Double hero Soviet Union, pilot Vitaly Sevastyanov. In one of the television interviews, he said that he had a strange vision in space. During the flight in the cockpit of the spaceship, he constantly heard the sound of rain. The astronaut not only heard the sound of rain, but also smelled.

This has been happening for 50 years. In orbit, astronauts feel as if someone is trying to communicate with them, sending strange sounds, dreams and visions. Only recently scientists have put forward a sensational hypothesis. The planet Earth itself is trying to make contact with the astronauts.

The core is the heart of the planet, rivers, seas and oceans are its blood, trees and plants are its lungs, and animals are its sense organs. The earth is an organism capable of communication. Dozens of astronauts who have been in orbit confirm that the Earth is intelligent and it is trying to establish contact with us.

Test cosmonaut, military pilot first class Sergei Krichevsky found out about this in 1994. Sergei Vladimirovich was preparing for his first flight into orbit. Suddenly, Krichevsky was called by one of the eminent cosmonauts, who had worked for half a year at the Mir orbital station. A colleague warned Krichevsky that some astronauts had visions in orbit.

He unobtrusively told me this: “If this happens, don’t worry, this is the norm, it’s not your roof that has gone. This happened to me, and to a couple of other people, there is no need to panic, no need to twitch and yell.

After that, several more astronauts confirmed that they had fantastic daydreams in orbit. In them, a person experienced a wide variety of sensations and transformations, up to a complete reincarnation into another being. For example, one colleague told Sergey Krichevsky about being in the form of a dinosaur.

Sergei Krichevsky, test cosmonaut:
He said that he didn’t just see something from the side, but he himself was a dinosaur, saw his paws, walked through ravines, and not alone, but in a herd, chasing someone. I heard exclamations, cries of these creatures, I myself yelled so that everything vibrated. There were plates on the back.

Perhaps this is how our Earth tells a person about how the planet developed, introduces the past, present and future. The astronauts even gave it a name - the Solaris effect. As you know, in the science fiction novel by Stanislav Lem, the intelligent ocean of the planet Solaris communicated with people.

Sergei Krichevsky, test cosmonaut:
Solaris is a living planet, a thinking and living ocean that could read information, cause some plots. At first it was not clear where such dreams come from in orbit. If you carefully read Solaris, it becomes clear that Lemm foresaw new effects of the manifestation of consciousness.

Scientists confirm that Stanislav Lem's novel "Solaris" is not a fiction, but a precisely calculated forecast, and our Earth, like the thinking ocean Solaris, projects various sounds and images in people's minds, this happens through the human brain, which tunes in space to a certain frequency and able to pick up the signals of our planet.

Pavel Sviridov, President of the Foundation for Temporal Research, Analysis and Forecast:
The Earth is a thinking organism, it is a crystal that cognizes itself through development human civilization. People receive certain channels into the noosphere, into the information space, but each hears something of his own, because he perceives everything through his receiver, through his brain. Accordingly, someone sees the house, someone hears the barking of a dog, someone hears the music that he liked - everyone has his own.

Recently, scientists have seen another amazing property that manifests itself in orbit - the effect of increasing ground objects, when from a height of 300 km, without any instruments, a person can see the smallest objects on the planet. So the American astronaut Gordon Cooper, flying over the territory of Tibet, saw with the naked eye not only houses and buildings, but also a locomotive crawling along the rails. And cosmonaut Vitaly Sevastyanov, flying over his native Sochi, clearly saw his own two-story house, this effect is confirmed by many other cosmonauts.

Alexander Serebrov, pilot-cosmonaut, Hero of the USSR:
I also saw all the streets of Cape Town with my eyes without binoculars. There are always winds and never clouds.

Scientists believe that the planet's atmosphere is the reason for this super-far-sightedness. A kind of magnifying lens is formed from the evaporated earth's moisture. Perhaps the Earth does this on purpose so that a person can consider what is happening on his native planet, how its forests are cut down, the oceans and air are poisoned.

In his legendary flight, Gagarin also heard music that arose from nowhere and did not give rest.

SOLARIS OF OUR CONSCIENCE

On this day - December 29, 1986 - Andrei Tarkovsky died in Paris. The last refuge of the great Russian director was a cemetery on the outskirts of Paris - Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois. When I was in Paris, I specially visited the Russian Orthodox church Saint Alexander Nevsky, where Andrei was buried.

