3.9 of the Teaching and Examination Regulations

(1)

BA Thesis in Arts, Culture and Media Gabriela Gawęda

S3229505

Temporality and poetic imagery:

On the relationship between humanity and planet in Solaris

Word count: 12 052

(2)

Faculty of Arts Bachelor’s thesis Statement, University of Groningen

Name of student: Gabriela Gawęda Student number: S3229505

Bachelor’s degree programme – specialization: Film Studies

Title of final-year thesis:

Temporality and poetic imagery: On the relationship between humanity and planet in Solaris Name of thesis supervisor: Julian Hanich

I hereby declare unequivocally that the thesis submitted by me is based on my own work and is the product of independent academic research. I declare that I have not used the ideas and formulations of others without stating their sources, that I have not used translations or paraphrases of texts written by others as part of my own argumentation, and that I have not submitted the text of this thesis or a similar text for assignments in other course units.

Date: 20.01.2020 Place: Groningen

Signature of student: Gabriela Gawęda

N.B. All violations of the above statement will be regarded as fraud within the meaning of Art. 3.9 of the Teaching and Examination Regulations.

(3)

Table of contents

LIST OF FIGURES 4

1. INTRODUCTION 6

2. THE EARTH AS A SECULAR SPACE 10

2.1. WATER AS MEMORY 13

2.2. FIRE AS CLEANSING 17

2.3. FAITH 18

2.4. KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH 19

2.5. HUMAN MORALITY BASED ON MORTALITY WITHIN EARTH’S

ENVIRONMENT 20

3. THE EXPERIENCE OF TIME 23

3.1. KELVIN’S CINEMATIC HALLUCINATIONS 27

3.2. THE RETURN SCENE AS AN ILLUSION 29

3.3. THE PAINTERLY QUALITY OF THE VISUAL LANGUAGE OF SOLARIS 32

4. ‘WHAT IT MEANS TO BE TRULY HUMAN’ 35

4.1. THE LIBRARY SCENE AS A PHILOSOPHICAL DISPUTE 37

4.2. THE RESPONSE OF THE OCEAN TO HUMANITY 42

4.3. THE PROGRESSION OF HARI’S CHARACTER 44

4.4. THE ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON SOLARIS 45

4.5. GENDERING THE PLANET SOLARIS 48

5. CONCLUSION 50

BIBLIOGRAPHY 52

(4)

List of Figures

Fig.1. Screenshots of the scenes from the film prologue depicting the Earthly landscape at 5’05;

06’27 and 11’03………..9 Fig.2. Screenshot depicting symmetrical patterns of Tarkovsky’s filmmaking composition at 5’50………...10 Fig.3. Screenshots juxtaposing the positive and negative space of Earth and the space station at 5’17 and 46’57………....………..…….12 Fig.4. Screenshot of the main character Kris Kelvin with the backdrop of the natural environment at 4’23………....….……..13 Fig.5. Screenshots of water reeds from the opening scene at 3’23 and 4’33………...….14 Fig.6. Screenshot of Kelvin washing his hands at 6’58’ in the prologue of the film………....15 Fig.7. Screenshot of Kelvin standing in the rain ‘dissolving in nature’ at 10’14….………....16 Fig.8. Screenshot of Kelvin looking through a circular window onto the Ocean at 52’30...…16 Fig.9. Mirror reflections of Kelvin in a space station surface unbeknownst to him at 1’10’13 and 1’56’48………...17 Fig.10. Screenshot of the Solarists meeting at 16’04………....……20 Fig.11. Screenshots of Burton’s memories of the Solaris space station at 13’20 and 17’06....22 Fig.12. Screenshot of Tarkovsky’s use of allegory of the running horse indicating Kelvin’s lost time at 6’37………...25 Fig.13. Screenshots depicting the environment of the space station at 1’48’31 and 1’48’42……….………….…..……….……….…26 Fig.14. Screenshots of Kelvin’s dream-like state of mind at 2’23’08; 2’23’39; 2’27’16 and 2’29’08……….….27 Fig.15. Screenshots comparing the opening scene with scenes of Kelvin’s imaginary return to Earth at 2’42’34; 2’43’16 and 2’44’36.………..……...30 Fig.16. Screenshot from the scene when Kelvin kneels in front of his father at 2’45’06, towards the end of the film………..………32 Fig.17. Screenshots of Hari in the library room, looking at the paintings at 2’08’57; 2’11’03 and 2’11’28………...34 Fig.18. Screenshots of the character background of Snaut and Sartorious at 1’35’52 and 1’56’31………..…36 Fig.19. Screenshots of the contrasting viewpoints in the philosophical dispute scene at 1’55’46;

1’56’22; 2’03’38 and 2’05’47………...39

(5)

Fig.20. Screenshots depicting the moral transformation of the protagonist at 1’10’54; 1’49’07 and 2’13’22.………..…41 Fig.21. Screenshots of Hari’s character analogies depicted through colour tonalities at 1’29’10 and 2’04’21………...43 Fig.22. Screenshot of Hari laying on the floor beside Kelvin’s feet at 1’32’06…...47 Fig.23. Screenshots of the changing structure of the waves of the Ocean at 1’02’20; 1’49’33;

2’14’00; 2’21’26 and 2’25’53……….……..49 Fig.24. Screenshot of the other female memory materialization appearing on board of the station at 1’02’57………..……50

(6)

1. Introduction

Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986) was a Soviet filmmaker and film theorist. During his lifetime Tarkovsky directed seven feature films, thanks to which he gained worldwide renown. In my Bachelor thesis, I am going to take under closer consideration his science-fiction film Solaris.

The film I am studying is based on a 1961 novel written by a Polish science fiction author, Stanisław Lem. The narrative of book and film differ. However, they unite in depicting the human anxiety with facing the unknown ‘alien.’ My research question is: How do Tarkovsky’s poetic imagery and his understanding of temporality communicate the relationship between the planet Solaris and the protagonist, Kris Kelvin, and to what purpose?

In my thesis, I argue that Tarkovsky uses the nature of the film language to visualize dream- like possibilities of the human memory. The filmmaker utilizes the Earth’s natural elements water and fire in the case of Solaris, which play an important role in the movie, just as the film characters. In the interview prior to shooting the film, Tarkovsky informs about rejecting terms such as symbols, motifs, or themes in his approach.¹ However, I reinstall the terminology, as it is crucial for the discussion of the aesthetic visual cues of Solaris. I begin by discussing the poetry cinema genre and Tarkovsky’s place within it. Secondly, by investigating the poetic cinematography and the editing of Andrei Tarkovsky, I discuss the spatio-temporal natural elements and how those relate to memory in the film. Then, I analyse the notion of ‘human’

and ‘other’ in Solaris. Next, I proceed to taking a closer look at the character of Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk), in order to explore the ‘feminine’ aspects of the film. Ecofeminist arguments help me to define the ethical aspects of the film. Lastly, I explore the genderedness of Solaris as a planet. The conclusion discusses the spectrum of narrative dichotomies ranging from the basic movie problematic aspects to Tarkovsky’s visual portrayal of ethics and human morality.

