YP

Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Solaris (1972)
A lyrical masterpiece; a thinking person's sci-fi; no cheap thrills
8 January 1999
The novel "Solaris" by Slanislaw Lem is about a planet that is covered by a sentient ocean, a single super-intelligent being that weighs billions of tons, and the human visitors that attempt to make contact. Ultimately the novel is about the impossibility of communicating with alien beings so totally different from us that no common frame of reference exists, and as such it is a profoundly pessimistic book. Tarkovsky's film had to simplify the plot somewhat, but all the essentials are there, and the message is more hopeful that what you get in the book. The film is suffused with a wondrous lyricism that, if you allow it to, will involve you emotionally and leave you drained. The production values are very good (the best the Soviet Union could offer), but there's nothing snazzy about the special effects. This is a very thoughtful drama that poses serious philosophical questions in a very engaging way. There are fine performances by Donatas Banionis as the protagonist Kris Kelvin, Natalia Bondarchuk as his mystery visitor, and Juri Jarvert as dishevelled, defeated Dr. Snauth (he put in a great performance as King Lear in Kozyntsev's Russian version of the Shakespeare classic). Make sure you watch this in a quiet room with no distractions--the haunting effect of the film, including a wonderful classical soundtrack, will be lost otherwise.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A great but ponderous work; covers modern Greek history by retelling ancient Greek tragedy.
6 January 1999
This is a landmark film, a must see for anyone that wishes to understand modern Greek history and politics. The plot is a loose retelling of the Oresteia cycle of tragedies by Aeschylus--the names of the characters (Orestes, Electra, Chrysothemis) are an obvious hint. Betrayal, revenge and redemption are only part of the story. It takes place in Greece between 1936 and 1952, years filled with fascist dictatorship, war, Axis occupation, civil war and repression. Greece's traumatic history is seen through the eyes of a traveling company of actors, who travel all around provincial towns to perform a single play: "Golfo", a pastoral tragedy told in folk-song-inspired rhyming couplets.

This is not a movie for action-loving, short-attention-span viewers. Angelopoulos and his long-time collaborator, renowned cinematographer Arvanitis, have developed a very distinctive style, and "O Thiassos" is an uncompromising example. There are no close-ups, very little panning, some slow tracking; shots are long (both in point of view and time); almost every shot is filmed in overcast conditions; actors are dwarfed by their surroundings, which are all unglamorous, even depressing in their wartime run-down look. One could say that the purpose is to accentuate the tragic, the sense that the characters are cogs in the machine of history; but ancient tragedy did the same in big style, opulent costumes, and terrifying masks. Angelopoulos' politics induces him to focus on ordinary people in ordinary surroundings instead. The result is strangely, hauntingly lyrical to many; a real downer for some.

The film came out in 1975, a year after the end of the dictatorial right-wing regime of the "colonels" (1967-74), and after decades of repression of communists and their sympathisers. Angelopoulos' point of view is sympathetic to the left/communist side. Under full democracy, it was finally allowed to be expressed. The film helped shape the political sensibilities of a whole generation of Greek baby boomers. Its sixteen-year trek (plod, some would say) through Greek history will probably bewilder non-Greek viewers, but it is a deeply affecting crash-course in what shaped contemporary Greece. It is also an impressive re-interpretation of tragedy, as original as any I have seen on film.
36 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed