criterionforum.org

Posted: **Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:08 pm**

Macintosh wrote:so where can i find the script to Roadside Picnic?

Roadside Picnic was the source novel, and it's wildly different from the film. I don't know (or can't remember) whether there were any intermediate stages in which the script was closer to the novel, or whether it had its current structure from the first draft. Looking back at what I wrote above, we should also allow for the possibility that the Oz elements were inserted by the Strugatskys rather than Tarkovsky. I had assumed the latter because one of the elements in question (transition from black and white to colour) is purely formal and characteristically Tarkovskian.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:06 am**

I don't have any of the books in front of me, but if anybody is interested in the development of the script for Stalker, the Faber book of Tarkovsky's screenplays is a good source, specifically the intro to that particular screenplay. There may also be some info in his Diaries (also published by Faber) and perhaps even in the book About Andrei Tarkovsky. My memory is fuzzy about relevent details in the latter two, but very interesting books to read anyways. I do seem to remember that there was a lot of back and forth with the Stugatsky's before Tarkovsky was satisfied, specifically in regards to the portrayal of the Stalker himself (I believe he had originally been more thuggish)- sorry I can't remember more details...

Also, as some of you might know, Tarkovsky wanted to do a sequel where the Stalker dragged people against their will into the Zone.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:44 am**

I see that doubts have been raised about Criterion's rendering of the black and white scenes in Solaris. See the February 24, 2007 news item over at Nostalghia.com

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:56 am**

Odd, they collaborated with Yusov to get the b/w 'correct' and now Yusov is saying they got it wrong. Did they just not listen to him or has he changed his mind?

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:09 pm**

Odd, they collaborated with Yusov to get the b/w 'correct' and now Yusov is saying they got it wrong. Did they just not listen to him or has he changed his mind?

Maybe it's just old age. Yusov is nearly 80.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:21 pm**

Napoleon wrote:Odd, they collaborated with Yusov to get the b/w 'correct' and now Yusov is saying they got it wrong. Did they just not listen to him or has he changed his mind?

It seems like Criterion may not have asked the right question. Criterion quotes him confirming that these portions of the film were _shot_ on Kodak b&w stock. And this still seems to be his story. What Criterion may not have considered fully is just how the b&w portions actually looked _printed_ for original release print purposes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:32 pm**

Michael Kerpan wrote:It seems like Criterion may not have asked the right question. Criterion quotes him confirming that these portions of the film were _shot_ on Kodak b&w stock. And this still seems to be his story. What Criterion may not have considered fully is just how the b&w portions actually looked _printed_ for original release print purposes.

Actually, they quote him as saying that the scenes were supposed to be b&w when shown as well, not just what they were shot on:

Criterion wrote:He told us that the scenes were shot in black and white and that no additional blue tints had been added to the scenes in question.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:51 pm**

sevenarts wrote:
Criterion wrote:He told us that the scenes were shot in black and white and that no additional blue tints had been added to the scenes in question.

But this does NOT address the issue of whether the blue arose ("naturally" -- not through deliberate tinting) due to the way the b&w shooting stock turned out to look in the color release prints. Tarkowsky (and co.) may have taken advantage of a "flaw" in the processing -- and have been satisfied with the result. (This what I think his cinematographer is implying).

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:59 pm**

Michael Kerpan wrote:
sevenarts wrote:
Criterion wrote: He told us that the scenes were shot in black and white and that no additional blue tints had been added to the scenes in question.
But this does NOT address the issue of whether the blue arose ("naturally" -- not through deliberate tinting) due to the way the b&w shooting stock turned out to look in the color release prints. Tarkowsky (and co.) may have taken advantage of a "flaw" in the processing -- and have been satisfied with the result. (This what I think his cinematographer is implying).

That's true. The real question is whether the blue was there from the start because of something to do with putting b&w film on color stock, or if it arose in the prints over time due to degradation.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:14 pm**

sevenarts wrote:The real question is whether the blue was there from the start because of something to do with putting b&w film on color stock, or if it arose in the prints over time due to degradation.