Andrei Tarkovsky presents aspects of the modern state of humanity and transforms them into the science fiction genre. However, not to be misunderstood Tarkovsky’s perceiving of truth in Solaris is different than an objective documentary reality. In my thesis, I aim to bring a closer understanding of Tarkovsky’s perception of time. To achieve that I begin by giving the foundational principles of the poetry cinema genre as represented by Andrei Tarkovsky, and explained by film theorist David Bordwell. Bordwell gives a more elaborated definition, yet for

1 John Gianvito, Andrei Tarkovsky. Interviews (Jackson, Missisipi: The University Press of Missisipi, 2006), 23.

(7)

the sake of my investigation I will cite only terms such as “real problems.”² For Bordwell, fundaments of arthouse cinema are marked by “contemporary alienation, lack of communication and psychologically-complex characters.”³ The contemporary film research has not been able to classify an unequivocal theory of poetry film. Its use and practice have remained highly subjective since its first appearance of the term poetry in the works of French Impressionists in the 20^th century. Due to numerous alternatives of understanding poetry, it has evolved into a subgenre of many names, such as poetry cinema, film poem and cinepoetry.

Russian Film Formalists group, most notably Victor Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum, Dziga Vertov provide more elaborated analytical statements on the distinction between the language of written and the visual poetry in comparison to their predecessors. Their writings on film prioritize the aspects of film rhythm and repetition in relation to explaining the poetry on film.

Andrei Tarkovsky in his filmmaking practice diverges from the trajectory proposed by many Formalists. The Soviet filmmaker uses poetics in filmmaking and editing as a spiritual activity concentrating on the portrayal of the infinity of time, as opposed to the concept of intellectual montage⁴, defined by the film director and theorist Sergei Eisenstein. Therefore, following from Bordwell⁵, I argue here that Tarkovsky in Solaris has created a work of the poetry cinema genre by using lyrical or poetic cinematography (imagery) and playing whimsically with temporality in his film.

The lyricism of the poetry cinema in Solaris, Tarkovsky achieves this through visual metaphors, time and space manipulation, imagery, and film texture. Following Shklovsky’s concept of

“estrangement”,⁶ Andrei Tarkovsky de-familiarizes reality and transforms the Solaris narrative into a metaphysical logic of “personal dreams.”⁷ Tarkovsky’s film aesthetics develop a chain of personal associations belonging to the main character between scenes, rather than following a chronological cause and effect action. His montage frames the action on Earth and on Solaris through a symbolical connection resulting in the poetic nonlinearity of the narrative. Film editing remains invisible, in order to allow the spectator to grasp the sense of fleeting time. This

2 David Bordwell, Poetics of Cinema (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 20.

3 David Bordwell, Ibid.

4 Sergei Eisenstein, Film Form: The Essays in Film Theory (New York City: Harcourt, 1969), 82.

5 David Bordwell, Ibid

6 Viktor Shklovsky, Art as Technique in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965), 4.

7 Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1983), 75.

(8)

method allows him to enhance the realist conventions, instead of presenting the viewer with surreal possibilities of human life in an analogy typical of science fiction story.

Prior to making the movie Solaris, Andrei Tarkovsky explained his vision concerning the main character, Kris Kelvin, “the story of a man, who repents his past and therefore wishes to relive it in order to mend it.”⁸ The cinematography of Andrei Tarkovsky helps to understand Kelvin’s personality more than the dialogue. However, an aspect that also has a predominant function in the plot development is the use of music and sound. Tarkovsky’s sound choices do not always provide a harmonizing role, as the imagery. The use of sound in Solaris has a disorienting or estranging⁹ function. For instance, in moments juxtaposing the circling movement of Ocean’s waves, a mechanical tone plays in the background. My interpretation of the sound level is that the Ocean makes sounds that are cold, inharmonious, and monotonous, contrasting with the low-level sounds in most of the film. The almost industrial sounds of the Ocean are not something you would expect waves to sound like. This contrast is an aspect playing to the poetry cinema genre. Thus, Tarkovsky’s use of sound is another factor crucial in understanding the poetry of Solaris. The pitch of film sound appears to increase or decrease depending on the moment in the scene to emphasize the feeling of the passing time. The resulting silence functions as more communicative than the spoken word.

The wide screen format of the film allows the spectator to notice the beauty of Earth, depicted in the visual details in the prologue (see Fig.1). Tarkovsky’s cinematography contrasting the two story worlds, Solaris and Earth, presents a silent critique of the urban environment and mass society. He shows the different possibilities of Earth’s resources, whereas the move to planet Solaris acts as a myriad of alternatives of the use of space that either act as a mirror or as a solution to problems. The shot composition of the film consists of natural elements organised in a symmetrical pattern (see Fig.2). The diagonal and vertical axes in the frame cue the spectator’s gaze to Tarkovsky’s sense of hierarchy that separates Earth and humanity. The camera perspectives add depth to the image by visualizing the relation between Kris Kelvin and his surroundings. In this thesis, I intend to connect the environmental ethics and his Christian morality while discussing the filmmaking aspects and plot of Solaris.

8 Peter Brunette, Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews (Jackson, Missisipi: University Press of Missisipi, 2006), 34.

9 Victor Shklovsky, Art as Technique in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays, 4.

(9)

Fig.1 Screenshots of the scenes from the film prologue depicting the Earthly landscape at 5’05;

06’27 and 11’03.

(10)

Fig.2. Screenshot depicting symmetrical patterns of Tarkovsky’s filmmaking composition at 5’50.

2. The Earth as a secular space

From the prologue, which takes place on Earth, the filmmaker portrays its environment as the embodiment of power in an analogy similar to the rhetoric of the Mother Earth⁸ concept. In Solaris, planet Earth is responsible for creating survival conditions for all the living organisms.

Whereas the space of the alien planet Solaris symbolizes a claustrophobic and unwelcoming area. Robert Bird in his book on Tarkovsky’s filmmaking Elements of Cinema states that there are “three kinds of space dominating Tarkovsky’s films: nature, home, and the shrine or cathedral.”⁹ The two latter ones remain absent in Solaris. However, the spaces of Kelvin’s parental home and natural environment create not only a pleasingly aesthetical background, but also establish a divine and spiritual refuge for the main character.

