Sculpting Time - Introduction to Tarkovsky's Solaris by Will Self 

Tarkovskyi is GOD of cinema of all time!

@@art_means_artificial He is.

I mean it was alright to be honest...

Solaris is not a science fiction film

@@peterkelnerxd7009 No? What is it then?

The Quiet Earth : I remember seeing this on the BBC ( maybe Alex Cox's series of movie presentations ) in the 80's. I've never met anyone else who has seen it. "I wouldn't sleep with you if you were the last man on Earth !" ... ."I'm working on it ... "

That stupid dog painting? Pppppsssshhhhh

Bruegel's 'The Hunters in the Snow', forms part of the 'Cycle of the Months' series of paintings. Bruegel's 'Landscape with the fall of Icarus' appears in Roeg's, The Man Who Fell to Earth. The scene of Kevin kneeling before his father and the father embracing him alludes to, 'The Return of the Prodigal Son' by Rembrandt.

А я понял почему люблю малых голландцев

There’s a good breakdown of it by a channel called London Girl or something. It’s got layers of exploration of certain ideas. I’ll be watching it again and even though I enjoyed the remake more I think I’ll be enjoying the original more because the previously mentioned breakdown

perhaps you lack life experience to connect with it.

One year later that finally gets a deserved 'like'!

Will Self . . is that the dude's real name ?

Strugatsky bothers were a far greater source for filmmakers: 1. Stalker (1979) A. Tarkovsky 2. Days of Eclipse (1988) A. Sokurov 3. Hard to be a God (2013) A. German

lmao!

And Kramer

Source?

But if we knew God completely we would be God. To learn about him is what makes life interesting, even for eternity.

Solaris (the movie, not the book) is about shame and redemption. Blade Runner is about hubris and revenge (Frankenstein). Solaris (the book) is about hubris and a kind of healthy resignation. Frankenstein (the book) is about hubris and revenge.

@@talastra its definately frankenstein-based. One part of the 'steampunk' he mentions is not technology but the archetypes of a Victorian Gothic Horror. In as much as its also Noir, well Deckard is Noir and Batty is Gothic so there is a collision of past movements as much as technology.

​@@jorgepeterbarton I hear ya. For more context, Horace Walpole is usually "blamed" for inventing "Gothic" literature, with his Castle of Otranto (1764); he also architecturally revived a Gothic style at one of his residences, if memory serves, and this helped re-spark the fad for it later. But the main body of Gothic literature is women-authored and sprang up in super-abundance like mushrooms during 1770-1800. You could think of it as a romance (still the best-selling genre of book to this day), but spooky. Ann Radcliffe (1764-1823) became one of Gothic literatures foremost producers in her day and actually made the stuff respectable. This sets the stage for the truly accomplished Gothic literature of Shelley (Frankenstein), the Brontes, even Polidori's The Vampyre (Polidori was Lord Byron's doctor). So, all of this is before the Victorian era per se, which is more or less marked from 1832 onward. Having said all that, Bladerunner is actually not very Gothic (nor is Frankenstein for that matter). Gothic fiction almost always looks to the past (the most famous example is Stoker's Dracula, which depicts an undead remnant from the past beleaguering people in the present). The genre afforded a critique of the current social order by women, but they had to "mask' that critique by setting it in the "bad old days" of Catholic England, with its castles, clergy, and so on. In this sense, Frankenstein is more like science fiction, the application of science ("galvanism") to ghoulish content. I don't know if Radcliffe read Frankenstein, but it would have been interesting to hear her opinion on it. She insisted that Gothic "terror" afforded a sense-heightening, salubrious "thrill" (kind of like the fright one experiences on a rollercoaster). She contrasted this with horror, which "deadened' the senses. This distinction between terror and horror is still pretty useful, and I could easily see her criticizing Frankenstein as horror, rather than terror (and therefore not Gothic). Again, though, this is largely because Frankenstein looks to the future, into the past. This is why it is sometimes (probably rightly) called one of the earliest pieces of science fiction. So, it sits well with a futuristic steampunk world as well. Accordingly, there's more Paradise Lost in it as well (since Shelley drew on that for her original). However, and now I'm going to appear to disagree with myself, one of the most potent aspects of Gothic literature when it emerged was the "space" it afforded for women and daughters to criticise (sexual) patriarchy, something that could not have ever, ever happened in 18th century England openly. And Shelley's Frankenstein takes that "Gothic" theme to its utmost, not only having the Created (justly) questioning its Creator, but also allowing readers to pivot that critique (of fathers specifically) to YHVH the father. This is explicit with the Paradise Lost quotes in the novel. And so Frankenstein is really an all-out assault on the nature of the patriarchal family AND existence itself. Another person offering an equally thoroughgoing critique (from a very different angle) is the Marquis de Sade. So, like any book that manages to captivate the popular imagination and inaugurate a new genre, Shelley's Frankenstein combines existing literary elements in a new way that afforded a quite heady brew. In Bladerunner, some of those new elements have been amplified, but the movie and PKD both blunt some of the power in Shelley's work. Also (just as most people know the book Frankenstein without reading it), the same is true of Dick's (1968) "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Bladerunner is a pretty (very?) loose adaptation, but Dick did deliberate draw on noir, so at least that's faithful. Regardless, the point I wanted to make is that Tyrell is the bad-guy creator, and whatever one might think of the replicants in Dick's book, they are the troublemakers. Dick was very worried that the environment was becoming "animated" (like robots); and he demonizes them, and the people who make replicants. But he never questions technology itself. We have an overly developed habit of "letting technology off the hook." Bladerunner would be a deeper film, equal to Shelley's (not always well written, but full-of-ideas, like Dick's work) book, if it had Batty seeking revenge not against Tyrell but against technology.