I am a longtime admirer of Andrei Tarkovsky's work. I especially like the movie Solaris, which I have seen countless times. I recently watched Solaris in its full director's cut, with no cut scenes.

“I see the main meaning of the film in its moral issues,” said Andrei Tarkovsky. – Penetration into the innermost secrets of nature must be inextricably linked with moral progress. Having taken a step to a new level of knowledge, it is necessary to put the other foot on a new moral level.

I remember my meeting with Andrei Tarkovsky on December 12, 1981 in the assembly hall of the Leningrad University, where a creative meeting of the famous film director took place.

Tarkovsky said that art exists only because the world is unfavorable, because overcoming is needed.

I managed to ask Andrei Arsenievich a question and hear his original answer, which I still remember.

“For me, cinema is a moral occupation, not a professional one,” said Andrei Tarkovsky. “For me there is no doubt that art is a DUTY.”

About the film "Solaris" Tarkovsky said this:

“I would like to prove with my painting that the problem of moral stability, moral purity permeates our entire existence, manifesting itself even in areas that at first glance are not related to morality, for example, penetration into space, the study of the objective world, etc.”

I still can't comprehend the magical power of the Solaris movie. Something makes me watch it again and again. And every time I ask myself: why do I like this movie?

Probably, its secret, the fact that this is a journey into the unknown, into the abyss of space and the human soul.

I recently bought a special two-disc "Green Ray" edition of the film "Solaris" for a foreign audience. On one disc the film itself, on the second Additional materials- interviews of people who participated in the creation of the masterpiece: Natalia Bondarchuk, Vadim Yusov, Eduard Artemyev, Mikhail Romadin.

When I watch the film "Solaris" by Andrei Tarkovsky, a resonance arises in me with something higher.

The American film "Solaris" with J. Clooney cannot be compared with our film.

There is also a TV play "Solaris" with Vasily Lanov in the role of Chris. The TV show didn't make much of an impression on me. He is devoid of moral philosophy and Russian cosmism.

When I saw Andrei Tarkovsky's film Solaris for the first time at the age of fourteen, I was shocked and walked for three days under an impression that I still can't forget. After this movie, I believed in love!

For me, Solaris is a film about immortality, about the immortality of love, about love reigning in space. This is a film about eternal questions and eternal answers.

“A strange fate has fallen to the lot of the human mind in one of its forms of knowledge,” wrote Immanuel Kant in the preface to the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, “he is besieged by questions from which he cannot evade, since they are imposed on him by his own nature. ; but at the same time he cannot answer them, as they are beyond all his possibilities.

Almost all Andrei Tarkovsky's films are a search for God!

To some extent, the thinking ocean of Solaris, capable of creating matrices of people, can be called a god.

Solaris becomes a test of his conscience for Chris.

The problem of a disturbed conscience is present in all of Tarkovsky's films. Apparently, it was his personal problem. When one day I watched all the films of Tarkovsky in a row, I got the feeling that this is one film about Andrei himself. Anatoly Solonitsyn became the alter-ego of the director on the screen.

According to Boris Pavlyonok, Deputy Chairman of the State Film Agency, Tarkovsky “... lived in his own closed world, showed disdain for the public and at times could say: “Look at yourself. Are you able to understand my film?’”

Natalya Bondarchuk says that there was a rumor in VGIK that Tarkovsky was a genius. No one had seen his films, but everyone knew that he was a genius.

It is curious that initially they did not want to accept Tarkovsky at VGIK. Only thanks to the perseverance of Mikhail Romm Andrey was accepted.

Later, Mikhail Romm said about Andrei Konchalovsky that he could become a master, and about Andrei Tarkovsky that he could become a genius.

So I think it's better to live long life a master or die early, having made only seven brilliant films?

What is a genius? And do we need them?

Japanese proverb: "Genius is a disaster for loved ones."

The more difficult life is for an artist, the more interesting the artist himself is. And Tarkovsky's life was not always easy. Andrew was doomed to suffer. For a long time he lived without a home. He had 11,000 (Soviet) rubles in debt and not a penny in his pocket. He needed a woman who would fully understand him and could create the necessary comfort for him.