Tarkovsky’s camera work observes the landscape and simultaneously silently comments on the separation of modern humans from their evolutionary, biological roots. Through his cinematographic technique, Tarkovsky juxtaposes scenes of nature’s tranquillity with scenes of Kelvin’s declarations in favour of a rational scientific research.¹⁰ A quotation by Jeremy

8 Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology. The Search for a Livable World (New York: Routledge, 2015), 196.

9 Robert Bird, Andrei Tarkovsky: Elements of Cinema (London: Reaktion Books, 2014), 52.

(11)

Robinson “Myth tells a sacred story; a myth tells a sacred narrative”¹¹ parallels most accurately the ethical division in the film. Although a devoted Christian himself, Andrei Tarkovsky begins to confront gradually the viewer with his own interpretation of values represented by not only Christianity but also Eastern and Japanese mysticism. Tarkovsky approaches the storytelling in Solaris in the manner of “a metonym,”¹² which has a different interpretation in daily life. In the film it is made visible through the unfolding analogy between the planet Earth, symbolizing natural purity, which the humankind takes for granted. In the film prologue by showing the standpoint of Kris Kelvin, Tarkovsky aims to conjure up a picture of the decaying spirit in the modern humans through their devotion to the development of technology. The opening scene introduces trademark visual devices of Tarkovsky’s filmmaking, such as long takes, tracking shots, and slow dollies. Jeremy Robinson elaborates, Tarkovsky views nature as the temple in which one momentarily steps out of the modern world to commune with God.¹³ The rural landscape of Kelvin’s parental home provides him security and comfort, through which the protagonist strolls freely, easing his tormented mind. His slow movement and facial expression evoke a sense of nostalgia. The shots of nature in the prologue done in an aerial perspective establish a strong contrast to the claustrophobic space of the research station on Solaris (see Fig.3). The long take camera captions move in the way as if they were observing the internal rhythm of the natural environment, which lets them to “directing the cutting processes”¹⁴ marking the end of each scene. The camera harmoniously moves with natural elements. The cinematic time flows in a peaceful and slow manner, resulting in the peaceful rhythm of Kelvin’s surroundings prior to his departure to planet Solaris.

11 Jeremy Mark Robinson, The Sacred Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky (Maidstone, Kent: Crescent Moon Publishing, 2006), 76.

13 Jeremy Mark Robinson, The Sacred Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, 76.

(12)

Fig.3. Screenshots juxtaposing the positive and negative space of Earth and the space station at at 5’17 and 46’57.

The texture and colour of the Earth prologue scenes isolate Kris Kelvin in his environment.

Tarkovsky utilizes the depth of the cinematic image to increase his feeling of loneliness (see Fig.2). Here, I return to the quotation by Robert Bird, presented above, that Tarkovsky’s cinematic device tends to “cross the camera gaze and character’s lines of sight.”¹⁵ Placing the

15 Robert Bird, Andrei Tarkovsky: Elements of Cinema (London: Reaktion Books, 2014), 53.

(13)

camera at the viewer’s eye level angle allows Tarkovsky to make the audience look straight into the protagonist’s eyes. For instance, in the scene when the protagonists are looking at the television screen, there is a camera instead of the screen they are looking at, so they simultaneously acknowledge the presence of the cinematic device. In this way, it allows the film audience to explore deeper the psyche of the portrayed character (see Fig.4). The filmmaker breaks the theatrical convention of the fourth wall¹⁶, which adds greater dynamism to the slow-paced onscreen action.

Fig.4. Screenshot of the main character Kris Kelvin with the backdrop of the natural environment at 4’23.

2.1. Water as memory

The theme of water generates the basis for the spiritual atmosphere in Solaris. From the opening scenes, Tarkovsky’s camera shows in a slow way all the visual details of the ‘natural’. However, concentrating specifically on the relationship between various water elements, such as the river or rain, and Kris Kelvin. The filmmaker and writer Tyler Patterson in “Solaris: Islands of Memory” states that the river reed movements symbolize human arms or appearances longing to express something, but water prevents them from it (see Fig.5).¹⁷ The filmmaker himself sees

16 SC Lannon, “Breaking the Fourth Wall: How to Break It with Impact,” Studiobinder.com, accessed January 7, 2020. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/breaking-the-fourth-wall/ (accessed January 19, 2020.

17Tyler Patterson, “Solaris: Islands of Memory,” Brattle Theatre Film Notes (blog).

http://www.brattleblog.brattlefilm.org/2017/10/17/solaris-islands-of-memory-5856/ (accessed November 15, 2019).

(14)

an analogy between the human organism and the one of the film medium as he states: “memory, consciousness and dreams function according to organic laws.”¹⁸ In Solaris, the symbolic use of water gives the spectator a broader understanding of the onscreen action by cueing to form various associations.

Fig.5. Screenshots of water reeds from the opening scene at 3’23 and 4’33.

In Solaris, Tarkovsky plays with the secular-non-secular narrative level of the water scenes.

For instance, in the opening scene Kris Kelvin is shown as he washes his hands in the pond.

This camera caption serves as a cleansing act for the protagonist as a form to wash away the

(15)

guilt feelings of his past (see Fig.6). Watching Kelvin perform this act brings to mind Biblical figures and connotations related to human redemption and cleansing of sin or guilt. Another example is when the rains begin to fall. Kris stays outside allowing himself to soak in the rain.

Daniel O. Jones in his dissertation on Tarkovsky’s aesthetics calls it the “dissolution of the human character in nature.”¹⁹ Kris Kelvin slowly perceives the environment and its sounds as shown in Fig. 7. As if Tarkovsky’s cinematic techniques were portraying a process when the character is becoming a part of a larger system and dissolves within its peacefulness offering him familiarity and security. Tarkovsky establishes the camera focus on the main character to signal the role of his identity in the progression of the film narrative.

Fig.6. Screenshot of Kelvin washing his hands at 6’58 in the prologue of the film.

19 Daniel O. Jones, “The Soul that Thinks: Essays on Philosophy, Narrative and Symbol in the Cinema and Thought of Andrei Tarkovsky,” (PhD diss., The College of Fine Arts of Ohio University, 2007).

(16)

Fig.7. Screenshot of Kelvin standing in the rain ‘dissolving in nature’ at 10’14.

On the space station, water appears in different states in comparison to Earth. The Ocean covered with dark and thick liquid is a metaphor of the human subconscious. It functions as a medium of vision allowing people to see what they have done wrong in the past. In Solaris, the clear qualities of water allow it to function almost as a mirror, in which Snaut, Sartorious and Kris Kelvin have to face their true reflections (see Fig.8). In certain scenes, Tarkovsky’s camera shows reflections of characters without them realising it (see Fig. 9).

Fig.8. Screenshot of Kelvin looking through a circular window onto the Ocean at 52’30.

(17)

Fig.9. Mirror reflections of Kelvin in a space station surface unbeknownst to him at 1’10’13 and 1’56’48.

