|
|
Wednesday, December 04, 2002
For those who are looking for other opinions on Solaris, I refer you to the collected reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. This a great site for movie reviews, BTW. Highly recommended.
I received a question via email that I want to answer publicly. The name has been changed and the question paraphrased to protect the identity of the correspondent.
NOTE: This post contains spoilers! If you have not seen the film Solaris and do not want to know what happens (to the extent that I can even begin to summarize it), then you might not want to read this.
Dear Scott,
I read your post about Solaris, and I have one question: are you insane? That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen! Did you actually enjoy it, or are you just a drooling Soderbergh fanboy that claims to love his movies because he's fashionable? As far as I could tell it's just a slow, boring version of Ghost, and George Clooney is no Patrick Swayze, ass or no ass. I can't believe I let you talk me into seeing this. If you ever recommend another film to me again, I'll take you down. And if you think I'm bluffing, just look at what I did to Nixon after he told me to go see Battle for the Planet of the Apes. Do you think they found out about those tapes by accident? Hardly.
I'm warning you, Dierdorf: don't cross me again.
Sincerely,
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
Calm down, Dr. Kissinger. I'll be happy to give you a more detailed opinion of Solaris if you'll just stop waving that gun in my face. That's better.
In my opinion, Solaris can be appreciated on at least three levels, the first of which is visual and aesthetic. The film is pleasing to the eye, and I find Soderbergh's images intriguing in the same way as a great photograph: they make me want to stare and think. (See Andreas Gursky.) Many complained about the pace, but I think that's one of the film's virtues. Like Kubrick and Terrence Malick, Soderbergh gives you a chance to sit and just look. Although one can rightly claim that Solaris is derivative of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I think that's a good thing in this case. Few people dare to take on films in this vein anymore, and although Solaris can't hope to surpass the best of Kubrick or Malick, I think we are better off for Soderbergh's attempt.
The second level is the narrative. The film is a mystery, and I enjoyed trying to figure out what actually happens to Kelvin. Was he replaced by a Visitor before going to Earth? Or is he not on Earth at all? It's equally likely that he's inside Solaris, in some kind of Heaven-dimension in which he can be with his wife. There are some very mysterious shots that leave the ending ambiguous, such as the double dissolve that happens as Kelvin is about to step into the space capsule. The dissolve indicates a flashback, but the fact that there are two of them raises the question of where he is flashing back from. The nature of the child at the end is also up for grabs. Is he a Visitor, or is he something else altogether? What does he tell Kelvin at the end, and how does it relate to Kelvin's fate? And what is Solaris? This question is never sufficiently considered by the characters, and this conspicuous omission looms over the entire film. I like movies that leave you with loose ends, so this one is right up my alley.
The third level of Solaris is one of philosophical inquiry. Solaris can construct replicas of people based on the memories of others, but these memories are flawed. When Kelvin meets his Visitor, he is not having a relationship with his wife but rather with his understanding of his wife. This raises the question: do we love people for who they are, or for who we understand them to be? If it's the latter, then how successful can any human relationship be if all we ever know is a shadow of the other person? Is it possible for Kelvin to be happy with the one-sided Visitor version of his wife that he presumably ends up with? How is this relationship any different from the one he had with his real wife? The seemingly basic plot of the movie raises a host of interesting questions that I haven't sufficiently considered and don't profess to understand. I would definitely benefit from a second viewing.
Does that satisfy you, Dr. Kissinger? I'm not saying that I'm right or that you'll agree with me, but perhaps you'll be satisfied that the film is at least worthy of consideration. Please, don't bomb anyone else over this matter.
NOTE: This post contains spoilers! If you have not seen the film Solaris and do not want to know what happens (to the extent that I can even begin to summarize it), then you might not want to read this.
Dear Scott,
I read your post about Solaris, and I have one question: are you insane? That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen! Did you actually enjoy it, or are you just a drooling Soderbergh fanboy that claims to love his movies because he's fashionable? As far as I could tell it's just a slow, boring version of Ghost, and George Clooney is no Patrick Swayze, ass or no ass. I can't believe I let you talk me into seeing this. If you ever recommend another film to me again, I'll take you down. And if you think I'm bluffing, just look at what I did to Nixon after he told me to go see Battle for the Planet of the Apes. Do you think they found out about those tapes by accident? Hardly.
