Stanislaw Lem (SOLARIS)
turbo
-- his books are impressive.
I remember that for some of his books
(e.g. "The Voice of the Lord" -- the English version is called "His
masters voice"
-- probably to avoid that some religious zealot may be offended))
I was too young (at age of 14?) and too unfocused to stand his style.
But later I came back -- and not just only once.
He is writing books, which an intelligent human may enjoy reading a couple
of times
-- so did I -- "The Voice of the Lord" I read a couple of times, "Solaris"
too.
I first read them first in German and later in English
-- now after having read both, the English and the German translation,
I recognize how much I may be missing from the original Polish version.
Lem is not so much into describing technical features of an advanced
civilization,
but he rather goes into the problems resulting out of new technologies or
meeting alien life-forms.
Also in his books Humans (from earth (grin)) don't interbred with Crocodiles
-- or even worse, with alien life-forms.
From reading his books, one gets the impression, that the author could not
care less,
whether his audience is going to like his books
-- or for this matter, whether a movie will be created after one of his
books.
Compare this with some infamous Authors I don't want to mention,
whose books were written with focus on pleasing different (even
antagonistic) interest-groups
and with focus on compatibility with a screen-play.
Also, Lem did not write books on the assembly-line
-- he put some thinking into his books -- and this takes time
-- thus, he created something for humanity
-- people are going to enjoy his books a long time after he will already be
gone.
Also, I do appreciate that in these of his books, whose story is placed in
the distant future,
the concept of the nation of Poland
(or for this matter any other nation created during the last couple of
centuries)
is rather not important -- his heroes are humans
-- their great-great-grand-parents may have called themselves French or
Polish or German or American.
I'm looking forward to the movie SOLARIS
-- I hope that it will approach the level of the book.
Pete Fenelon
> I don't remember when I read the first book by Stanislaw Lem
> -- his books are impressive.
> I remember that for some of his books
> (e.g. "The Voice of the Lord" -- the English version is called "His
> masters voice"
> -- probably to avoid that some religious zealot may be offended))
Possibly as a pun on the famous record label? :)
> I'm looking forward to the movie SOLARIS
> -- I hope that it will approach the level of the book.
Have you seen Tarkovsky's movie of Solaris? - it's a good movie, but
it's much more Tarkovsky than Lem.
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Michael Grosberg
<Snipped>
> Compare this with some infamous Authors I don't want to mention,
> whose books were written with focus on pleasing different (even
> antagonistic) interest-groups
> and with focus on compatibility with a screen-play.
How can we do that if you don't give us names?
All you've said is that Lem is better than... well, somebody.
Serg
> In rec.arts.sf.written turbo <tu...@gti.com> wrote:
> > I don't remember when I read the first book by Stanislaw Lem
> > -- his books are impressive.
> > I remember that for some of his books
> > (e.g. "The Voice of the Lord" -- the English version is called "His
> > masters voice"
> > -- probably to avoid that some religious zealot may be offended))
>
> Possibly as a pun on the famous record label? :)
>
> > I'm looking forward to the movie SOLARIS
> > -- I hope that it will approach the level of the book.
>
> Have you seen Tarkovsky's movie of Solaris? - it's a good movie, but
> it's much more Tarkovsky than Lem.
>
> pete
And Lem himself didn't like it...
Gillian White
"Serg" <ser...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f801178.02110...@posting.google.com...
> > > I'm looking forward to the movie SOLARIS
> > > -- I hope that it will approach the level of the book.
> >
> > Have you seen Tarkovsky's movie of Solaris? - it's a good movie, but
> > it's much more Tarkovsky than Lem.
> >
> > pete
>
> And Lem himself didn't like it...
I think we're all going to be disappointed by the new film. Soderbergh
appears to be concentrating on the Kelvin-Rheya relationship at the expense
of the more conceptual stuff. An early reviewer described it as containing
'gratuitous sex' and 'endless shots of Clooney's ass'. Clooney also said
that they've thrown out a lot of the background bits of the book because it
was too boring and long-winded. He didn't like the original film either,
which is probably part of the reason why he wants to remake it.
Now I'm quite looking forward to those endless shots of Clooney's ass, but
the rest of the various comments do not bode well for the intellectual
content of the film. I think it's inevitable that they will have to dumb it
down if they want to draw in the crowds. I just hope they manage to maintain
some of the original novel, and don't turn it into Event Horizon part 2.
