3 ms·
Ebert's take focuses on the human aspect of Solaris, but the other aspect of both the movie and the book that is just as appealing to me is our inability to und
by redleggedfrog 4y ago
Ebert's take focuses on the human aspect of Solaris, but the other aspect of both the movie and the book that is just as appealing to me is our inability to understand the alien ocean itself. All the attempts to anthropomorphize its behavior fail, and in the end Solaris research is abandoned because the ocean is essentially inscrutable to humans. This theme is also covered in another Lem book, "Fiasco."
I love the idea of an alien, presented before us, completely available to us to interact with, and we cannot bridge the gap because we and it are so different.
It just leaves you with "What is it doing?!" which is such a wonderful contrast to the deep emotional impact that its behavior (creating the doppelgangers) has on humans. Does it know? Is it coincidence? Is it malicious? So many good mysteries.
- goatlover 4y agoThe aliens in the Expanse universe are also very alien and difficult to understand. Which makes their technology and civilization (for the Ring Builders) quite interesting. But yes, the point of the book and even the 2002 movie was that Solaris wasn't human, and yet we keep trying to understand it as it if were a mirror. That seeking out alien life is really just seeking out more versions of humanity. Which was Lem's way of criticizing popular science fiction. Most aliens are either presented as humanoid or monsters from our nightmares. But Solaris is something else entirely. I would say the Arrival aliens are pretty alien as well, even though they do manage to communicate their language to the main character.
- cscheid 4y ago> Does it know? Is it coincidence? Is it malicious? In case you haven't read it yet, you might enjoy Peter Watts's Blindsight.