2.2. Fire as cleansing

Fire is another natural element that has both functional and spiritual importance in Solaris and Tarkovsky’s entire filmmaking oeuvre. According to the filmmaker, its destructive qualities correlate with the motif of death and resurrection. Tarkovsky utilizes the images of fire in the montage of Solaris, when the protagonist is about to face a big change. This theme has its first appearance in the movie after the rapid cut of the 5-minute long car ride scene. Kris Kelvin finds himself on Earth once more, in front of the home dacha, where he burns down various personal objects. Through the scenes depicting the bonfire, the spectator meets with Kelvin’s wife Hari who committed suicide. Hari’s persona appears framed in a photograph that is about

(18)

to be burned along with other painful remnants of Kelvin’s past. In this way, the protagonist tries to purify his conscience from memories reminding him of his guilt and shame.

The theme of fire reappears in the moment when Kris sends Hari in a rocket ship into Space.

When the rocket is about to leave, fire bursts in the room. The destructive force of the natural element prevents the protagonist from accomplishing his task. He is also wounded in the fire himself. Kelvin’s fire burns are analogous to his remorseful attitude gradually becoming more explicit in the film narrative. This is what Petrie and Johnson refer to as a beginning for his slow development from an emotionally numb bookkeeper to a being capable of love and compassion.²⁰ In this manner, the protagonist manages to overcome individual preconceptions and becomes more humane in the unsecular environment of Space.

2.3. Faith

The transformation of faith is another crucial factor in the building identity of the film characters in Solaris. After Kelvin’s arrival on the station from the “secular world of Earth”²¹, he finds himself abandoned in the emptiness of the space station. The filmmaker presents the epistemological obstacles for scientists on Solaris and the visualization of their “exploration of the sacred.”²² The scientists cannot truly know the planet or its essence, so the only thing that is possible to explore is their own faith or their beliefs about the meanings of the planet Solaris.

Thus, Tarkovsky unfolds a relationship between Kelvin’s mental wellbeing and the state of his faith. As the confusion felt by the main character increases, the filmmaker reinforces his belief that “without faith life is severely impoverished.”²³ Thus, the longer Kris stays at the station, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish for him between what’s real and what is a hallucination. There is a link between loneliness and faith. The protagonist feels isolated, not only because of the vastness of the station, but because of the lack of other crew members. Time spent alone urges him to question his past and the actuality of the events happening on board of the station. In the scenes taking place in the bedroom of Kris Kelvin, Tarkovsky frequently captures the character looking at the objects he has brought from the parental home on Earth.

Those props function in the film as a reminder of Kelvin’s pre-Solaris experiences and influence the belief in changing his personality.

20 Graham Petrie, Vida Johnson, Films of Andrei Tarkovsky. A Visual Fugue (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2019), 210.

(19)

Time spent on board of the space station, pushes the main character to rethink the mistakes he has made on Earth. Tarkovsky aims in Solaris to show Kelvin as an ordinary character struggling in ordinary life situations, despite the science fiction setting. Kelvin’s lack of faith and his spiritual crisis have to face similar obstacles to protagonists from other feature films by Tarkovsky, for instance Stalker or Andrei Rublev. The emotional chaos raging on the space station Solaris caused by the inability to fight the Other planet, allows the scientists to put away their problems concerning personal faith. For the main character this task is especially complicated, as he does not know how to cope with the physical materialization of his dead wife Hari. Andrei Tarkovsky visualizes the process of Kelvin’s faith transformation in a “vison quest, to find the sacred among the secular”²⁴ environment of the space station. The “inhuman conditions”²⁵ of Solaris questions Kelvin’s devotion to science and urges him to form a new moral standpoint. As the film reaches the end, the spectator realizes that the protagonist was not looking for God specifically, but for familiar religious virtues on Solaris.

2.4. Knowledge and truth

The search for knowledge builds another narrative layer in Solaris. In the movie, the bizarre phenomena caused by the Ocean are explored through a predominantly male field of study called Solaristics. The Solaris’ Ocean is depicted as a mysterious object lacking a clear diegetic function. Nonetheless, it functions as a character in the film. Scientists devote their research to be explain in a truthful and rational explanation to the psychological effects felt by humans.

Despite their perseverance, their knowledge proves to be inadequate to define the ontology of the Ocean with its extra-terrestrial alien forms (see Fig. 10). Kelvin, Snaut and Sartorious, aware of their failure to understand the unknown communication method of the planet, develop symptoms of anxiety. Kris Kelvin just as any human on planet Solaris is subjected involuntarily to the overpowering control of the Ocean’s perception.

25 William P. Alston, Jonathan Bennett, “Locke on People and Substances,” The Philosophical Review 97, no. 1 (1998): 25-46.

(20)

Fig. 10. Screenshots of the Solarists meeting at 16’04.

What distinguishes Tarkovsky’s film from the book version written by Stanisław Lem, is the film’s concentration on the love relationship between Kelvin and Hari. Kelvin’s stay on board of the station, reawakens in him new feelings towards the idealized version of Hari he knew from Earth. As Snaut says in the library scene, people do not want to conquer the Solaris planet, they just need it to prove to them what they have done wrong on Earth. He continues stating:

“Questioning means the desire to know. But to preserve the basic truth we need mysteries,”²⁶ implying that the human needs lack something in their lives, for this reason their existence can be described as meaningful. In this analogy, Tarkovsky juxtaposes the limitations of human reason to the vastness of Space. Tarkovsky shows that humans do not really wish to conquer the territory of Solaris. The only reason for their space mission is to find the ultimate solution to the struggles in their own personal lives. In the final scenes, Kris Kelvin manages to find the truth of his existence, yet he is incapable of using his knowledge to erase mistakes from the past. This proves to be unnecessary; because he is unable to reconnect to the loved ones he has lost.

2.5. Human morality based on mortality within Earth’s environment

For Tarkovsky, the fundamentals of human morality mean the appreciation of Christian values and a strong connection to the natural environment. Tarkovsky’s environmental filmmaking ethics illustrate the model of deep ecology put forward by Carolyn Merchant in her book Radical Ecology. The Search for a Liveable World. Deep ecology concentrates the humanity in

26 Solaris, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972; Moscow: Mosfilm, 2000), DVD.

(21)

nature and not above it.²⁷ The misery of Solaris events on the space station symbolizes Tarkovsky’s lack of approval of the spiritual nature of modernity, where “people feel free to exploit nature and move in society at the expense of others with a new consciousness of our responsibilities.”²⁸ Through the performance of Donatas Banionis, Tarkovsky aims to show that a profound sense of humanity only emerges in the confrontation with the Other,²⁹ when people have to face their personal inabilities and character faults. Despite Tarkovsky’s representation of deep ecology, Solaris still perpetuates the stereotype of Hollywood Cinema and classical science fiction that all characters not being a white male stand for an Other. The humanity, aka scientists by avoiding to acknowledge the alien form of Solaris make increasingly visible their own personal insecurities.

