|
Opinion Summary
|
Pseudo-religious Fiction
by metalluk | Jul 25 '04
Pros: A seminal sci-fi work (especially for outside of America), ambitious themes, good performances
Cons: VERY s . l . o . w paced, weak science, implausible behavior, anti-science themes
Return to opinion
OVERALL RATING
|
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: Very much enjoyed the review. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Point taken about Kris's jettisoning Hari. I guess for it to be truly plausible, he would have to actually be at fault for her original death. Alternatively, the episode could have taken place after some faltering in his sanity had been established. But the movie's long enough as it is.
As for science, while it may be honest about what it can and cannot do, people are often mistaken or mislead about what it can and cannot do. Tarkovsky isn't saying the truths science has arrived at are invalid. He's saying that people have mistakenly let the validity of science's truths lead them to give it authority also in the realm of meaning. Like the cityscape you mention during the taxi ride, its architecture is utilitarian and undeniably works. But it is hollow and meaningless. Meaning is essential to human life, and science cannot provide it. Those who have discarded religion and philosophy in expectations that science will provide meaning are like the men on the station, left to dwindle in insanity.
Again, it is not that science has encroached on the realm of meaning. It is that people have malappropriated it. (It could be similarly argued that religion and philosophy do not necessarily, of themselves, encroach on the realm of truth, but can be malappropriated in that manner--and certainly have historically.)
I may as well also say I think the word fact is more appropriate than truth, since truth carries connotations related to meaning and blurs the attempted division. Ultimately, as you say, and as history has proven, those religions and philosophies whose divine 'truth' has more to do with meaning than with natural fact are those less threatened by science, those with the most far-reaching impact, and those that will evolve along with humanity.
-Andy
|
Jul 27 '04
9:05 am PDT
|
|
Re: Very much enjoyed the review. (Reply to this comment)
by metalluk
Rather than respond separately to each comment, I’ll respond here to all of the first five. I appreciate the supportive comments from all, especially because this review took more than average time, thought, and effort. As to thevoid99’s question, I haven’t seen the American remake though I’ve read several reviews about it. Since my film diet lately hasn’t included many American films, I’m unlikely to take a peek at it anytime soon, but will probably pick it up as a rental sometime down the line. The reviews seem to suggest that it is another example of Hollywood dumbing-down a nice foreign film. As for Stephen_Murray’s stand-up remark, I can only observe that, at my age, the difference between limp and languid vs. the alternative is less glamorous than it once was.
In response to the interesting remarks by panguitch: I make no claim of being expert about the thinking of Tarkovsky. If his concern, as you suggest is “that science has encroached on the realm of meaning” it’s really not a just issue. Science makes no claims of ability to examine by scientific method such issues as good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, purpose (other than in the mechanistic sense), or meaning. Science is honest about what it can and cannot do. By contrast, religions (in general, not one specific one), in my opinion, claim far more than they deliver. They claim a divine source, which logically cannot be a truthful claim for more than one religion, since religions differ on material points of dogma. They claim to be a moral beacon, but too often sponsor crusades, inquisitions, holy wars, intolerance, and persecution. If either science or religion is to be castigated for claiming too much of their respective epistemologies, I say let it be religion. We agree, however, that philosophy and religion are appropriate venues for seeking meaning. Religion itself, in my opinion, undermines its potential to do that in modern society precisely because many recognize that its claim of truth from divine revelation is bogus.
Truth is not the same as meaning but truth establishes boundaries that help guide the search for meaning. The speculations of philosophers, priests, and monks tend to extend into the absurd without the constraints of information. In psychology, for example, the nineteenth century speculations of Freud, Jung, and Alder provided interesting insights but gradually spun into increasingly elaborate nonsense and jargon. Today, psychological theory is reined in, a bit, by scientific research.
Religion does evolve (the Inquisitions are over), but not in its essentials. The core of supposedly revealed truths cannot evolve without giving up the central (false) claim. Intolerance of homosexuality, rigidity on the abortion issue (because of commitment to the dogma of the “soul” being imbued at conception), intolerance of other religions (as in Ireland and the middle east), proselytizing, and overlooking sins of the clergy still abound. The decline of religion will not be measured from year to year or even decade to decade, especially given the disparate levels of development of the various peoples throughout the world. The decline will, however, be measurable over centuries. Religions (or equivalent humanistic organizations) that adapt by specializing in “meaning” issues and surrendering the claim of divine “truth” will survive. Those that hang onto the claim of divine wisdom will lose currency.
