Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject Communications - Movies and Television, grade: 1, Utrecht University (Media Studies), course: Remakes & Parody, language: English, abstract: Thom Patterson from CNN expresses the issue of the remake in a very nice way: Remaking well-known films can be the Hollywood equivalent of replacing the family dog or a favourite bathrobe: sometimes only the old one will do and a replacement is unthinkable.

In my case study I will take a closer look at the two different versions of

Solaris:



Andrei Tarkovskys Solaris (1972) and

Steven Soderberghs Solaris (2002)

Is Soderberghs Solaris a worthy representative, replacement or addition to Tarkovskys Solaris or is it just like Patterson describes it, unneeded like the replacement of the family dog? Is Tarkovskys family dog so well-known and respected that a new family dog would be redundant?

First of all, one should notice that both films are based on Stanislaw Lems book Solaris. At least thats what one can read everywherebut is this so? Is Soderberghs film a re-adaptation of Lems book or is it rather a remake of Tarkovskys film?

I would like to analyse in what way the two directors developed the characters in the film having the book Solaris as the basis.

By analysing the way, Soderbergh and Tarkovsky present the relationship between Hari/Rheya and Chris and how the two directors develop the characters, I will also try to find an answer to the question whether Soderberghs Solaris is a remake of Tarkovskys Solaris or a re-adaptation of Lems book.

What are the similarities and differences of the presentation of this relationship in the two films?

Soderbergh for example never personally said that his film is only a remake of Tarkovskys Solaris but also, or even more, a re-adaptation of Lems book.

This would exactly apply to the theory of Jan Speckenbach, who mentions in his first part of On the Remake. A cinematic phenomenon that sometimes the director of a remake denies it to be one. Since it might sell better when it is a new adaptation of the novel - that also is used in the original film - that provided a basis for the remake and not just a remake of the original film. But did Soderbergh only refer to his film as a re-adaptation because it might sell better or is it really a re-adaptation?

Hari/Rheya (named Hari in Tarkovskys Solaris, differently in Soderberghs Solaris and same as in Lems book: Rheya) also plays a central role in the two films, and I would like to analyse the representation of her in the two films.