Yusov says the blue was always there. Criterion seems to have forgotten to ask him this additional question before making its decision. They seem to have concluded (understandably perhaps -- but wrongly) -- from the things he DID say -- that the shot-in-b&w sections must have appeared in true b&w in the first release prints (when these were first struck).. the fact that these sections show up as bluish when seen in the background -- in color scenes -- should have provided a bit of a hint, however.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:06 am**

I just finished watcing this tonight, having seen the first twenty or so minutes on Tuesday. I'm not terribly worried about having missed anything, and whatever I missed I can pick up on when I see it again in Seattle at the Northwest Film Forum (plug!).

It was...good. Odd, strange, surreal, discomforting, frustrating, and at times on the edge of boring, but never disappointing. And always a masterpiece. I was really surprised.

I look forward to seeing it again in the theater, which should be a real experience. The library scene is one of my favorites.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:03 am**

Tribe wrote:If you found 2001 to be boring, than Solaris will be a big sleep fest for you. Not that it is, mind you. It's simply not your typical sci-fi movie...it's one of the "brainiest" sci-fi movies ever in the sense that the speculative elements take place almost entirely in the perception of the characters.

Having said that, it took me a very long time to "get" Tarkovsky. His films, with the exception of Andrei Rublev have little of what one would call action (and I don't mean "action" in terms of blowing shit up or car chases or anything like that). His films are deeply spiritual and formal. To a cursory viewer they come across as major yawners.

I think that that is a fairly despicable generalization. 2001 is in my eyes, on of the most empty headed "art" films (that is, pretentiously slow and ambiguously symbolic) I've ever come across, with such overbearing attempts at religious imagery as to be absurd. Like most Kubrick movies, it feels like a textbook example of what high art ought to be without ever actually approaching it.

Solaris, on the other hand, is absolutely (and much more organically) magnificent and mesmerizing, and the only sci-fi film I prefer over it is Blade Runner.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:26 am**

You really think it's "despicable" to say that someone who finds 2001 boring will also find Solaris boring? Go outside and enjoy some sun, man.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:20 am**

I saw this today at the Northwest Film Forum up here in Seattle (corner of PIKE And 12TH, if anyone's interested), where I saw Playtime yesterday. I saw it a while ago on DVD, and in a small theater with hardwood floors and fourteen people, it's just a completely different experience. I actually came about 30 minutes late (started at 6, not 6:30), but other than missing the set-up that I remembered well anyways, it was terrific. The odd, claustrophobic atmosphere is just incredible on a big screen. There was an intermission, too! I was surprised when he and Hari #1 were leaving his room to go to the rocket and the screen goes to black and suddenly it says INTERMISSION over glowing pink.

Very, very good. Being "forced" to watch it really helps if you can't get into it. That's what I hate about home theater stuff, it's too easy to be distracted. It really took me in this time. Before, it was maybe a 7/10, but this time defenitely a 9 (a little bloated at times).

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:59 am**

I just finished the remake and I'm happy to say that it's really, really good. I might even like it over the first, but then again it's a different film entirely. Everything about the new one clicked with me, I think. The set design, the camerawork, George Clooney. Very good remake. I'm just gonna tell all those people who like the original to check this out, because half of them are probably reluctant.

Continued here.

Posted: **Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:22 pm**

I am kind of shocked that they exist in the first place and that the Soviets even cared to keep them around, but I was wondering what you guys thought of the 9 deleted scenes contained on this release.

Overall, do you think Tarkovsky made the right choice to cut them? I think that seeing them is a brilliant insight into Tarkovsky's train of thought and how he made choices on what to include and what not to include, and what is important and what wasn't to the overall message of the film. Perhaps this will lead to a conversation of what other scenes you felt should have been cut within the similar vein of the deleted scenes? or maybe the scenes of the 9 that you think would have helped the film.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:53 pm**

The BBC recently repeated the series Ways of Seeing and I thought I'd add a link to one of the sections of the episode here since it felt like the same comments could be applied to the sequence exploring the painting in Solaris: the viewing of small elements, the use of sound effects and music to draw the audience in to the world of the painting and to create a narrative (in a similar way to Kris's home videos) and then a pull back to reveal the grand canvas on which the events are playing out - the macro and the micro worlds existing together.

While the whole episodes are up on YouTube, the start of this third section of the first programme looks at paintings in a similar way to the Tarkovsky.

