one is true to their peers and to himself can one say he is truly free.

Also, during this final sequence of the excerpt we get to have a preview of the ‘light’, a symbol of discovery, enlightenment, a link with the ending scene of the film.

Initial Questions:

• Solaris: 1/ Why is the planet named Solaris? 2/ How were the ‘special effects’ realised? 3/ Why is Kris’s name ‘Kelvin’ and why does he mention ‘pity’ and ‘shame
• The film: 1/ What was the socio-political context of  the film? 2/ How did Tarkovsky regard cinema as a medium and what role did Time play in his movies? 3/ What are the implications of an adaptation on a novel? 4/ What are the metaphors of the film and what archetypes do they relate to?
• Love: 1/ Why does Kris feel the need to reassure himself that ‘what is indispensable to life’ cannot also be harmful to it? 2/ To whom is Kris addressing his question/statement : ‘See, I love you!’ ?[Although he is looking at the ocean on Solaris he is connoting his personal experience of love and talking in fact about mankind] 3/Why did he say that love was ‘unattainable’ to mankind until today? 4/ What role does uncertainty play in human interaction/ communication? 5/ What about in the attempt to communicate with the/an alien entity?
• Audience/Impact: 1/ What Reality is the film outlining? 2/ How did the general public react to the film’s message at the time of the release and what are the views on it now?

* “„Solaris” is the most famous of Lem’s novels.  It had been reviewed many times in various countries and in various languages.  It belongs – probably as no other Polish literary work – to the core of its genre, to the canon: a novel about contact with aliens cannot be omitted  in discussions of world science fiction.  Why has „Solaris” achieved this status?  Probably because the book not only present(s) the most original vision of the alien world known to science fiction, but in the most interesting and emotional way (it) present the drama of cognition and its entanglement in literature, in telling stories that (which) is so inseparable for (the) human culture.” [from http://english.lem.pl/works/novels/solaris – accessed on 21 October 2009]

**Pramaggiore, Maria; Wallis, Tom. Film. A critical introduction. 2^nd ed. Laurence Koing Publishing Ltd.- London.:

“The purpose of film analysis – breaking down film into component parts to see how it is put together – is to make statements about a film’s themes and meaning. Those statements take three different forms, each one related to a different level of meaning. The first type of statement is descriptive: a descriptive claim is a neutral account of the basic characteristics of the film. Most descriptions of narrative fiction films involve plot events. By putting together a series of descriptive claims, the viewer has arrived at a plot summary, a sequential account of the important events in a film. Descriptive statements do not present judgements or discuss the significance of events. But descriptions may go beyond events to refer to genre. An evaluative claim presents a judgement. An evaluative statement expresses the author’s belief that the film is good, bad, or mediocre.” p.26

“Film scholars have long divided narrative fiction films into three stylistic categories: classical, realist, and formalist.The classical style includes the type of films made under Hollywood studio system, in which the story is paramount. The various elements of film art (including lighting, editing, and sound) do not call attention to themselves as aesthetic devices: instead, they contribute unobtrusively to the smooth flow of the story. The goal is to invite viewers to become part of the story, not to remind them that they are watching a film. Most commercial releases adopt a classical style, seeking to entertain audiences by immersing them in a fictional world. Realist films reject some of the rules of the classical narrative in terms of characters, stories, and structure. Films made in a realist style do not priviledge the story at the expense of details that evoke characters, places, and eras. Their stories generally involve average, everyday people. Their plots may seem to digress, as filmmakers strive for spontaneity and immediacy rather than a highly crafted structure. (…) Ironically, a realist style may be experienced as more obtrusive style because it allows character and environment to take precedence over storytelling. Despite its name, realism is not reality. Like classicism, it is a style produced by a combination of techniques. (…) Formalist films are self-consciously interventionist. They explore (the) abstract ideas through stories and characters. As such, these films generally rely on unusual visual techniques that call attention to themselves as artistic exploration. Formalist films such as Resnais’s Last Year at Marienbad (L’annee derniere a Marienbad; 1961), Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972), and American Splendor (Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini 2003) self-consciously distance viewers from characters and plot. They raise philosophical questions about the nature of identity and reality and represent dramatic departures from classical style.” – p.27