So baffled by this too. I just checked and it's 214 pages! V weird and it undermines whatever else Self has to say, though I appreciate he loves the film. But... what does it need to be to qualify as a novel, 600+ pages lol?

The Body’s Grace?

Is love just eroticism? There is something deeper than eroticism in Solaris.

@@Kurtlane Before you insist on this, don't forget that Hari is Kris' ideal projection. So if, romantically, you can't get past your own desires for how the Other is, then you will find your erotic pessimism quite nicely confirmed. Well, not "nicely".

Yeah, I was hoping for more substance, but it hit some good points.

When a man is "not a Deist" you have to allow for his limitations. He is kind of like an incel trying to discuss what lovers do.

Maybe he meant cyberpunk?

@@sixbadseeds yeah, think so

A bit of both. Maybe "tech noir" idk. They have typewriters etc. And its a bit Noir. The buildings seem pre-ww2 20thc not late 19thc i suppose. Roy is like some gothic frankenstein though

No, he mean STEAMPUNK.

*CYBERPUNK* a genre of science fiction set in a lawless subculture of an oppressive society dominated by computer technology. *STEAMPUNK* a genre of science fiction that typically features steam-powered machinery rather than advanced technology. Yea my bad, don't know how i got those mixed up..

Obviously u had a question here. Now we have two answers.

@@framebyframe7035 Isn't it neither?.

In my view, he was referring to what used to be considered cyberpunk before computer technology really did shape our world post 1982. Steampunk is entirely superficial from a societal standpoint. It's Victorian age technology/fashion derived cosplay for 99.99% of participants. Very little produced by steampunk artists actually amounts to useable engineering. It is purely boutique pop culture and I have no idea why Will used the phrase.

Maybe you are too young for normality

If you don’t have the patience for this talk you sure won’t for a Tarkovsky flick! 🤣

The only person who is listening poorly seems to be you. How you got this from simply hearing a man reminiscing about something he loves is beyond me

Imbecile.

Books aren't better than movies. Books are a different medium than movies, so they create a different experience.

Zach Sutton duuuuhhh

...and this particular movie creates a fascinating experience, especially in relation to the type of experience other movies usually create. It comes from a different approach to filmmaking.

Zach Sutton hows that?

It has lengthy, gorgeous shots, philosophical themes and a beautiful sense of melancholy. It's also something that gets better with each viewing.