In the film prologue, a former Solaris researcher, Burton, pays a visit to Kris Kelvin to tell him about his personal experience on the space station (see Fig.11). Andrei Tarkovsky shows two fundamental narrative standpoints via their dialogue. The first one, as stated by Burton, is that

“knowledge is based on mortality”³⁰ informs the spectator that the true clarification of Solaris events can be only comprehended if one is a human being. As a reply to Burton, Kris Kelvin states “Moral or immoral, it is men who make science.”³¹ In this comment, the protagonist explains his choice to prioritize scientific methods over emotional problem solving.

28 Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology. The Search for a Livable World, 105.

29 Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2003), 222.

31Solaris, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972; Moscow: Mosfilm, 2000), DVD.

(22)

Fig.11. Screenshots of Burton’s memories of the Solaris space station at 13’20 and 17’06.

To summarize, I see Solaris as using metaphors and implicit meanings to create the atmosphere of the film. Often things are not said or shown directly and the viewer is left guessing and questioning the meaning of scenes or what they stand for. Viewing Solaris, can arguably be like reading poetry – one is doing one’s own interpretation and meanings are not fixed. This allows the spectator to comprehend the relations between characters and their surroundings in his or her own way. Through the multiple dichotomies, for instance: sacred Earth vs. unhuman technology shape the temporal progression of the film action. Tarkovsky fastens the prevailingly slow internal rhythm of the scenes by adding cosmic, psychological, or social aspects to the Solaris storytelling mode. His dynamization of space and time blurs

(23)

the boundaries between past and present similarly to the processes happening inside one’s subjective memory.

3. The experience of time

The cornerstone of Andrei Tarkovsky’s filmmaking philosophy – the concepts sculpting in time or imprinted time, place the notion of cinematic time of Solaris as an aesthetic category.

Traditionally, chronology in film is not considered part of its aesthetics. Here, Tarkovsky makes his different contribution. The plot of Solaris has its own logic organized according to a non- chronological time order. Thus, Tarkovsky rejects the classical narrative conventions as established by Hollywood Cinema, in order to create a process of mysticism in the technological medium of film. All of his seven feature movie projections teach the audience how to experience reality through the poetic storytelling. His films have a tendency to illustrate the world in a manner of an objective documentary.

Despite their melancholic tone, Andrei Tarkovsky urges the spectator to see the beauty and not to fall into despair. Through the story of Solaris, the filmmaker aims to show the consequences of what might happen when one’s doubts seem impossible to control. The plot of the film unfolds in a relatively slow pace gradually supplying the information about the importance of nature and passing time in the life of a human being. Following this track of thought, leads my argumentation to the cornerstone of Tarkovsky’s sculpting in time technique, namely the pressure or rhythm implemented in each cinematic shot. He states that “Just as from the quivering of a reed you can tell what sort of current, what pressure there is in a river, in the same way we know the movement of time from the flow of life-processes reproduced in the shot.”³² Therefore, depending on the onscreen rhythmic patterns and Tarkovsky’s camera movement, the pressure of time passage in the presented plot varies. This method allows the temporality to be freed beyond the defined boundaries of the frame.

In Solaris, the imprinted time of the scenes taking place on Earth shows that the natural elements have their own harmonious pace, independent of the internal rhythm of the urbanised human culture. The time in the sequences of the film prologue accomplishes the visualization of the breathing of nature through the cinematic frame, as it purposefully slows down the mode of storytelling (see Fig.1). The pace of the film gradually increases following the 5-minute long,

32 Sam Kenyon, “Andrei Tarkovsky- Sculpting in Time,” Glasgow Film.

https://glasgowfilm.org/latest/programmeNotes/programme-note-andrei-tarkovsky-sculpting-time (accessed November 18, 2019).

(24)

interplanetary journey. Tarkovsky modifies the tempo of the film scenes, which results in a stream of thought cinematic narrative. Nicolae Sfetcu, the author of a book on Tarkovsky, quotes the film scholar Sean Martin stating that “the disharmony of Earth and Space as Kelvin’s instability between conscious and subconscious states.”³³ Tarkovsky structures the poetic montage of the film more on an intuitive feeling of time gone by, rather than on its mathematical and chronological calculations in Eisenstein’s manner.

Through sculpting in time Andrei Tarkovsky aims to visualize the passage of cinematic time which remains ungraspable to the naked eye. In Solaris, he approaches it by breaking the chronology of unfolding plot events and delineating the boundaries of the past and the present.

This structure allows for distorting the spatio-temporal film relations fundamental for a science fiction genre. However, Tarkovsky goes beyond what is typical, by complicating the “reality of an outer world in order to record it as a means of expressing Kelvin’s inner state.”³⁴ Kelvin’s rational attitude and scientific knowledge prove ineffective in helping him comprehend the sense of loss and longing for redemption caused by the Ocean. Andrei Tarkovsky forms in this manner an allegory by juxtaposing human weakness against the power of the Universe.

Continuing this thought, the filmmaker presents more explicit allegories reaffirming of the previous statement. For instance, the running black horse in the film prologue (see Fig.12). The animal stands for the life time Kelvin is not able to bring back. Therefore, he takes objects (an icon and a patch of soil) to help him survive in the unknown surroundings of the space station.

The materiality of those props performs an equally important role in capturing the passage of time as the character development.

The concept of time is thus crucial, because it not only distorts the continuity of the progression of the film, but also stands for the possible dissolution of past and present in human memory experienced by the protagonist. Tarkovsky’s long takes and movements combined with emotional performance of the film actors heighten the tension of the time flow. Kris Kelvin in Solaris demonstrates the time flow through different walking paces (from monotonous strolling to running). The change in the rhythm from stillness to a more hurried pace resonates with

33 Nicolae Sfetcu, “Psychological Aspects,” in Solaris directed by Andrei Tarkovsky: Psychological and Philosophical Aspects, ed. Multimedia Publishing (Milan: MultiMedia Publishing, 2019), accessed January 1, 2020, https://philarchive.org/archive/SFESDB.

34 Kristen Kreider, James O’Leary, “Time, Place and Empathy: The Poetics and Phenomenology of Andrei Tarkovsky’s Image,” Visual Studies Journal 28, no. 1 (2013): 1-16.

(25)

Kelvin’s understanding of reality. The camera calmly observes the unfolding events avoiding rapid scene cuts disrupting screen duration.

