 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: 'Solaris' posted by ldvictory on July 30, 2003 at 09:27:53:
The sad thing about Soderbergh is that he began with a pretty interesting independant film, then got taken in by Hollywood, which always goes out of its way to be accomodating with up and comers whilst slipping soporifics into their drinks, gelding and eviscerating them in their sleep so that everything that they do subsequently has that happy, glossy look we all know and love. Soderbergh is now safe in the same way Elvis got safe through Ricky Nelson, the Beatles got safe through the Monkeys (and Muzak!). You know, it's like seeing an ad on the back of a cereal box inviting you to "Join the Hip Hop life style!", "Become a Gangsa!", etc. Another example is Christopher Nolan. He was going in a pretty interesting direction with 'Following' and 'Memento'. Then we get his first comercial feature and what is it? Yes, a remake of a nice safe 'art film', 'Insomnia'. There are countless examples. Very few people can work inside this system and come up with anything genuine. It pretty much killed Sam Pekinpah. Kubrick had to move to England. And Welles ... Yes, Welles.
Follow Ups:
...tell us what you think of the original Solaris.Enough of that light, insignificant and easy Hollywood stuff - get real.
Big World real.
I have not seen the Tarkovsky 'Sorlaris' in a while but I was impressed at the time ... Not overwhelmed, I admit, but it's something I've intended to go back to. Have you seen the Criterion? Why I jumped on Soderbergh was that I thought the original was so all of a piece and expressive of a very definite sensibility and vision that I saw no reason to remake it, to in fact downsample it so that it would be palatable to cruder sensibilities. I also attempted 'The Stalker', I remember, but it defeated me with all its talk. If I were a native Russian speaker I might feel differently.
Don't feel ashamed - Stalker killed both my wife and me, and we are both native Russian speakers, of course. It is simply too trendy - the 1970 Soviet intelligentsia poking its own orifices, I thought.Yes, I did see the Criterion release, it is great. It is one of my perhaps twenty favorite films, far ahead of the 2001. If you haven't seen it in a long time, I almost envy you - my date with it after fifteen years or so was mesmerizing. It helps that Banionis has been one of the favorite actors for decades.
My feelings about the remakes - ALL remakes - has been completely negative all along.
Last night I saw again the Purple Noon - I saw bits and pieces of the remake and that was enough for me... Delon is not a great artist, but there was an ocean of talent between him and Matt Damon.
"My feelings about the remakes - ALL remakes - has been completely negative all along."An understandable point of view, but you should keep in mind that John Huston's The Maltese Falcon (one of my favourite Hollywood movies) is not just a remake but is the third version (a reremake).
Some movies are greatly improved by being remade, others not! Examples of better remakes include Scaramouche -- I'm a silent movie aficionado, but the original silent version is a plodding bore compared to the rousing tongue'n cheek technicolor version from 1952 with Stuart Granger -- ...and even the Mark of Zorro -- while I like the original Fairbanks version for it's technical excellence and Fairbank's athleticism, it can't touch the pace, witty repartee and swordplay of the 1940 version starring Tyrone Power.Then there are some movies which were grand achievements in their own rite and should've just been left alone. Films like Prisoner of Zenda, King Kong & Mighty Joe Young, even the silent Ben Hur (Ramon Navarro being a far better actor without sound than Charlton Heston is with sound), and Planet of the Apes (Charlton Heston does star in this one, but even with that drawback the original's material is fresher and makes more sense than Tim Burton's remake).
Of course, then there are movies which shouldn't be made AT ALL, much less remade, like Lost In Space, Charlie's Angels, the Beverly Hillbillies and most of the other TV knock-offs with rare exception, and movies like Solaris which were horribly slow and boring in their original versions. I'm sure that some will differ with me here, but I actually felt the seasons pass while trying to sit through Tarkovsky's agonizingly snail-paced flick.
AuPh
Well, it ain't remakes per se that bother me ... For instance, I like the Phil Kaufman 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' as well as the original Siegal. There are others I can't think of off the top of my head. That's not the problem. It's when a guy's last three films are remakes ... when there are so MANY remakes and, as you point out, TV show treatments, comic books, musical versions, send ups, rip offs, rehashes of all kinds, which points to a general unwillingness on the part of investors to get behind anything original. This of course has always been true but it seems to me that we're seeing a whole lot more of it lately and I'm bloody well bored with it.
I look forward to seeing the Criterion. Any feelings about other Tarkovsky films? 'The Mirror', for instance. Or 'Andrey Rubilev'. I have not seen either but they are definitely on my list.
I love them both and have them. I think Rublev will be easier on the Westerner (all those monks, dark Russian ages... exotic!), but some undertones will be missed - impossible to avoid this in a history-based film. It is monumental, substantial and deep... a treat to any serious film lover. Cinematography and directing are top notch.Mirror is trickier. On the surface it is Bergmanesque, no doubt, but with strong Russian flavor - miss that flavor and you miss great deal of essense, I think.
But these are just my "native" observations - I don't know how well they are translated, for instance, and this is critical, as both as full of subtle hints.
All these issues nothwithstanding, if you love serious films, these two are musts.
Among the Tarkovsky's works I like one of his first ones: The Steamroller and the Violin... beautiful little work.
"Ivanovo Detstvo" good too.
"Nostalgia" and "Sacrifice" - I think he was losing his true identity by that time. Both serious works, but less of Tarkovsky is visible in them, I think.
The beauty is all these are available widely. So - one week, and you are done!
Well, you talked me into it. I'll go for the lot. Actually, I'm no stranger to Russian culture, so I don't think I'll miss everything by not speaking the language. Translation in subtitles is always a problem, of course, but I tend to move with the visual rhythmns when it comes to film, which is really all you need to do in many American films, where music, montage and art direction are what's happening.
We all have to deal with subs - how else would we experience the miracles of Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa and others? I am sure in every such case we do lose some, but you are right - usually we manage to get absorbed in the flow, if the film is worth being absorbed into.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