The trailer looks good, but only if you haven't read the novel. I find it
kinda worrying.
Gillian
Rick Kleffel
'2001'. I suspect it will be very, very bad. That's unfortunate, as
Lem's easiy one of the best SF writers out there, and has written
stuff that would do well as a movie -- including 'Solaris'. I was
hoping to see a stunning multi-media faux documentary treatment of the
Solariana, which I understand has been entirely jettisoned. One can
only hope that the attention will result in another actually decent
Lem adaptation, instead of everyone looiking at this thing and
thinking 'What a boring POS -- why would anybody adapt an author who
writes that kind of crap?'
I'll have a column up on Lem eventually, probably something to
counteract the 'Yuck' rection that I suspect this movie will inspire.
I hope, hope to be wrong about this adaptation, but...
--Rickk
Matt Ruff
>
> I think we're all going to be disappointed by the new film. Soderbergh
> appears to be concentrating on the Kelvin-Rheya relationship at the expense
> of the more conceptual stuff.
You mean it's a character-driven story? Horrors.
-- M. Ruff
Philip R. Food
> > I don't remember when I read the first book by Stanislaw Lem
> > -- his books are impressive.
> > I remember that for some of his books
> > (e.g. "The Voice of the Lord" -- the English version is called "His
> > masters voice"
> > -- probably to avoid that some religious zealot may be offended))
>
> Possibly as a pun on the famous record label? :)
>
> > I'm looking forward to the movie SOLARIS
> > -- I hope that it will approach the level of the book.
Well... I have a feeling that this movie will be a pretty hideous
travesty of both Lem's 'Solaris' and Tarkovsky's 'Solaris.'
Steven Soderbergh can be pretty hit or miss. And I have a feeling that
there's going to be a miss on this one. (I loved Schizopolis, hated
Traffic.)
>
> Have you seen Tarkovsky's movie of Solaris? - it's a good movie, but
> it's much more Tarkovsky than Lem.
That's OK by me. Tarkovsky did something really incredible of his own.
As interdependent narratives, Tarkovsky's film and Lem's book function
together like two hemispheres of a brain. The book is very rational
and empirical in it's description of some very abstract phenomena--At
times it is like reading an Yves Tanguy picture. The movie takes the
same scenario and very successfully re-examines it from a humanistic,
metaphysical and emotional perspective.
I'll probably drag myself to see the Soderbergh film, but I have a
feeling I won't enjoy it-- Hollywood bigshots, megabudget CG effects,
slick sex scenes (not that there's anything wrong with those,) and
some explosions will probably be what it's all about.
Probably the only thing good to come of this will be the Criterion DVD
reissue of Tarkovsky's movie. Preorder now! (Barnes and Noble was the
best deal I found on it. 23 bucks.)
>
> pete
Michael Grosberg
> As interdependent narratives, Tarkovsky's film and Lem's book function
> together like two hemispheres of a brain. The book is very rational
> and empirical in it's description of some very abstract phenomena--At
> times it is like reading an Yves Tanguy picture. The movie takes the
> same scenario and very successfully re-examines it from a humanistic,
> metaphysical and emotional perspective.
>
I dunno, I read the book and watched the film. It was some years ago
but as I remember all the scenes in the movie were also in the book,
but most or all the outside scenes from the book were missing (so no
exploration of Solaris). Apart from that the only things that were
added in the movie are the picnic scene at the beginning and the
20-minute drive in the streets of Moscow (or whatever) - 2 of the most
pointless scenes in movie history IMHO.
The book was a juxtaposition of the humane and the non-human. The
movie was half a book - only the "humane" parts. I hope the new
version will correct that, without losing the strengths of the
Tarkovsky film.
warchild
manifest many strange attempts to mimic various objects and creatures from
the minds of the astronauts. These occur on the 'surface' of the planet,
and are view from the space station.
In the original movie, the only reference to the surface of Solaris, is the
final scene, where the last surviving astronaut travels to the surface of
the planet, which is represented by a little cottage. It is raining inside
the cottage.
Obviously, the new film could show the planet as the book described it.
