| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
URL |
Thumb |
|
|
Embed |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `ChewedKandi has certainly gone out of her way to keep the vector community on the right path. Always making sure that her talents are infinitely scalable, Sharon has put her bezier curves to excellent use, and firmly anchored herself as an inspirational leader. We're absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for June 2013 to `ChewedKandi. Congratulations, Sharon! Read More
|
Sta.sh
[link]
Do you like the Soderbergh version of "Solaris" better
than Tarkovsky's? (Clooney/cloney vs. the water imagery.)
Lem's book was much more cerebral, and usually the novel is
better, but in this case there is a lot to say about how
the visual interpretation makes the ideas visceral.
I've seen both, Soderbergh and Tarkovskij versions; I'd choose the first one, if I must do it. In Soderbergh movie there's, paradoxically, THE "idea": a man, a woman, a dream; two living beings and "me" who thinks watching them.
I read Lem's book not entirely; I didn't feel the "necessity" to read on and I didn't want to make any comparison between the images seen "through" the movies and the word/images of Lem's mind.
illusion of time in western literature in
The End of Time.
But we already knew that all along....
Time is so relative the American symbol for it is old "Father Time"
who gets replaced by an infant each New Year.
When I first saw Soderberth's Solaris I was disappointed because
it didn't live up to my memory of Tarkovsky's -- then when I watched
Tarkovsky's again, I was disappointed because it didn't live up to
being better than Soderbergh's!
The fleur de lis/luce is still there, still submerged!