I'm warning you, Dierdorf: don't cross me again.
Sincerely,
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
Calm down, Dr. Kissinger. I'll be happy to give you a more detailed opinion of Solaris if you'll just stop waving that gun in my face. That's better.
In my opinion, Solaris can be appreciated on at least three levels, the first of which is visual and aesthetic. The film is pleasing to the eye, and I find Soderbergh's images intriguing in the same way as a great photograph: they make me want to stare and think. (See Andreas Gursky.) Many complained about the pace, but I think that's one of the film's virtues. Like Kubrick and Terrence Malick, Soderbergh gives you a chance to sit and just look. Although one can rightly claim that Solaris is derivative of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I think that's a good thing in this case. Few people dare to take on films in this vein anymore, and although Solaris can't hope to surpass the best of Kubrick or Malick, I think we are better off for Soderbergh's attempt.
The second level is the narrative. The film is a mystery, and I enjoyed trying to figure out what actually happens to Kelvin. Was he replaced by a Visitor before going to Earth? Or is he not on Earth at all? It's equally likely that he's inside Solaris, in some kind of Heaven-dimension in which he can be with his wife. There are some very mysterious shots that leave the ending ambiguous, such as the double dissolve that happens as Kelvin is about to step into the space capsule. The dissolve indicates a flashback, but the fact that there are two of them raises the question of where he is flashing back from. The nature of the child at the end is also up for grabs. Is he a Visitor, or is he something else altogether? What does he tell Kelvin at the end, and how does it relate to Kelvin's fate? And what is Solaris? This question is never sufficiently considered by the characters, and this conspicuous omission looms over the entire film. I like movies that leave you with loose ends, so this one is right up my alley.
The third level of Solaris is one of philosophical inquiry. Solaris can construct replicas of people based on the memories of others, but these memories are flawed. When Kelvin meets his Visitor, he is not having a relationship with his wife but rather with his understanding of his wife. This raises the question: do we love people for who they are, or for who we understand them to be? If it's the latter, then how successful can any human relationship be if all we ever know is a shadow of the other person? Is it possible for Kelvin to be happy with the one-sided Visitor version of his wife that he presumably ends up with? How is this relationship any different from the one he had with his real wife? The seemingly basic plot of the movie raises a host of interesting questions that I haven't sufficiently considered and don't profess to understand. I would definitely benefit from a second viewing.
Does that satisfy you, Dr. Kissinger? I'm not saying that I'm right or that you'll agree with me, but perhaps you'll be satisfied that the film is at least worthy of consideration. Please, don't bomb anyone else over this matter.
Tuesday, December 03, 2002
As promised, I now present:
Scott's NaNoWriMo 2002 Wrap Up
The Combatants
First of all, let's take a moment to honor all of the members of the Insane Clown Writing Posse (ICWP) who took on this momentous challenge. It is frightening to meet your artistic self, and it's even more frightening to sit down with him and have a chat for an entire month. Whether you finished or not, you deserve recognition just for agreeing to have that chat.
The Victors
Let us now take another, longer moment to honor the people who were crazy enough to follow this through to the end. You are the brave, the proud, the tendonitis-afflicted. You are, in reverse alphabetical order:
Scott Pogue - 50,604 words
Me - 75,058 words
Kasey - 50,862 words
Jim - 51,168 words
feng - 50,172 words
Cara - 50,260 words
Group Statistics
And now, because I can see you fondling your calculator, I will provide you with some stats. The Insane Clown Writing Posse had six winners who wrote a total of 328,124 words, for an average of 54,687 words per winner. I don't have word counts for all those who didn't finish, but I'm betting that our total number of words is in excess of 375,000. It boggles the mind - 375,000 written words that did not exist a month ago, all produced by ten people. That is a monumental feat, and I congratulate everyone who contributed to it.
