Soderbergh's version of ``Solaris'' A visual poem filled with a sense of loneliness

Original author Rem complained about the film adaptation

Tarkovsky's ` `Solaris '' is passed down as a masterpiece in film history, but the original author Lem did not like it. No, I didn't like him, but after three weeks of butting heads with Tarkovsky, he told me, ``You're an idiot,'' and parted ways with him. In fact, the changes that Tarkovsky made were to steer the film in a completely different direction from the spirit of Lem's original work.

What Tarkovsky brought to ``Planet Solaris'' is ``nostalgia,'' to put it a little loosely. At the beginning, there is a depiction of a rural landscape on Earth that is not in the original work. Kelvin thinks about his family and hometown, and finally finds his hometown again in the ocean of Solaris. The theme of humans returning to mother earth even after reaching the farthest reaches of the universe is very Tarkovsky-like, and this was one of the reasons why Lem was so furious.

“Planet Solaris” preview

It's not a question of which one is right or better, but for Lem, Solaris was science fiction about philosophy and science, and for Tarkovsky, Solaris was a tool to delve into the inner world and roots of humanity. However, Rem, the creator of ``Solaris,'' could not tolerate the creation of a movie that had a completely different orientation from his novel.

Regarding Soderbergh's version, Lem also published a text containing criticism at the time of the film's release. He prefaced this by saying, ``I haven't seen the movie or read the script,'' but added, ``From what I've seen from some movie reviews, it seems like a happy-go-lucky love story, and it's a Hollywood movie whose intentions are completely different from the book I wrote.'' ” I decided.

It is not necessary for the original author to see the film adaptation of his work, and as the creator of the work, I think it is acceptable to say most things, but this is a comment full of misunderstandings about Soderbergh's version, and it is an ``out-of-line opinion.'' I would like to affirm that.