If I hadn't read the original book, I might have been terrified when I watched the first half. There are many parts of the whole movie that made me uneasy, which is due to the subtle use of the director's lens. Tarkovsky's shots are fantastic, whether it's black and white to represent the main character's subjective point of view and the world's objective and indifferent perspective (Solaris point of view), or the third-person point of view has always been missing a viewer (I understand it as a Laris is reading information), or the montages before and after are not stitched together with the usual viewing logic...all of which break my regular viewing experience. Tarkovsky believes that film is an independent art form, which is different from drama, novel, music, painting, video, etc., rather than a simple collection of other art forms, which means that film is a unique communication carrier. There should be its unique artistic expression, so many lines and plots in the film maintain a high consistency with the novel. I can understand this very well. It is still up to language and words to convey the discussion of philosophical issues, but even if That's right, the director still uses his unique film language to bring me novel literary feelings. In this regard, Tarkovsky shows the uniqueness of the film. So even if it's the ending, from the perspective of communication, philosophy or theology, I prefer the original book, which is more consistent in its expression before and after, but the director's ending has more human and literary expressions. To put it simply, Tarkovsky used poetry to deal with some theoretical bridges in the original book, enhancing the literary sense of the film. Finally, let me say that the scene of weightlessness in the library is so fucking amazing!
View more about Solaris reviews