I understand your point about Kari being the “one thing that could twist his sanity more than anything else,” but I don’t agree that his actions are internally plausible. Yes, it is reasonable for him to be upset both by the appearance of a material delusion and because of his deep feelings of guilt. He is a psychologist, however, and an educated and decent person. His response was to send something resembling a sentient being off in an escape pod into space where she/it would presumably die slowly from starvation or asphyxiation. He did this without so much as trying to figure out what kind of a being or apparition he was dealing with. A typical response to feelings of guilt, given a second chance of some sort, is either to attempt to remedy, make up for, or at least explain the failing. One doesn’t attempt to kill a person/thing impulsively from guilt over possibly having contributed to that person’s death earlier. We don’t repeat or escalate actions to alleviate a sense of guilt for that action. A person with the degree of lack of impulse control exhibited by Kelvin would have already been in the slammer back on earth.
|
Jul 26 '04
6:15 pm PDT
|
|
Limp (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray,  in Movies
is dull and boring unless on the certain party drugs...
|
Jul 26 '04
2:29 pm PDT
|
|
Amazingly Written... (Reply to this comment)
by thevoid99
I saw Steven Soderbergh's version which I liked but Tarkovsky's is the one I really want to see. What did you think of Soderbergh's version?
|
Jul 26 '04
10:19 am PDT
|
|
Very much enjoyed the review. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
skipping his dialectic like a stone on water past the anti-religious Soviet censors.
Nice.
I understand Tarkovsky's 'anti-science' theses differently in Solaris. I do not think he is saying that science has failed us in providing truth, and that we should instead depend on religion (and with Tarkovsky it should be understood that religion does not equate with church), I think, to use your divisions, that he is worried that science has encroached on the realm of meaning. In this sense he sees science as an incapable epistemology. Incapable of providing meaning. He shows us science's shortcomings not to question its ability to discover truth, but to remind us that it cannot provide meaning--and that too often it is expected to.
As you say, in the past fifty years science has taught us more truth than religion ever has. That fact has brought many to dismiss religion and philosophy. That leaves them to misappropriate science in their conscious and subconscious fumbling after meaning. This is what Tarkovsky bemoaned in modern society, urging a return to efficacious means of finding meaning. Lem too, for that matter, strongly parodied people's tendency to turn science's halls of learning into houses of worship, complete with clergy. In the past fifty years science has discovered much truth, but not one iota of meaning. Nor will it ever.
I think your discussion of Kelvin the psychologist's inability to manage his personal psychology proves Tarkovsky's point. His science has given him truths, but not meaning. And while those truths are useful, they do not aid him in the crisis he faces.
I also suspect you underestimate the ability of religion to evolve. Consider the religious developments of the past two centuries. Speculations about the demise of religiosity are comparable to warnings that paper books were doomed in the face of books on CD-ROM. I'd be surprised indeed if new ways of believing do not evolve in step with each advance humanity makes.
As for the characters' improbable actions, I also differ. Kelvin knew he could expect an apparition. He didn't know it would be the one thing that could twist his sanity more than anything else. For all he knew it would be Puff the Magic Dragon. The key to Kelvin's horror at Hari's appearance is the guilt he feels for her suicide. If similar unresolved issues brooded under your skin in relation to your deceased parents, the prospect of camping out with their doppleganger might not be so delicious.
Anyway, your discussion of the movie was nicely thought-provoking. Especially like your kudos to Star Trek. And most of all your correlation of Hari's ontological crisis to ours--she a construct of the planet, each of us a construct of all that buzzing going on within our skulls.
-Andy
|
Jul 26 '04
9:32 am PDT
|
|
l (Reply to this comment)
by trust12345
I very much enjoyed the review, particularly the discussion on science and religion and their proper domains, as well as the structural reasons the former is bent on reaching truth.
Superb-
John
|
Jul 25 '04
11:35 pm PDT
|
|
Solaris.....excellent review! (Reply to this comment)
by cntaur5, in Movies
I just had to note after reading this that you did an excellent job capturing the feel and theme of this movie.
cntaur5
Keep writing well!
|
Jul 25 '04
7:43 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.