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