Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

my eyes were going too, but I managed to keep awake. I preferred Stalker.

Well, out of the three you mentioned, I've only seen the Tarkovsky film. And by "seen" I mean watched 30 minutes before falling asleep. That's pretty damning, in my humble opinion, considering I'm not exactly the type of film viewer that requires Michael Bay-esque explosions; I mean, I love "Sayat Nova" by Parajanov, for god's sake, which is little more than tableaux vivants. I'm a Tarkovsky fan, mostly because of "Andrei Rublev" and "Ivan's Childhood," but you hit the nail on the head, Manny. "Solaris" was a total bore.

Oh thank you Steve! It's so nice to know that I'm not alone :)

Manny wrote: "I looked around at one point and discovered that the people on both sides of me had fallen asleep. "

Try being a mother of twins.

Good to know, I'm skipping this book that I thought would either be awesome or a total bust, and just watching the Soderberg film. Too many books to read anyways...

I really liked the Soderberg movie version. It's possible that the book is the translator's fault - Mikael Kandel's translation of The Cyberiad is terrific.

I'll check that one out. Rough translations can really ruin a good thing. George Clooney, he can't ruin a good thing, so I'll definitely watch it.

I think there was a time and a place to see the Tarkovsky, and it might not be now. I saw it a long time ago, when the pace of life and movies was a lot slower than it is today.

I watched it in 1979, and as you will gather it was kinda slow even then...

Manny wrote: "I watched it in 1979, and as you will gather it was kinda slow even then..."

Me too, but we kind of expected that of art films then, at least here. The only film I've ever walked out on because it as too slow was Realm of the Senses, even though it had other redeeming features.

I was alerted that a review I commented on--this one--was seeing some action, so I popped in to read what I originally wrote. I can't say anything has changed for me as of yet, but I have got a copy of the novel now, and plan to read it soon. If I give it 2 stars or less, I think I'll just pass on trying to give the Tarkovsky film another shot and skip straight to the Soderberg version!

Solaris suffers by infamously bad English translation which was done through French. New English translation came in 2011. This contains some details

I had no idea! Thank you.

I saw Tarkovsky's version many many years ago and loved it. Then I read the book and was bored to tears. Perhaps it's time to revisit (via the new translation and the remake).

It sounds like all six orders may be possible here! The Soderberg remake is very different from the original...

Here's interesting article Lem wrote when he heard about US movie :

"The Soderbergh movie supposedly has a different, more optimistic finale. If this were the case this would signify a concession to the stereotypes of American thinking regarding science fiction. It seems that these deep, concrete ruts of thinking cannot be avoided: either there is a happy ending or a space catastrophe. "

"Summing up, as "Solaris"' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled "Solaris" and not Love in Outer Space."

Thanks, that's an interesting piece! But as Lem says, he hasn't actually seen the Soderbergh movie, and I think he's being less than fair to it...

Manny wrote: "Thanks, that's an interesting piece! But as Lem says, he hasn't actually seen the Soderbergh movie, and I think he's being less than fair to it..."

Manny, do you recommend seeing the Soderbergh movie first and then reading the novel? Usually, the order should be reversed, but, as the two are so different, perhaps, in this case, one should see the movie first and then read the book.

I first read the book, then I saw the newer movie - liked both a lot. I have the older movie (too), but I haven't watched it yet. Reading the book first was IMO a good thing; I certainly noticed that the (newer) film gave me a whole different view on the story, not necessarily bad but the book felt gentler :)

7jane wrote: "Reading the book first was IMO a good thing; I certainly noticed that the (newer) film gave me a whole different view on the story, not necessarily bad but the book felt gentler :) "

Thank you for the advice. I've bought the book on Audible.

The new movie version is one of the most underrated movies ever! It does change some things though to keep it interesting.

Brent wrote: "The new movie version is one of the most underrated movies ever! It does change some things though to keep it interesting."

I think people (including Lem, it seems) somehow just decided it was cool to hate it. I mean, it had George Clooney and it was a love story - must be crap, right? As you say, undeserved.

i like tarkovsky's solaris and stalker- but i admit it took a friend and i years, and probably 5-6 attempts, to get through the latter. there's even a very relaxing part about halfway through that movie where the main characters take a nap- it seems like an intentional nod to the audience.

Manuel wrote: "The fact that someone falls asleep watching Tarkovky's Solaris falls on whose shoulders? Shakespeare has said much better: "the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves"..."