The specificity of the sculpting in time technique consists in Tarkovsky’s subjective choice of visual cues. The open structure of the film allows the audience to form various personal associations. Yet, in the aftermath the meaning of certain scenes remains obscure. Tarkovsky’s mode of storytelling proves to be predictable and experimental at the same time, due to the long and uninterrupted scenes. On the other hand, it is experimental, because of the sudden ending of certain shots. For example, we see this in the change from the Tokyo car ride scene back to the Earth. The filmmaker plays with the rigidity of the temporal boundaries of the state of reality of the main character that “comes closer to the psychological, naturalistic truth of art,”³⁵ which Tarkovsky so strongly advocated.

Fig. 12. Screenshot of Tarkovsky’s use of allegory of the running horse indicating Kelvin’s lost time at 6’37.

Andrei Tarkovsky brings back aspects of human memory not only in camera flashbacks and video sequences, but also through shifts in the palette of the film. The use of colour allows the spectator to deduce the subconscious state of the protagonist as shown in the Fig.14. Kelvin’s subjective time perception varies from the colour tonalities through tinted blue and saturated orange to black and white. Scenes taking place on board of the station and on Earth, where

35 Nariman Skakov, The Cinema of Tarkovsky: Labyrinths of Space and Time (London: I.B.Taurus, 2012), 2.

(26)

Kelvin experiences regret or homesickness, such as his interplanetary travel, appear tinted in blue colour. Manfred Geier states human consciousness is capable of visualizing aspects that lay beyond our present state of reality.³⁶ This becomes gradually visible as Kelvin’s guilt feelings concerning his relations to Hari, his father and mother prevent him from settling down on board of the station. In order to cope with the inhumane environment,³⁷ he seems to idealize lived memories from his pre-Solaris experience (see Fig. 13). His physical and mental unrest changes his objective vision of reality on Earth to a subjective perception of reality.

Fig.13. Screenshots depicting the environment of the space station at 1’48’31 and 1’48’42.

36 Manfred Geier, “Stanisław Lem’s Fantastic Ocean: Toward a Semantic Interpretation of Solaris,”

Science Fiction Studies 57, no. 19 (July, 1992): 204-210.

(27)

3.1. Kelvin’s cinematic hallucinations

Following Hari’s onboard suicide attempt, Kris Kelvin begins to experience hallucinations.

This marks a climax in the individual spiritual journey of the protagonist. As he begins to lose faith and sense of purpose of his task on board. The subjective camera movements and techniques present his gradual entering into a dream-like realm (see Fig. 14). Kelvin becomes more insecure and wanders unconsciously through the hallways of the station. Encountering Snaut, he declaims a monologue about his condition, while looking through the window and observing the Ocean. Tarkovsky disrupts the narrative flow of his speech by presenting for the last time shots of the Ocean. Subsequently, the camera accompanies Snaut, Kris, and Hari in a tracking shot for the light beam treatment. The depth of the film image is obscured as “their walk is visually interrupted by the blinding glare of the corridor’s illumination devices,”³⁸ intensifying the cinematic atmosphere. Tarkovsky’s contrast between light and darkness exposes the denaturalization of Kelvin’s confusion between reality and dream state (see Fig.14).

Fig.14. Screenshots of Kelvin’s dream-like state of mind at 2’23’08; 2’23’39; 2’27’16 and 2’29’08.

In the final scenes, Kelvin’s hallucinations blur the boundaries of real time and make his longing for the familiarity of home more explicit. The scenes are shorter with a greater camera focus on

(28)

his figure. This causes the internal rhythm of the scenes to increase. Sudden cuts and rapid changes in camera distance might present a similarity with the pace of thinking happening in Kelvin’s mind. Instead of long takes, Tarkovsky concentrates on close-ups. Moreover, Kelvin’s hallucinations are depicted through Kelvin’s geographical transformation of Kelvin’s location from Space to Earth. The dream state allows Kris Kelvin temporarily to return to Earth and reconcile with his mother. The interior of the dacha differs from the one in the prologue. Objects inside the house are wrapped in plastic. Props (bed, dog, apples, flowers) appearing in the mise- en-scene are crucial for defining the character’s longing for Earth. His suitcase is put on the table. His mother washes his wounds. After she disappears from the cinematic frame, Tarkovsky merges two spaces obscuring the cinematic frame.

Tarkovsky’s camera shows the protagonist off-screen to what then appears to be a towel and a bowl from the previous scene. Following that moment, it becomes visually explicit that Kelvin

‘returns’ to his bedroom on Solaris. However, the sound of water lingers on for 3 seconds in the beginning of the scene. Tarkovsky’s camera captures that the protagonist is disturbed by the materialized objects of his dreams. Once he returns to his bedroom, different camera viewpoints focus on Kelvin’s mirror reflection as an indication of his fractured character psychology. What emphasizes his losing touch of reality is the appearance of multiple versions of Hari in the cinematic frame. Tarkovsky juxtaposes her figure seemingly developing into an almost identical copy of Kelvin’s mother, visualizing the Oedipal complex as experienced by the protagonist. In a way, the temporal dimensions concerning Kelvin’s past and present become one.

The visualization of Kelvin’s cinematic hallucinations has a crucial impact on his character development. Subsequently, as he wakes up Kelvin regains strength to face the challenges of the space station. Snaut visits him, still in his bedroom, to inform him about Hari’s death through the annihilator. Kris appears not to be hallucinating anymore. In reaction to Kelvin’s behaviour, Snaut advises him to return to Earth and reunite with his father. Kelvin’s memories as Nariman Skakov explains it, in a form of an “electroencephalogram.”³⁹ The Ocean reacts to it by putting an end to manifesting his guilt-driven past events. Consequently, it begins the process of the creation of Islands of Memory.

(29)

3.2. The return scene as an illusion

Kelvin’s state of mind worsens in the scenes following the mirror sequence. This time Tarkovsky turns the hallucinating of his reality into subjective visual illusions. His mind deceives him into envisioning the return from the inhuman environment⁴⁰ of Space to that of the secular Earth. The filmmaker presents the film ending in the same realist conventions as in the prologue (see Fig.15). He reintroduces the lingering shots of nature from the opening scenes.

The summer landscape is now covered in frost, visualizing the temporal progression of organic time. Tarkovsky returns to the tracking shots he used in the prologue, allowing the viewer to observe the sentimental way in which Kelvin perceives the familiar environment. Tarkovsky’s camera indicates “the emotional reality”⁴¹ of the scene. Despite the season change, the tranquillity of Kelvin’s home remains unchanged. Smoke is coming from the chimney, reassuring that someone is inside. As Kelvin comes closer, Tarkovsky’s over-the-shoulder shot captures him and his father looking directly into each other’s eyes. However, what undermines the realism of their encounter is the rain inside the house. Kelvin’s father does not seem to notice it, as if the events were only an illusion happening in Kelvin’s head.

