I have never heard there is a longer cut. Is this like The Thin Red Line rumor/fantasy that was actually just a workprint or was this shown at a festival?John Cope wrote:What I can't believe is that Soderbergh still hasn't managed to get his long cut released. I assume that evidences a lack of interest on his part to re-visit it, though I'm sure Fox isn't all that interested either. Nonetheless, it remains one of those elusive Holy Grails for me as I really wonder how a more languorous pace would effect Soderbergh's narrative technique.
Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)
-
aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)
-
Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
- Contact:
Re: Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)
On the commentary, SS mentioned a shorter cut. A longer cut might be interesting. Kinda felt that the movie (and the music that helped created the mood) was perfect as is, though.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Re: Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)
That's right. I'm sorry, my mistake. It was the shorter cut I was thinking of. Soderbergh mentioned that it was much colder and more abstract.
-
therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)
Revisiting this only cements how much I love this retelling of Tarkovsky's film. Soderbergh brings his narrative expertise in succinct and incisive details by way of masterful editing and skills that extract the strongest emotions effortlessly. I love the original but turning that into a brisk 90 minutes is a seemingly impossible feat, especially when this feels just as meditative and never rushed. Clooney's despair and psychological transformations, as well as McElhone's own cascading emotional expressiveness, form a union of isolative ennui and connective empathy even more alive and powerful in a similar sterile philosophical space, that disclose an opening of surging self-reflection and identity development in the viewer. Looking back over this thread I agree with John Cope, zedz, and domino especially in that this and the first film complement one another in a way that I can't imagine at least this film without that one as a foundation, but that amplified this one's effectiveness perhaps even passed that already-perfect film. I love both to death, but Soderbergh's audacity to birth this one into existence tweaking the exact right parts to deafen the same (and some different- that score..) senses in deeper, profound ways, is just extraordinary.
The flashbacks are crucial, fulfilling the nostalgic pain the first film questions, but delving deeper into memory as the most significant schema by which we assess our lives through philosophy. The areas of memory and authenticity are terrific complements for one another, and this film audaciously yet transparently asks whether the significance in memory is objectively authentic while surrendering to subjective authenticity as the overwhelming priority is perhaps all that really matters when the unnecessary fat of reality is stripped away. The present as a representation of that faulty memory though elicits a question of one's own doubt in not just emotional intelligence but philosophical equilibrium, and the surrender here, as opposed to memory, necessitates both parties coexisting in unity, which resurfaces the truths of the relationship we may bury in memory- with some selective memories popping up triggered by what may be artificial but is undoubtedly truth in its emotional power. The further complication that is so well executed in this version is if this connection is possible to sustain, or if impermanence should be accepted with gratitude or rejected with sadness, and the realism of all of these thoughts and feelings coexisting simultaneously in a complex whirlpool of humanity affirmed. The deliverance of that idea from the intellectual to drown in the depths of emotional validation finds euphoria of this blend of pain and serenity that only memory achieves.
All of this is intricately edited with the macro-intellectual conversations on consciousness and authenticity, and critically projects atheism as a form of close-minded egotism rather than submission through humility to find that peripheral and intrinsic truth of sentiment and spirit; eventually reaching a heartening place that finds the balance of humble inquiry into the marrow of cosmic containment. The third act exposition of one’s perceived identity as hinged on their soul mate to be born from artifice to wholeness is rightfully expressed as a crisis rather than muted solemnity in the first film, which of course carries its own unique intensity even if this feels more personally effecting in its allegorical exploration toward acceptance. The spiritual exaltation of perspective by way of individualized perception of meaning through signified memory is all that's left when all is said and done, and there is something incredibly moving about that definition of reality rooted in subjective significance, as well as the submission to the truth that self-consciousness, in all its pain and doubt, is healthy and the secret ingredient to self-forgiveness and finding meaning in life. The very end's position on objectivity as trivial and hollow in relation to the subjective experience is conceived better here by meditating on that personal catharsis, without the pan-out that takes an objective lens thereby somewhat diluting the impact in the original, instead cross-cutting with the planet without that exploitative continuity, driving home the optimistic impact in step with the final thematic plunge. This sentence is said often by myself and others but this is one of Soderbergh's very best films, and there are select moments that are more existentially touching than any film I can think of off hand.
The flashbacks are crucial, fulfilling the nostalgic pain the first film questions, but delving deeper into memory as the most significant schema by which we assess our lives through philosophy. The areas of memory and authenticity are terrific complements for one another, and this film audaciously yet transparently asks whether the significance in memory is objectively authentic while surrendering to subjective authenticity as the overwhelming priority is perhaps all that really matters when the unnecessary fat of reality is stripped away. The present as a representation of that faulty memory though elicits a question of one's own doubt in not just emotional intelligence but philosophical equilibrium, and the surrender here, as opposed to memory, necessitates both parties coexisting in unity, which resurfaces the truths of the relationship we may bury in memory- with some selective memories popping up triggered by what may be artificial but is undoubtedly truth in its emotional power. The further complication that is so well executed in this version is if this connection is possible to sustain, or if impermanence should be accepted with gratitude or rejected with sadness, and the realism of all of these thoughts and feelings coexisting simultaneously in a complex whirlpool of humanity affirmed. The deliverance of that idea from the intellectual to drown in the depths of emotional validation finds euphoria of this blend of pain and serenity that only memory achieves.
All of this is intricately edited with the macro-intellectual conversations on consciousness and authenticity, and critically projects atheism as a form of close-minded egotism rather than submission through humility to find that peripheral and intrinsic truth of sentiment and spirit; eventually reaching a heartening place that finds the balance of humble inquiry into the marrow of cosmic containment. The third act exposition of one’s perceived identity as hinged on their soul mate to be born from artifice to wholeness is rightfully expressed as a crisis rather than muted solemnity in the first film, which of course carries its own unique intensity even if this feels more personally effecting in its allegorical exploration toward acceptance. The spiritual exaltation of perspective by way of individualized perception of meaning through signified memory is all that's left when all is said and done, and there is something incredibly moving about that definition of reality rooted in subjective significance, as well as the submission to the truth that self-consciousness, in all its pain and doubt, is healthy and the secret ingredient to self-forgiveness and finding meaning in life. The very end's position on objectivity as trivial and hollow in relation to the subjective experience is conceived better here by meditating on that personal catharsis, without the pan-out that takes an objective lens thereby somewhat diluting the impact in the original, instead cross-cutting with the planet without that exploitative continuity, driving home the optimistic impact in step with the final thematic plunge. This sentence is said often by myself and others but this is one of Soderbergh's very best films, and there are select moments that are more existentially touching than any film I can think of off hand.