X-Men: Dark Phoenix Rocketman Люди в черном: Интернэшнл Toy Story 4 Дитя робота Kids Games 3 escape plan Curse of Annabelle 3 Curse of the Weeping Dylda

If the science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem is emphatically stressed in 1960 year, after having spent six weeks in 1970 with an accentuated cult director Tarkovsky, he called him a fool and left, I wonder how he would call today the accentuated Hollywood director Soderbergh and how long? This does not mean that Lem is the ultimate truth, but at least he has a sense of humor. He has it to such an extent that old claims of Lem to Tarkovsky are now working towards Soderberg almost one to one:

1. "I would like to see the planet Solaris, but, unfortunately, the director deprived me of this opportunity, since he made a chamber film."

2. "He did not shoot at all" Solaris, "but" Crime and Punishment. " After all, the film follows only that this pesky Calvin brought poor Hari to suicide, and then for this reason he was tormented with remorse ".

Shot from the movie

Shot from the film "Solaris"

3. "But by me, the phenomenon of the next appearance of Hari was used for the concept, which almost goes back to Kant. There is, after all, the unknowable, Ding an sich, a thing in itself, it is impossible to break through to. "

4. "I have Calvin decide to stay on the planet without any hope, and Tarkovsky created a picture in which there is an island, and on it a house. And when I hear about the house and the island, I almost get out of myself from outrage. " The difference here is only in the last paragraph: Soderberg instead of a house - a cozy apartment, not on the island, but right somewhere in New York. Sitting in her is not Father Grinko in a tanned sleeveless jacket, but Hari herself, who for some reason has now become Rhea. But this is also like on the "unknowable" Solaris.

Shot from the movie

Shot from the film "Solaris"

Let Lem did not create a literary masterpiece, he did not aspire to this. His novel is stylistically seriously outdated and sometimes very boring. But the intellectually novel nevertheless became an archetype, having managed to dispense with the "hope" sucked from the finger and present life next to pure uncertainty - from day to day, from minute to minute. In this aspect, it is impossible not to take his side next to both adaptations. The screenwriters could not do without fears and complexes, without filling the archetype with any ideology, any illusion, just to not face life in the limit, do not take off the rose-colored glasses. Tarkovsky, in terms of the novel, filled the unknown with the return of the prodigal son, Soderberg - with love for his own wife, which is basically the same: if in Russian self-deception is always religious, in Hollywood, of course, he is in the "family - the unit of society".

But Tarkovsky's film distinguished the unity of style, and if intellectually it is Lema's weakness, it is stronger aesthetically. Aesthetically, he is also an archetype - to take at least the last frame, which is still being ransacked by everyone who is not lazy, including Spielberg. What did Soderbergh do next to him? Soderbergh in Hollywood put on a sensation - Clooney in the role of Banionis and even the fact that Clooney will be naked. What's the result of this? Let's just say: I wanted to make sure that the new "Solaris" is really as bad as they say about it. We were convinced in full. I report: naked Clooney, so shy on the set that the whole world press wrote about this, takes about ten seconds, standing in the shadows at the back of the frame, back to the camera in an embrace with Natasha McAlone. Vaguely visible swarthy ass, then another couple of seconds - hairy arms, hairy legs, hairless chest and his large pink nipple. All things. No even super-eternal love, for which you can even sacrifice your life, does not express a nipple, no ass, no further conversations.

Shot from the movie

Shot from the film "Solaris"

The film lasts another hour and a half, and the problem is that Clooney did not have to play the role of Banionis, it would be better to take Daniel Day Lewis, as they planned. Day Lewis at least love knows how to play ("The Age of Innocence" by Martin Scorsese). And here all the movies can be seen that Clooney and McAlown are not at all suited to each other, they are not important for each other and at every given moment they do not think about what they say and do in this frame. In the eyes it can be seen - they are all this problematic, even with a conscience, even with love, not just what is there with the unknown, in life it did not concern. Similarly with other characters. For a long time we did not encounter such a poorly played movie, as if the only thing that worried the actors was not to confuse the words of their replicas, which they understand, roughly like the language of ancient Sumerians.

However, between the "sensations" Soderberg piled up such immobility, that you manage to forget about them. The characters - five people plus a couple of extras, all on major plans and no "general picture", so that they at least really encountered the Ocean. No Ocean at a budget of 47 million, but Clooney, normally walking in a normal cloak on a normal street, suddenly in a corner alone, an idiotic suit, puffed up like a fireman, is wearing. From what a fright? Then he, thank God, again all the movies in family pants and a T-shirt, but then suddenly the crib at the station is somehow suspicious. Type "pneumatic", as in Lem. What's this? Lem had a lot of technical details - not the best, but the vast part of the novel, and then there really is no Solaris. If the general plan of the cosmos accidentally arises - a very pathetic plagiarism from the Space Odyssey - then it's not when "space is on the line", but only so that time can be stretched. Clooney thinks.

Shot from the movie

Shot from the film "Solaris"

In general, where fiction is appropriate, there is no one doing it, but everything that is inappropriate to pain is done. The whole "concept" of Soderbergh is slowly, slower, even slower to show how someone sat down heavily, stood up, dragged himself along the narrow gray corridor plus a long stream of sweat dripping from his forehead before another static general plan of the "cosmos". Probably, in this way it was supposed to bring cryptic words about conscience, about brains, about the lost time to ordinary Americans. Soderbergh does not even pretend to be a "Solaris" - for ordinary Americans this business is not very strong. He would at least have something, at least a little to convey to them that not the amount in words and not the marriage contract.

But the problem is that those who need a marriage contract need shooting games, catching up in a crowd of thousands and magical special effects, and only the mysteriousness of words, and not the words themselves, will reach them at best. Will be proud that for an hour and a half sat and listened to Sumerian, without translation, because the main thing - what? To sit. Those who knowingly do not need a marriage contract are unlikely to want to spend an hour and a half of their lives on the fact that if Kant died in our Königsberg in 1804 year, ordinary Americans did not live up to 1724 when he was born in our own way. "Love-blood-detective" does not justify the current "Solaris" by an iota, especially if you remember the much more adequate "Truman Show", "Special Opinion" or even "Others". So the film is intended for a very narrow audience - inquisitive junior schoolchildren of 10-14 years, who do not mind losing time, but thinking of the head is still a novelty, although it would be desirable.

Stay tuned and get fresh reviews, compilations and news about the movies first!

Yandex ZenYandex Zen | InstagramInstagram | TelegramTelegram | TwitterTwitter


Do you like the material?

Maybe you will be interested?

Subscribe to us and be always up to date!

I do not want to see this anymore
G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!