(30)

Fig.15. Screenshots comparing the opening scene with scenes of Kelvin’s imaginary return to Earth at 2’42’34; 2’43’16 and 2’44’36.

(31)

The “hallucinatory-imagined”⁴² state of the scene becomes more explicit in the moment of father-son reconciliation at the front door. Kris Kelvin kneels down in front of his father in an apologetic gesture, known from previous scenes and Tarkovsky’s filmmaking oeuvre, but also reminiscent of the Biblical prodigal son imagery. Tarkovsky structures the mise en scène to metaphorically place Kelvin’s posture in a similar lighting as in the painting. The degree contrasting the light and the dark in the image, bears information on the moral state of both characters (good vs. evil dichotomy). As the scene concludes, Tarkovsky’s camera zooms out into a bird eye point of view, linking the previous sequences, taking place on one of the islands of Solaris. Whether Kris has returned home or this image is solely happening inside Kelvin’s subconscious is left open to further interpretation. Nonetheless, I argue we are led to the conclusion that the protagonist physically stayed as a materialized version of his true self inside his unconscious on one of the Solaris’ Islands of Memory.

The naturalistic look of the onscreen colour scheme and Tarkovsky’s preference to avoid rapid scene cuts draws parallels to a perception mode of a fine art work piece. The production elements (lighting, set design, costumes) and the visual themes of the movie add to the film a painterly quality (see Fig. 16). This is crucial for Tarkovsky’s filmmaking philosophy, as he states “art symbolizes the meaning of human existence.”⁴³ The technical manipulations of the screen image help the spectator in conceptualizing the “spiritual form of the material.”⁴⁴

44 Angela Dalle Vacche, Cinema and Painting: How Art Is Used in Film (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1996), 136.

(32)

Fig.16. Screenshot from the scene when Kelvin kneels in front of his father at 2’45’06 towards the end of the film.

3.3. The painterly quality of the visual language of Solaris

Scenes in Solaris often resemble old master paintings in composition, tincture, and topic even, like the discussed above kneeling scene (see Fig.16). The imagery depicting the setting of the space station presents itself as cold, even impossible to survive in for the characters. The only room that seems to be independent of Ocean’s influence is the library. While watching Solaris it brings associations with life on Earth as its inside is filled with objects important for human art history. The paintings hung on its dark green walls are cinematic copies of Peter Bruegel’s Hunters in the Snow and The Return of the Prodigal Son by Rembrandt. In the library scenes, these change their function from fine art pieces into an additional visual narrative element. The filmmaker elaborates on his filmmaking decision in following quote:

It is imperative to me that the sensation of beautiful Earth arise in the viewer.

That, having been immersed in the hitherto-unknown fantastical atmosphere of Solaris, he suddenly upon returning to Earth, discovers the ability to breathe freely, as he is accustomed, that breathing becomes achingly easy for him out of habit… This is why I need the Earth: so that the viewer more fully, deeply, sharply experiences the whole drama of the hero’s refusal to return to that planet that was (and is) his native home.⁴⁵

Thus, the aesthetical features of fine art used as an element of cinematography are crucial for Tarkovsky, as they allow humans to gain a greater understanding of one’s existence. The use

45 Olga Surkova, With Tarkovsky and on Tarkovsky (Moscow: Izdatel’stwo Raduga, 2005), 45.

(33)

of paintings is not supposed to shift the viewer’s focus to the beauty of the imagery, but make him/her wonder what kind of meaning they add to the film narrative. Jeremy Robinson states that the filmmaker’s cinematography abilities are comparable to a sense of space of a Renaissance painter, as shown in Fig. 16.⁴⁶ The physical boundaries of a cinematic frame in Solaris are organized in many cases to create an illusion of depth and space, just as in a Renaissance painting. Tarkovsky’s imprinted time filmmaking technique gives paintings, just as nature does, a function as a physical manifestation of passing time and a sense of melancholy it evokes in the protagonist. Jeremy Robinson brings attention to the state of realism of Tarkovsky’s films by saying about Tarkovsky’s visual language that he rather “created his own inner world, rather than recreated reality.”⁴⁷ The use of both paintings Hunters in the Snow and the The Return of the Prodigal Son demonstrates the transformation of the character personhood state. In Hari’s case, the painting functions as an onscreen factor in altering from the alien into a human being (see Fig. 17), whereas Kris Kelvin is not consciously aware of the symbolical meaning of his reconciliation fact. Limiting the dialogue to the minimum, Tarkovsky explains the feelings of two conflicted sides of the father and son through the total shot composition.

(34)

Fig.17. Screenshots of Hari in the library room, looking at the paintings at 2’08’57; 2’11’03 and 2’11’28.

(35)

To conclude this part, Andrei Tarkovsky signals on three different levels the passage of time.

Firstly, the flow of cinematic time is visible through organic elements. Secondly, cinematic hallucinations and illusions happening inside the protagonist’s mind signify time. Thirdly, on a meta-textual level the Western art paintings convey the temporality of the narrative. Then the mise en abîme of the visual film language provides a different alternative to confront the audience with the diegetic levels of Solaris story. Tarkovsky operates with the historical works’

function in modern narrative film, consequently presenting the movie as a self-referential medium. The historical circumstances of the painting juxtaposed with the ‘modern’ space surroundings, depict the agelessness and timelessness of Kelvin and his struggles. I see the use of paintings in Solaris by Tarkovsky as adding another layer to the reading of the film – history of art present in a ‘futuristic’ or ‘alien’ space underscores the connections between different types of art, painting and film, and restates the cross-influences between the two.

4. ‘What it means to be truly human’

The traditional science fiction genre often invites the viewer/reader to enter the world of Space, where the humankind is usually sent on a mission or to conquer the territory along its peoples.

As feminist cultural and literary studies have shown, in our patriarchal contexts, ‘woman’ and

‘female’ are often presented and used as the ultimate ‘Other’ for men.⁴⁸ In Solaris, too, the alien Other form is embodied by a female character. On one hand it, this can be viewed as positive due to her progressive independency and power representation. Nonetheless, many film scholars such as Marianne Kac-Vergne perceive this approach as marginalising. In Solaris Tarkovsky presents the Other ‘alien’ in a gracious physical appearance of Hari. While being on board of the space station, three characters: Snaut, Sartorious and Kelvin pose distinct alternatives on how to deal with psychological effects caused by the Ocean (see Fig. 18).

Throughout the narrative, Andrei Tarkovsky puts forward a motif of ‘what it means to be truly human.’ In this part, I present the concept of Anthropocene⁴⁹ with three different responses of the male characters towards Hari.

48 Cf. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Vintage Books, 2011), 337.

49 Richard T Corlett, “The Anthropocene Concept in Ecology and Conservation,” Trends in Ecology &

Evolution 30, no.1 (January, 2015): 36-41.