To see how the ICWP stacked up against the overall NaNoWriMo population (and against last year), here is a handy chart:
As you can see, we blew away the overall NaNoWriMo population. I also find it interesting that the overall winning percentage increased by .6% even though the total population nearly tripled.
Personal Statistics
Now for my personal stats. I wrote 75,058 words in 30 days; I worked for 26 days and took four days off. My best day was 5640 words, my worst day was 572 words, and my average was 2501.93 words per day. This is admittedly lower than Mr. Pogue's average, but I did it for longer so I feel somewhat vindicated. Also note that my average increased by 350 words per day in the second half of the month (2326.6 vs 2677). My judiciously applied rest days kept me fresh for the stretch run.
Here are the graphs I promised you. First, here is a graph of my cumulative word count over the entire month. For fun I also plotted it against the average 50,000 word pace (1700 words per day) and the average 70,000 word pace (2334 words per day). As you can see, I didn't get serious about the 70,000 word goal until about halfway through the month.
Here is another graph of my daily word count for the month. Although my daily word count average was high, the see-saw nature of the graph shows that my progress was somewhat lurching. This graph is plotted against my daily average, so you can see how the average was affected by each day's output.
And for those of you who just can't get enough numbers, here is the raw data for these graphs.
The Lessons
What did I learn from this year's contest?
First, I learned that the true test of NaNoWriMo is not words - it's dedication and ideas. If I have an idea I can come up with an enormous number of words to describe it, so the trick is to come up with the ideas. Dedication is important because I need to write every day to keep my mind occupied with the task at hand. My subconscious is often much smarter than I am, and it needs to be saturated in order to do its job. Even though I was ahead, I only took four days off because I didn't want to lose momentum.
Second, I think it's important for me to find my voice. This is an issue of quality rather than quantity. I found that I was much happier with the parts of the novel that I wrote in what I think of as my "natural voice". The problem is that I haven't yet found a way to successfully apply this voice in a third-person narrative yet. That is going to take some work, but admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Third, I learned that character is king. I am through relying on high-concept plots to drive my writing. From now on I'm going to dedicate myself to coming up with characters first, and then letting them dictate the action. I think this will help both my screenwriting and my narrative writing.
Finally, I learned that I need to write and read more. It's no surprise that I need to write more, but I realized that my understanding of fiction is very limited. I read a lot, but I rarely pay attention to the mechanics of the craft the way I do when I watch movies. I need to start doing this. In order to write, you have to read.
The End
There you have it - my NaNoWriMo summary. I think I'm going to do the contest again next year, but hopefully I'll get some more practice in the next year that will make my next novel a little better. You can continue to read my blog to see if I manage it. Thanks for sticking with me throughout the contest. I promise that my blog will get back to its normal, exciting topics for a while, so keep on tuning in.
Scott's NaNoWriMo 2002 Wrap Up
The Combatants
First of all, let's take a moment to honor all of the members of the Insane Clown Writing Posse (ICWP) who took on this momentous challenge. It is frightening to meet your artistic self, and it's even more frightening to sit down with him and have a chat for an entire month. Whether you finished or not, you deserve recognition just for agreeing to have that chat.
The Victors
Let us now take another, longer moment to honor the people who were crazy enough to follow this through to the end. You are the brave, the proud, the tendonitis-afflicted. You are, in reverse alphabetical order:
Scott Pogue - 50,604 words
Me - 75,058 words
Kasey - 50,862 words
Jim - 51,168 words
feng - 50,172 words
Cara - 50,260 words
Group Statistics
And now, because I can see you fondling your calculator, I will provide you with some stats. The Insane Clown Writing Posse had six winners who wrote a total of 328,124 words, for an average of 54,687 words per winner. I don't have word counts for all those who didn't finish, but I'm betting that our total number of words is in excess of 375,000. It boggles the mind - 375,000 written words that did not exist a month ago, all produced by ten people. That is a monumental feat, and I congratulate everyone who contributed to it.