That whole first episode is great and I could have put this link in association with a couple of other films: the linked segment goes on to provide absurdly Bunuelian but somehow logical links to the Goya painting in a similar manner to The Phantom of Liberty; and then the program goes on to talk about experts and the idea of the originality of a painting being a kind of illusion in an age of easy reproduction - something that is used to suggest a closer relationship with the artwork than someone who only sees through reproductions can have. There is also the conjunction of images to create 'false' narrative relationships (that also links in with the above ideas of absurd connections and 'reading' paintings) that could tie in with F For Fake.

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:42 pm**

Unless there's a newer Ruscico version

DVD Beaver

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:41 pm**

Open Letter to the Criterion about ORIGINAL (Dir.) VERSION of SOLARIS.

Hi Criterion and greetings from cold Russia!

sorry for my poor English, but please read this letter, it is important for the thousands and thousands of fans filmmaker Tarkovsky.

On Criterion DVD “SOLARIS” present а “Nine deleted and alternate scenes”, but it’s not really true. It's not "alternate".

These scenes from original (full) version of Solaris movie (“Dir cut” if you want).

It’s version completely different from released later of “Cannes version” (on main DVD). I emphasize – completely different!

A few hundred (yes, hundred) inserts pieces of scenes (more 30 mins). Many dialogues in existing scenes fully changed or added, many phrases replaced, some scenes are swapped and etc. Also partially resound audio-track.

Criterion has a unique (not available to anyone in the world) copy of this movie! (i know, you have only cam-rip of this version, but this is all that is)

Gosfilmofond (treasure/archive for all exUSSR movie in Moscow area) and Mosfilm (as copyrighter) never (NEVER!) would issue this version of Solaris, because in Russia it is not good for anything.

in 2012 all kino-world will celebrates Tarkovsky anniversary (80 years), and Solaris movie (40 years)
Criterion, please [fall on my knees] release on DVD this version Solaris. last hope on your

P.S.

For examples:

This is unique video from full version of Solaris. These episodes are not represented on Criterion DVD, but they are from the same film version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKYw0mn3LlY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ImrqiyODVA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And more. Why do we have a stripped-down version of the film? Because of the rules Cannes festival films to be no more than two and a half hours (for a two-part movies). The original film lasted more than three hours (in 1971 when it released) but for Cannes in 1972, it cut off. This is how the truncated version, which is then replicated and become. But in the Soviet cinema in the early seventies it was full version. There are witnesses who confirm this.

Also I have the unique original movie trailer made Mosflm’s in 1971 to promote it in Europe and America. This trailer contains scenes from the full version of the movie (which is not in Cannes version).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v65XxSpNNfs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:19 am**

I'd rather have a Blu-Ray than a reissue DVD of this one....

But with the deleted scenes from the DVD of Solaris being in dirty condition, if they decided to do a 'deleted scenes reinserted cut' or 'director's cut' as you say, the shift in quality would be too drastic, I'd say. Leave them cut until they find workable prints to use.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:28 pm**

manicsounds wrote:I'd rather have a Blu-Ray than a reissue DVD of this one....

But with the deleted scenes from the DVD of Solaris being in dirty condition, if they decided to do a 'deleted scenes reinserted cut' or 'director's cut' as you say, the shift in quality would be too drastic, I'd say. Leave them cut until they find workable prints to use.

I think you misunderstood nils' post slightly: the 'deleted scenes reinserted' method is impossible to begin with because there are too many inserts plus the soundtrack has been changed (sometimes drastically). What Criterion could do (and should do) is to issue the long version in its entirety on a separate disc/layer/whatever, just like the workprint for "Blade Runner" was issued.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:17 pm**

This has been announced for Blu Ray upgrade in May!

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:18 pm**

Solaris DVD Sale

We will be announcing new Blu-ray and DVD editions of Solaris as part of our May lineup. We now know that the black-and-white scenes in the film were meant to be tinted blue, and we have updated the feature accordingly. The supplements from the original DVD will not change.

The old DVD edition is officially out of print. However, we are offering it at a 65% discount from the SRP at criterion.com (use the promotion code RHEYA at checkout). We have a limited supply and will fulfill orders as soon as we can.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:10 pm**

We now know that the black-and-white scenes in the film were meant to be tinted blue, and we have updated the feature accordingly.

As I recall, those of us who argued that this was the case sure got lots of flack back in the day (at least at first). ;~}

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:42 pm**

Great to have this on blu-ray...but ever better to have Andrei Rublev released soon. [-o<

criterionforum.org

164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris

Re: 164 Solaris