(36)

Fig.18. Screenshots of the character background of Snaut and Sartorious at 1’35’52 and 1’56’31.

The filmmaker introduces the patriarchal system on the planet Solaris and the inevitable patriarchal superiority of the male scientists over the unknown alien forms. As one of the goals during the production of Solaris, the filmmaker strove to show “a new morality arising from painful experiences.”⁵⁰ Thus, the figure of Hari, functioning as a messenger, brings back Kelvin’s painful memories of her suicide. Her appearance urges the protagonist to recall his behaviour that brings back his pre-Solaris feelings of guilt and shame. Communicating with him in this manner, the Ocean grants Kris Kelvin the opportunity not only to comprehend fully

(37)

what he has done wrong on Earth, but also to correct his mistakes. As the film reaches the end, Kelvin says “Shame – the feeling that will save mankind,”⁵¹ which implies a transformation in his moral values from an emotionally reluctant to a loving human being. Morality is what causes the protagonist to understand ‘what it means to be human’ and reconcile (although partially) his past with the present.

4.1. The library scene as a philosophical dispute

Andrei Tarkovsky presents the Otherness of Hari in a form of a gentle and caring woman. Hari is perceived by the male space crew not only as a reminder of Kelvin’s painful past, but also as a tool, which utilized might help the humanity’s guilty conscience. This attitude parallels the concept of Anthropocene as put forward by Nils Bubandt in the article “Anthropologists are Talking About the Anthropocene”. He states that “Anthropocene names an age in which human industry has come to equal or even surpass the processes of geology, and in which humans in their attempt to conquer nature have inadvertently become a major force in its destruction.”⁵² Hari being the Ocean’s attempt to communicate with scientists is misunderstood and undervalued. Men in order to comprehend the purpose of her existence try to humanize her alien appearance.

The film character of Sartorious represents most explicitly the Anthropocene concept or as Carolyn Merchant calls it “homocentric ethics”⁵³ in comparison to Snaut and Kris Kelvin.

“Homocentric ethics” for Merchant implies an ethical approach of the society that undertakes environmental measures to reassure the stability of humanity.⁵⁴ In the film, Tarkovsky hypothesizes that even though the materializations of human memory have a physical appearance of a real human being, they feel and think, yet they are made of “neutrino systems.”⁵⁵ In that way they differ from human beings as they are empty inside. This perspective shows Hari as a creature of an empty inside depending only on Kelvin’s subjective memories to structure her existence.

52 Nils Bubandt, “Anthropologists Are Talking- About the Anthropocene,” Ethnos. Journal of Anthropology 81, no. 3 (2015): 535- 564.

54 Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology. The Search for a Livable World, 72.

(38)

“The library scene is a crucial element in this reworking and in directing towards the moral and intellectual statement.”⁵⁶ The mise en scène shows details (green walls, Plato’s bust, paintings done by Dutch Masters) connecting it to the human aspects reminiscent of planet Earth. The library is the only room on the space station with no windows to the Ocean, where the crew members can free themselves from the constant presence of the Other. Tarkovsky chooses this space as the most appropriate to elaborate on the personality traits and background of Snaut, Kelvin, Sartorious and Hari that remained until this moment unmentioned. The initial birthday party celebration turns into a disagreement where the rationality of science, represented predominantly by Sartorious confronts the ‘alien’ nature of Hari. Sartorious by perceiving Hari

“not a real woman, but just as a replica,”⁵⁷ gives insight into his subjective feeling of human superiority over Other life forms. He sees no reason for her to stay alive, so as an obstacle to the scientific research of the Solarists she should be destroyed through a technological device, called the annihilator. In defense to his words, Hari reacts emotionally and reaffirms everybody present in the library of her identity transformation. Tarkovsky’s camera juxtaposes frequently Hari’s figure with the green wall color hinting at her virtues. Sartorious behavior on the contrary is presented as intemperate and lacking empathy. I perceive this form of performance as philosophical (see Fig.19), because of the exchange of opinions in the setting of the library.

Thereby Tarkovsky allows the film characters to expose verbally their existential aspects, known to be a trademark of his filmmaking philosophy and aesthetics.

56 Graham Petrie, Vida Johnson, Films of Andrei Tarkovsky. A Visual Fugue, 235.

(39)

Fig. 19. Screenshots of the contrasting viewpoints in the philosophical dispute scene at 1’55’46;

1’56’22; 2’03’38 and 2’05’47.

Jeremy Robinson states the film character of Snaut functions as an “intermediary between the extreme views of humanism and science represented by Kris and Sartorious.”⁵⁸ Snaut as the only person on board does not receive a physical manifestation of his memory. His character tries to appropriate the “inhumane”⁵⁹ environment of the space station, into one resembling the Earth. Nonetheless, Snaut’s behaviour towards Hari and the alien planet marks a certain behavioural inadequacy and knowledge limitations. Similarly to Sartorious, Snaut fails to acknowledge Hari’s neutrino body composition as he perceives those particles to be

“unstable.”⁶⁰ This instability according to Snaut, disqualifies Hari from a chance of becoming human.⁶¹ Carl Malmgren writes in the article “Self and Other in SF: Alien Encounters” that

“the anthropocentric alien serves primarily as a “mirror” for us.”⁶² His words present an exact

58 Jeremy Mark Robinson, The Sacred Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, 379.

59 William P. Alston, Jonathan Bennett, “Locke on People and Substances,” The Philosophical Review 97, no. 1. (1998): 25-46.

60 Solaris, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972; Moscow: Mosfilm, 2000), DVD.

62 Carl D. Malmgren, “Self and Other in SF: Alien Encounters,” Science Fiction Studies 20, no. 1 (March 1993): 15-33.

(40)

parallel with Snaut’s words referring to the state of modern humanity: “We do not need other worlds. We just need a mirror.”⁶³ His anthropocentric (and patriarchal) attitude is visible in the fact that he needs the planet Solaris to help him overcome his own struggles.

Kris Kelvin is the only film character that undergoes successfully a moral transformation without resorting to suicide (see Fig.20). From “a modern man regarding his economic moral and ethical values”⁶⁴ in the film prologue, the protagonist gradually begins to accept the Otherness of the physical materialization of Hari. Since his arrival on the space station, the biochemical composition of Hari’s body begins to be less dangerous to him, whereas his love for the altered version of his wife only grows stronger. Kelvin becomes more disinterested in the scientific study of the Ocean that he was ordered to research.

64 Tom Slevin,“Existence, Ethics and Death in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Cinema: The Cultural Philosophy of Solaris,” Film International Issue 44 (Jun 1, 2010), 54.

(41)

Fig.20. Screenshots depicting the moral transformation of the protagonist at 1’10’54; 1’49’07 and 2’13’22.