<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Prestidigitator &#187; Soderbergh</title>
	<atom:link href="http://psyriac.com/tag/soderbergh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://psyriac.com</link>
	<description>Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:22:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Revisiting Solaris</title>
		<link>http://psyriac.com/2008/03/23/revisiting-solaris/</link>
		<comments>http://psyriac.com/2008/03/23/revisiting-solaris/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>PS</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books, Movies and Reviews thereof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Films]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quasi Philosophical Ravings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science Fiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Soderbergh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solaris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tarkovsky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ontheverge.wordpress.com/?p=614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tarkovsky&#8217;s 1971 original was a film I first watched during my school days; needless to say, I brushed it aside as pretentious drivel along with Kubrick&#8217;s 2001: ASO. A revisitng of the film during college proved futile too. I could never appreciate Tarkovsky&#8217;s long and rather plain visuals.
The recent passing of Arthur C Clarke drove me to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/">Tarkovsky&#8217;s 1971 original</a> was a film I first watched during my school days; needless to say, I brushed it aside as pretentious drivel along with <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/">Kubrick&#8217;s 2001: ASO</a>. A revisitng of the film during college proved futile too. I could never appreciate Tarkovsky&#8217;s long and rather plain visuals.</p>
<p>The recent passing of Arthur C Clarke drove me to revisit the film yet again, that too two weeks after I watched <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/">Soderbergh&#8217;s 2002 interpretation</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem">Stanislav Lem</a>&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%28novel%29">novel</a> featuring George Clooney&#8217;s buttocks. This time around, both the films blew me away. The films while being (long) meditations on grief, are also explorations of existentialism and love; themes that feature in the two films to varying extent. For the uninitiated, Solaris was a novel written by Polish sci fi author, Stanislav Lem about a planet (Solaris) being observed by humans aboard a space station. But it soon turn out that it&#8217;s merely the humans who are under observation. *<em>cue ominous music</em>*</p>
<p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/"><img width="228" src="http://ontheverge.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/solaris.jpg" alt="solaris.jpg" height="146" style="width:205px;height:140px;" /></a> <img width="159" src="http://ontheverge.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/solaris1.jpg" alt="solaris1.jpg" height="184" style="width:188px;height:141px;" /></p>
<p>Tarkovsky&#8217;s Solaris is unabashedly more philosophical; it flits across consciousness, guilt, memories and (drumroll) love. The protagonist Kris Kelvin finds that his deceased wife keeps reappearing aboard the spacehip. We are soon privy to the fact that she may be a manifestation of <em>his</em> idea of her; she posseses memories and characteristics only Kelvin is aware of. Kelvin cannot seem to come to terms with her and at one point tries to get rid of the apparition by shooting her/it off into space. Dr. Snaut, another human aboard the ship decides to broadcast Kelvin&#8217;s brainwave patterns to Solaris in an attempt to communicate with the planet. The ending is one I consider far superior to Soderbergh&#8217;s version. The brainwave patterns (<em>brainwave. heh.)</em> cause islands to appear on the planet surface; the islands are occupied by manifestations of Kelvin&#8217;s childhood home.</p>
<p>Soderbergh&#8217;s Solaris is exponentially more artistic with exquisite set design and photography, heavily inspired by Kubrick&#8217;s 2001 and like 2001 is a film that is slightly ahead of it&#8217;s times; a film that will be fully appreciated only 10-15 years from now by 20 something art aficionados and intellectually impotent folk like yours truly. The science is updated too; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson">Higgs Bosons</a> replace <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino">Neutrinos</a> as explanations for the spooky occurences.</p>
<p>I would reccomend both films but then again, what do I know? Stanislav Lem hated both.</p>
<p>Links:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<div><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1129/p14s02-almo.html">Philosophy in the stars</a>: CSM</div>
</li>
<li>
<div><a href="http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2006/05/solaris_and_the_phil.html">Solaris and the philosophy of consciousness</a>: Mind Hacks</div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://psyriac.com/2008/03/23/revisiting-solaris/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