I suspect that the movie will integrate elements from the novel and the
first film. More people will be familiar with the original movie than every
read the novel.
I also suspect that the movie will go down as 'an interesting failure', i.
e. will not find an audience due to its cereberal ambitions.
"Philip R. Food" <Food...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:82befa71.02111...@posting.google.com...
Hartmut Schmider
> > Have you seen Tarkovsky's movie of Solaris? - it's a good movie, but
> > it's much more Tarkovsky than Lem.
> > pete
>
> And Lem himself didn't like it...
High praise indeed.
Strange eough, but there seems to be films that are good because they stick
to the book, and there's films that are good because they don't. Tarkovsky
had his own world to film around in, so used Lem's as an excuse.
I like Soderbergh's films, but I'm not anymore likely to watch this one
than I would go for The "7th Seal" with Robert deNiro and Kevin Bacon.
Regards, Hartmut "unless Terry Gilliam directs it" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University | h...@post.queensu.ca
--
What hope is there for peace and human rights when I
conceive the barriers separating me from my fellows to be
mere obstructions on a network technology diagram rather
than the powers of darkness shadowing my own heart? SLT
Lewis Mammel
"Philip R. Food" wrote:
>
> I'll probably drag myself to see the Soderbergh film, but I have a
> feeling I won't enjoy it-- Hollywood bigshots, megabudget CG effects,
The Solaris ocean and its manifold phenomena cry out for CGI depiction.
You could probably do a couple of hours just on direct descriptions
in the book, and I'd love to see it. From the promotion clips, though,
I doubt there will be much.
> slick sex scenes (not that there's anything wrong with those,) and
> some explosions will probably be what it's all about.
There was actually a little action in T.'s Solaris. There was the
shuttle launch scene and some of Rheya's escapades were pretty
violent.
> Probably the only thing good to come of this will be the Criterion DVD
> reissue of Tarkovsky's movie. Preorder now! (Barnes and Noble was the
> best deal I found on it. 23 bucks.)
I bought it on tape a couple of years ago. I read the book a few years
before that, and it's one of my favorites. It really gets into my
head. The first rime I finished it, I went out and cut the lawn afterwards,
and the lawn, particularly the weeds in it, looked very strange.
I reread the last few chapters after reading these posts and realising
I didn't remember what happened, and the feeling came back. I think
it's a great book. Solaris is an obvious metaphor for the mind ( The
Harvest edition depicts it as a brain on the cover ) but it is a strikingly
rich metaphor.
Some of the comments about Solaristics put me in mind of the
strange state that physics finds itself in of late.
BTW, who else thinks he jumps in?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Philip R. Food
> "Philip R. Food" wrote:
> >
> > I'll probably drag myself to see the Soderbergh film, but I have a
> > feeling I won't enjoy it-- Hollywood bigshots, megabudget CG effects,
>
> The Solaris ocean and its manifold phenomena cry out for CGI depiction.
> You could probably do a couple of hours just on direct descriptions
> in the book, and I'd love to see it.
See, I'd love to watch a film like that. The morphologies in the book
played in my mind's movie with lots of the same shapes and feelings as
late surrealist/proto abstract expressionist painting--Kind of a stew
of Yves Tanguy and Roberto Matta, arranged like sentient weather.
It'd be great to see something abstract and unusual like that depicted
with CG, but what we'll be treated to will probably be the same slick
spaceships, hardware and planets that're always computer imaged.
>From the promotion clips, though,
> I doubt there will be much.
>
> > slick sex scenes (not that there's anything wrong with those,) and
> > some explosions will probably be what it's all about.
>
> There was actually a little action in T.'s Solaris. There was the
> shuttle launch scene and some of Rheya's escapades were pretty
> violent.
(Hari in the Tarkovsky version.)
Yeah, but it was a cool, intelligent, psychodramatic violence. You
weren't bludgeoned over the head with silly dramatic music, overacting
or fast-cutting--Which made it creepier and more violent.
Having a more ambiguous, non-hollywood set of cues gave greater
impact. As in, this is what it might really feel like to be in an
alien place, with strange things happening, watching someone die from
drinking liquid helium.
>
> > Probably the only thing good to come of this will be the Criterion DVD
> > reissue of Tarkovsky's movie. Preorder now! (Barnes and Noble was the
> > best deal I found on it. 23 bucks.)