I am sure Julius Caesar would not fall asleep during Solaris. But for us poor underlings...

Mike wrote: "i like tarkovsky's solaris and stalker- but i admit it took a friend and i years, and probably 5-6 attempts, to get through the latter. there's even a very relaxing part about halfway through that ..."

Thank you Mike, we must organize a Stalker evening with a scheduled nap halfway through. Though I'm not sure I can count on Not to nap only when ordered to.

I've seen Tarkovsky's Solaris twice, and I have to admit that, on both occasions, I felt an irresistible urge to sleep afterwards (and during, come to that). The second time was made particularly painful by the fact that the cinema had rather uncomfortable seats. Although ironically this perked up my viewing experience, as I was able to focus on the numbness and pain spreading through my lower body rather than the long, protracted close-ups of inanimate objects. Objectively, I see why his films are so highly praised. Subjectively, I don't have enough patience to appreciate them that much.

Charlotte, you are giving me a virtually irresistible urge to buy a hairshirt and watch Solaris a second time. I just can't decide whether to wait until my Russian has improved a bit or do it at once.

My order is Lem, Soderberg and then Tarkovsky. The beginning of the Tarkovsky movie didn't put me to sleep, but just about.

Lol dumb

Americans falling asleep to Tarkovsky. Surprise:-))))))

I am British, but that doesn't matter. I think anyone can fall asleep in the middle of Solaris.

Milan wrote; "Summing up, as "Solaris"' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled "Solaris" and not Love in Outer Space."

Well, it certainly did that. My guess is that people were expecting a literal revelation from streaking-at-the-time, and pervasive Tarkovsky. The calmness disappointed, or it was time for the public to turn against its former hero.

Frankly, I didn't like the movie either.

Artistic "visions" and intents of interest to scholars, it is always more relevant how the work is seen by the public. Cry all the way to the bank.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..........
.

What? Oh, yes, yes. I heard every word you said, I was just resting my eyes.

But Michael Kandel, who translated most of his books, seems to be an expert on Polish? Looking around, I like this passage:

I used analogues a lot. So, for example, in a story where the inhabitants of a planet speak in medieval Polish, I went through Chaucer for things like ywis. A proud moment: In Krakow once I was complimented on catching a joke in The Cyberiad: a warrior cries “Awruk� when he attacks. Awruk backward is kurwa, which is what a Pole says when he hits his thumb with a hammer � I heard that curse not so long ago in Chinatown, from a man working on a road repair. Literally, it’s “whore,� but the sense is extremely rude in the vein of “fuck.� The complimenter, a Ukrainian, told me that all the other translators missed that. (The translation said, “Tikcuf!�)

Manny wrote; "What? Oh, yes, yes. I heard every word you said, I was just resting my eyes."

I fully expect some compensation from you and Woody. Nyquil doesn't come for free buster.

I think I also read Kilmartin and Cox, hence the low star rating. I loved Kandel's translation of The Cyberiad.

I was once told I really need to see Tarkovsky's Solaris because it's 'just the sort of thing you like'. Accordingly I've never bothered.

There must be some better way to phrase that.

Your review inspired me, Manny! I'm giving this novel a whirl.

Manny, you have to take a look at the new Polish-to-English translation. I asked about the puns in the Cyberiad, and a Polish friend of my father's laughed and said that the Polish loved English and that the puns we probably on purpose. The Bill Johnston translation is brilliant, and I'm putting off the movies until I'm finished. So far, the book is amazing, but like Pynchon and Foster Wallace, it might not be easy to make directly into a movie. I'll watch both movies later and report back.

This really could be a book that had a bad English (and apparently French) translation for a long time.

Manny - I completely concur with Randy above. The French to English translation in print till date is horrendous. You must grab the original Polish to English translation by Bill Johnston. For complicated copyright reasons it exists only in electronic format.

Thanks, Amitava. I watched the movies, and actually, I have to disagree with Manny. The book is the best (the new English translation), but the Soderberg movie is a very very close second. The movie takes some things away and adds some things and it is very very good. The book, however, has had a more lasting impact on me. But, 'yeah, about the casting in Soderberg: Snaut...yeah...about that. That's really something, isn't it? Can't really explain it...yeah.'

And where is the comment about the Lem's Book?

Heretic.

although I adore Tarkovsky, he is the king of naps.