To see how the ICWP stacked up against the overall NaNoWriMo population (and against last year), here is a handy chart:
| 2002 | 2001 | |||||||
| Overall | ICWP | Overall | ICWP | |||||
| Number of Participants | 14,833 | 10 | 5000 | 3 | ||||
| Number of Winners | 2070 | 6 | 668 | 3 | ||||
| % Winners | 13.96% | 60% | 13.36% | 100% |
As you can see, we blew away the overall NaNoWriMo population. I also find it interesting that the overall winning percentage increased by .6% even though the total population nearly tripled.
Personal Statistics
Now for my personal stats. I wrote 75,058 words in 30 days; I worked for 26 days and took four days off. My best day was 5640 words, my worst day was 572 words, and my average was 2501.93 words per day. This is admittedly lower than Mr. Pogue's average, but I did it for longer so I feel somewhat vindicated. Also note that my average increased by 350 words per day in the second half of the month (2326.6 vs 2677). My judiciously applied rest days kept me fresh for the stretch run.
Here are the graphs I promised you. First, here is a graph of my cumulative word count over the entire month. For fun I also plotted it against the average 50,000 word pace (1700 words per day) and the average 70,000 word pace (2334 words per day). As you can see, I didn't get serious about the 70,000 word goal until about halfway through the month.
Here is another graph of my daily word count for the month. Although my daily word count average was high, the see-saw nature of the graph shows that my progress was somewhat lurching. This graph is plotted against my daily average, so you can see how the average was affected by each day's output.
And for those of you who just can't get enough numbers, here is the raw data for these graphs.
The Lessons
What did I learn from this year's contest?
First, I learned that the true test of NaNoWriMo is not words - it's dedication and ideas. If I have an idea I can come up with an enormous number of words to describe it, so the trick is to come up with the ideas. Dedication is important because I need to write every day to keep my mind occupied with the task at hand. My subconscious is often much smarter than I am, and it needs to be saturated in order to do its job. Even though I was ahead, I only took four days off because I didn't want to lose momentum.
Second, I think it's important for me to find my voice. This is an issue of quality rather than quantity. I found that I was much happier with the parts of the novel that I wrote in what I think of as my "natural voice". The problem is that I haven't yet found a way to successfully apply this voice in a third-person narrative yet. That is going to take some work, but admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Third, I learned that character is king. I am through relying on high-concept plots to drive my writing. From now on I'm going to dedicate myself to coming up with characters first, and then letting them dictate the action. I think this will help both my screenwriting and my narrative writing.
Finally, I learned that I need to write and read more. It's no surprise that I need to write more, but I realized that my understanding of fiction is very limited. I read a lot, but I rarely pay attention to the mechanics of the craft the way I do when I watch movies. I need to start doing this. In order to write, you have to read.
The End
There you have it - my NaNoWriMo summary. I think I'm going to do the contest again next year, but hopefully I'll get some more practice in the next year that will make my next novel a little better. You can continue to read my blog to see if I manage it. Thanks for sticking with me throughout the contest. I promise that my blog will get back to its normal, exciting topics for a while, so keep on tuning in.
Monday, December 02, 2002
I just re-read my post about Lord of the Rings, and I don't think I was expressing myself clearly. When I said it will be the greatest filmmaking achievement ever, I didn't necessarily mean it would be the greatest film ever. I think there's a difference. A great film is judged purely by what is on the screen. A great filmmaking achievement is also judged by the quality of the finished product, but one must also consider the difficulty of the project and, in this case, the amount of money and pressure involved. The job of adapting this immense, sprawling book for the screen is monumental. Even more difficult is the task of creating a believable world given the number of locations, creatures, and languages involved, not to mention the fact that the main cast members all have to be different sizes. When you add in the pressure created by the enormous popularity of the book, you have a filmmaking challenge the likes of which has never been seen.
Based on the results so far, I believe that Peter Jackson and the rest of the cast and crew have risen to the challenge. I believe that the three film cycle could supplant Lawrence of Arabia as the greatest film achievement of all time - although it will not surpass Lawrence's stature as one of the greatest films of all time. There is a difference.
