Thom Patterson from CNN expresses the issue of the remake in a very nice way: „Remaking well-known films can be the Hollywood equivalent of replacing the family dog or a favourite bathrobe: sometimes only the old one will do and a replacement is unthinkable.”
In my case study I will take a closer look at the two different versions of
“Solaris”:
Andrei Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” (1972) and
Steven Soderbergh’s “Solaris” (2002)
Is Soderbergh’s “Solaris” a worthy representative, replacement or addition to Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” or is it just like Patterson describes it, unneeded like the replacement of the family dog? Is Tarkovsky’s “family dog” so well-known and respected that a new “family dog” would be redundant?
First of all, one should notice that both films are based on Stanislaw Lem’s book “Solaris”. At least that’s what one can read everywhere…but is this so? Is Soderbergh’s film a re-adaptation of Lem’s book or is it rather a remake of Tarkovsky’s film?
I would like to analyse in what way the two directors developed the characters in the film having the book “Solaris” as the basis.
By analysing the way, Soderbergh and Tarkovsky present the relationship between Hari/Rheya and Chris and how the two directors develop the characters, I will also try to find an answer to the question whether Soderbergh’s “Solaris” is a remake of Tarkovsky’s Solaris or a re-adaptation of Lem’s book.
What are the similarities and differences of the presentation of this relationship in the two films?
Soderbergh for example never personally said that his film is only a remake of Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” but also, or even more, a re-adaptation of Lem’s book.
This would exactly apply to the theory of Jan Speckenbach, who mentions in his first part of “On the Remake. A cinematic phenomenon” that sometimes the director of a remake denies it to be one. Since it might sell better when it is a new adaptation of the novel - that also is used in the original film - that provided a basis for the remake and not just a remake of the original film. But did Soderbergh only refer to his film as a re-adaptation because it might sell better or is it really a re-adaptation?
Hari/Rheya (named Hari in Tarkovsky’s “Solaris”, differently in Soderbergh’s “Solaris” and same as in Lem’s book: Rheya) also plays a central role in the two films, and I would like to analyse the representation of her in the two films.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Introduction into the Plot
II. Analysis of the two Films with special Regard to the Characters
1. The Visitors
2. The Relationship between Hari/Rheya and Chris Kelvin
2.1 Hari/Rheya
2.2 Chris’ Reaction to Hari’s/Rheya’s Disappearance
2.3 How real are any of us?
3. The different Endings of the Films
3.1 Tarkovsky’s “Solaris”
3.2 Soderbergh’s “Solaris”
4. Character drawing
5. Marketing of “Solaris”
6. ‘Look’ of “Solaris”
III. Remake or Re-adaptation?
Conclusion
Objectives & Core Topics
This case study examines the cinematic adaptations of Stanislaw Lem’s novel "Solaris" by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972) and Steven Soderbergh (2002). The primary research question addresses whether Soderbergh’s version should be classified as a remake of Tarkovsky’s film or as an independent re-adaptation of the original literary source material, focusing specifically on character development and thematic representation.
- Comparative analysis of character portrayal and relationships.
- Evaluation of the "remake vs. re-adaptation" classification.
- Influence of director vision and cultural context on storytelling.
- Examination of marketing strategies and audience reception.
- Investigation into how the "Solaris" setting functions as a mirror for the human psyche.
Excerpt from the book
2. The Relationship between Hari/Rheya and Chris Kelvin
In both films the first appearance of Chris’s wife is presented in the same way: First, he encounters his dead wife in dreams and then, when he wakes up, she actually is present in reality.
Both actresses, Natascha McElhone (Soderbergh’s “Solaris”) and Natalya Bondarchuk (Tarkovsky’s “Solaris”) are angelic and very beautiful women.
When the appearance of his dead wife first appears, Chris feels horror of this materialization.
Although Hari/Rheya looks exactly like his dead wife, he knows she isn’t. Her memory of the past is fragmentary and she doesn’t know who she is and how she got to the station. Another point is, that Hari/Rheya, exactly like the other visitors on the station, cannot be killed – at least she cannot die like “normal” human beings die.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: The author introduces the central problem of defining cinematic remakes and outlines the intention to compare Tarkovsky’s and Soderbergh’s versions of "Solaris".
I. Introduction into the Plot: A summary of the core narrative premise involving the planet Solaris and the manifestation of subconscious apparitions.
II. Analysis of the two Films with special Regard to the Characters: A detailed breakdown of character manifestations, the core interpersonal relationship, differences in narrative endings, and the stylistic choices of both directors.
III. Remake or Re-adaptation?: A theoretical discussion applying definitions of remakes to conclude that Soderbergh's film functions better as an independent re-adaptation of the novel.
Conclusion: Final assessment that both films offer unique, valid perspectives on Lem's story and should be viewed as distinct works of art.
Keywords
Solaris, Andrei Tarkovsky, Steven Soderbergh, Stanislaw Lem, Remake, Re-adaptation, Film Analysis, Character Development, Science Fiction, Cinema, Subconscious, Materialization, Solaris Ocean, Film Comparison, Existentialism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this study?
The work provides a comparative analysis of the two film versions of "Solaris" (1972 and 2002), investigating how the directors interpreted the source material and character dynamics.
Which films are analyzed in the document?
The analysis focuses on Andrei Tarkovsky’s "Solaris" (1972) and Steven Soderbergh’s "Solaris" (2002).
What is the main research question of the author?
The study explores whether Soderbergh’s "Solaris" acts as a remake of the Tarkovsky film or as a fresh re-adaptation of Stanislaw Lem’s original book.
What scientific method is applied?
The author employs a comparative film analysis approach, contrasting narrative techniques, character depth, directorial vision, and marketing strategies.
What is the focus of the main section of the paper?
The main part analyzes the manifestation of the "visitors," the specific relationship between Chris and his dead wife (Hari/Rheya), the divergent endings, and the differing aesthetic "looks" of the two films.
How are the primary themes characterized?
The work is characterized by themes of reality versus consciousness, the ethics of human-alien interaction, guilt, and the philosophy of memory.
How does Soderbergh’s interpretation of the ending differ from Tarkovsky’s?
Tarkovsky’s ending is more open, meditative, and symbolic, leaving the audience with questions about reality, whereas Soderbergh provides a more explicit, Hollywood-style resolution focusing on the character's emotional choice to stay.
Why does the author argue that the film is a re-adaptation rather than a remake?
The author argues that Soderbergh wrote a new screenplay based on the original book, developed the characters significantly differently, and did not copy the visual language of the 1972 film.
- Quote paper
- Anna Zafiris (Author), 2004, Remakes: “Solaris” by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972) and “Solaris” by Steven Soderbergh (2002), Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/143309