>
> I bought it on tape a couple of years ago. I read the book a few years
> before that, and it's one of my favorites. It really gets into my
> head. The first rime I finished it, I went out and cut the lawn afterwards,
> and the lawn, particularly the weeds in it, looked very strange.
Awesome! My roommate and I sometimes draw Solaris planetscape
comparisons when we're throwing away weird moldy food left in the
refrigerator too long. "hey, lookit this one..."
I'm due for a re-read of the book soon.
Scott Kurtz
story much, much more than Tarkovsky did. If the film misfires, it is likely
to misfire along a different trajectory than usually happens with Hollywood
adaptations.
Lewis Mammel
"Philip R. Food" wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3DD334C8...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > The Solaris ocean and its manifold phenomena cry out for CGI depiction.
> > You could probably do a couple of hours just on direct descriptions
> > in the book, and I'd love to see it.
>
> See, I'd love to watch a film like that. The morphologies in the book
> played in my mind's movie with lots of the same shapes and feelings as
> late surrealist/proto abstract expressionist painting--Kind of a stew
> of Yves Tanguy and Roberto Matta, arranged like sentient weather.
Hmmm. Maybe Tanguy and Grosz. Heavy on the Tanguy.
> It'd be great to see something abstract and unusual like that depicted
> with CG, but what we'll be treated to will probably be the same slick
> spaceships, hardware and planets that're always computer imaged.
If even that. I'm afraid it's hopeless, but they've got to give some kind
of nod to the ocean, you would think. Tarkovsky's depictions were pretty
crude, but ultimately effective when combined with his aquatic plant
shots etc. It's a question of art.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Serg
> watching someone die from drinking liquid helium.
It was oxigen. Lem has weak spot for liquid oxigen (_Doctor Diagor_).
IMHO you can not drink liquid helium - it would evaporate too fast.
Jens Kilian
> It was oxigen. Lem has weak spot for liquid oxigen (_Doctor Diagor_).
That's nothing compared to the guy who used it to light his grill (and won
an Ig Nobel prize for it): http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/~ghg/
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>ser...@yahoo.com (Serg) writes:
>> It was oxigen. Lem has weak spot for liquid oxigen (_Doctor Diagor_).
>
>That's nothing compared to the guy who used it to light his grill (and won
>an Ig Nobel prize for it): http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/~ghg/
But not a Darwin, I see. Tanj.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Jesper Lauridsen
>Apart from that the only things that were
>added in the movie are the picnic scene at the beginning and the
>20-minute drive in the streets of Moscow (or whatever)
Hint: The cars are driving on the left.
--
Ask me for directions.
Philip R. Food
> "Philip R. Food" wrote:
> >
> > Lewis Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3DD334C8...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > > The Solaris ocean and its manifold phenomena cry out for CGI depiction.
> > > You could probably do a couple of hours just on direct descriptions
> > > in the book, and I'd love to see it.
> >
> > See, I'd love to watch a film like that. The morphologies in the book
> > played in my mind's movie with lots of the same shapes and feelings as
> > late surrealist/proto abstract expressionist painting--Kind of a stew
> > of Yves Tanguy and Roberto Matta, arranged like sentient weather.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe Tanguy and Grosz. Heavy on the Tanguy.
I kind of don't get the Grosz thing regarding Solaris, but definately
Tanguy...
Also, probably most appropriately, a guy who very sucessfully
incorporated surrealist techniques and ideology in the service of
making Science Fiction book covers, Richard M. Powers. This guy so
unbelievably rocks:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjk5/greatbooks.html
if he was still alive he could design the Solaris surface, for sure!
>
>
> > It'd be great to see something abstract and unusual like that depicted
> > with CG, but what we'll be treated to will probably be the same slick
> > spaceships, hardware and planets that're always computer imaged.
>
> If even that. I'm afraid it's hopeless, but they've got to give some kind
> of nod to the ocean, you would think. Tarkovsky's depictions were pretty
> crude, but ultimately effective when combined with his aquatic plant
> shots etc. It's a question of art.
Tarkovsky's ocean was excellent for what his narrative called for.
Still have no idea how they made those intricate, blobby clouds...
certainly wasn't CG in 1971 or whatever.
>
> Lew Mammel, Jr.