So that's my clarification. I don't know why I couldn't say that yesterday. Maybe it was all that junk food. I should also point out that I'm not some drooling Tolkein fanboy. I've read the books, and I like them, but I'm not one of those people that sits around practicing my Elvish and wearing pointy ears. I am judging the Jackson films on their own merits, not on an overwhelming love of Tolkein.
OK, enough of that. NaNoWriMo summary soon to come.
Based on the results so far, I believe that Peter Jackson and the rest of the cast and crew have risen to the challenge. I believe that the three film cycle could supplant Lawrence of Arabia as the greatest film achievement of all time - although it will not surpass Lawrence's stature as one of the greatest films of all time. There is a difference.
So that's my clarification. I don't know why I couldn't say that yesterday. Maybe it was all that junk food. I should also point out that I'm not some drooling Tolkein fanboy. I've read the books, and I like them, but I'm not one of those people that sits around practicing my Elvish and wearing pointy ears. I am judging the Jackson films on their own merits, not on an overwhelming love of Tolkein.
OK, enough of that. NaNoWriMo summary soon to come.
Haloscan appears to be down for some reason, so the commenting system is not working. I've taken out comments for the time being so that you won't get 70,000 Javascript errors when you try to load the page. I'll put them back in when Haloscan fixes their problem. If you have any comments in the meantime, feel free to email me.
Sunday, December 01, 2002
NaNoWriMo is over. It's a little hard to believe. I wish I had time to relax, but I have several other projects waiting in the wings, and they're seriously peeved that I put them off for an entire month. Before they take hold of my schedule, however, I am preparing some statistics and final thoughts about this year's contest. I know I said that last year, but this year I swear I'm really going to do it. I have a few numbers I'm still waiting to compile, so I will post my summary as soon as it is complete. As a bonus for your patience, I promise that the summary will include cool graphs. (Cool if you're a nerd, that is.) Expect to see it before the end of the week. If you don't, please hound me about it.
To celebrate all the work I've done over the last 30 days, I went to Nik's today with a bunch of people and watched the extended cut of The Fellowship of the Ring and some of the supplements. We spent roughly ten hours eating junk food and wading through the vast amounts of material on the four DVDs. What I came away with, apart from a slight stomach ache, is a deep impression of the incredible amounts of care, love, and craftsmanship that went into the making of these movies. If the sequels manage to measure up to the first film, I believe that Peter Jackson and his team will have produced what will rightfully be considered the greatest achievement in the history of filmmaking.
I use the phrase "the greatest" intentionally and with trepidation. It is extremely difficult to define greatness as it relates to art, and attempting to do so leaves one open for criticism on all sides. I'm sure there are people out there who didn't even like the movie, which makes it difficult to discuss whether or not it is the greatest. However, I think this label may well apply based on my appraisal of the first film. I feel that it demonstrates a keen sense of drama and character (with the additional material in the extended cut), a delightful sense of imagination, and an epic scale that is coupled with a tireless attention to detail. I suppose we will see what the future holds, but I predict (and hope for) great things.
To celebrate all the work I've done over the last 30 days, I went to Nik's today with a bunch of people and watched the extended cut of The Fellowship of the Ring and some of the supplements. We spent roughly ten hours eating junk food and wading through the vast amounts of material on the four DVDs. What I came away with, apart from a slight stomach ache, is a deep impression of the incredible amounts of care, love, and craftsmanship that went into the making of these movies. If the sequels manage to measure up to the first film, I believe that Peter Jackson and his team will have produced what will rightfully be considered the greatest achievement in the history of filmmaking.
I use the phrase "the greatest" intentionally and with trepidation. It is extremely difficult to define greatness as it relates to art, and attempting to do so leaves one open for criticism on all sides. I'm sure there are people out there who didn't even like the movie, which makes it difficult to discuss whether or not it is the greatest. However, I think this label may well apply based on my appraisal of the first film. I feel that it demonstrates a keen sense of drama and character (with the additional material in the extended cut), a delightful sense of imagination, and an epic scale that is coupled with a tireless attention to detail. I suppose we will see what the future holds, but I predict (and hope for) great things.