Andrei was a very nervous, almost sick person. He was literally obsessed with art.

“If I don’t make a long, boring film, I will shoot myself,” Tarkovsky joked.

Tarkovsky's films were addressed to the world audience. For the USSR, they were rather "nonsense".

“My films are long, boring, I can shoot only here, in my homeland,” Andrey admitted.

Tarkovsky created the atmosphere of the film. According to Natalia Bondarchuk, one must understand the atmosphere of his landscape, and "then reality becomes a different time, the time of art."

“Certainly, Tarkovsky's art is not for everyone. It fascinates only those people who have something to fascinate with.”

Andrei did not approach dogmatically to explain the life of the human spirit. He was a believer, although, perhaps, his faith was cosmic.

This is probably why at the Cannes Film Festival, in addition to the Grand Prix, the film Solaris received an award from the Protestant and Catholic Church (ecumenical direction) for the divine principle in the film.

Composer Eduard Artemiev, who wrote the music for the film, recalls:

“Tarkovsky once said: actually, I don’t need music in the film, I need the noises of nature. His favorite composer was Bach. He said: I dream of making a film without music. I need music only in those moments when there are no means to pull it out with the language of cinema.

Cameraman Vadim Yusov said this about Andrei Tarkovsky:

“He was devoted to cinema. For him, nothing else existed in life ... He tried to explain that the Earth is something more than earth and water, it is all living, something sensual.

Andrei Tarkovsky and Vadim Yusov sought to achieve naturalness. The color film "Kodak" was given out to spare, we had to shoot the entire film without takes. Therefore, some of the film's frames are in black and white.

Mikhail Romadin, artist on the film Solaris, recalls: “They tried to bring everything closer to the earth. Make the movie minimally fantastic. For 2/3 to happen on Earth. But Lem was categorically against it.”

A film by Andrei Tarkovsky and a novel by Stanislav Lem are two completely different things. For Tarkovsky, the most important thing is the Earth, the return to Earth. He sees the cosmos as scary, frightening, teaches to value the time allotted on Earth.

The earth is a living being. Forests are like skin, rivers are veins, clouds are the sweat of the planet. The whole world is a Single Living Organism. Everything is interconnected. Water, stones, wood, bonfire fire - all living things!

The Earth is alive, she feels, she thinks!

Humanity, on the other hand, resembles a disease that causes inconvenience to the planet, with which the planet will certainly cope. If we are not wise enough to stop and stop taking recklessly, Gaia will be able to get rid of people.

The very idea of ​​a "thinking planet" does not belong to Stanislav Lem. Another science fiction writer has previously written about such a planet of the creative mind.

When, after watching Andrei Tarkovsky's film, I read Lem's story, I was surprised to find that it was just a detective story, even if it was a cosmic one.

Somehow I had the idea to re-edit Solaris, starting the film with the arrival at the station, and give the motives of the Earth in Chris's dreams.

Stanislav Lem was categorically against the fact that the action of Tarkovsky's film begins on Earth, and demanded compliance with his plan. But Tarkovsky insisted on his vision. In general, he didn’t so much film someone’s work, but filmed it based on it, turning it into his own creation.

Tarkovsky was interested in the soul and what a Man is. Eduard Artemiev believes that in essence Solaris is a film about karma: if you are given other lives, other circumstances, then you will live them the same way as in a previous life.

Andrew drew a lot from the Bible and other spiritual literature. In his films there is not even a single random stone. All his images on the screen are clear to the dedicated person.

Tarkovsky did not like actors who offer their own vision of the role and interfere in the process of creating the image. He said that if he could, he would not tell the actors the plot of the picture at all. And Banionis constantly climbed with his advice.

My friend's father participated in the filming of the film - an episode of the Burton Commission.

Tarkovsky categorically refused to rehearse with the actors, and did not even give them a script. He wanted everything to be like in life. Tarkovsky needed the fortune of an actor. He approached Natalya Bondarchuk and said: “I don’t care at all how you play and what you say. It is important to me that you live, that your eyelashes are trembling, that your tears are welling up.

Natalya Bondarchuk met Andrei Tarkovsky when she was 13 years old. She has already read Solaris by Stanislav Lem and gave this book to Tarkovsky to read.

After the first trials, Tarkovsky did not approve Bondarchuk. And only six months later, when he had already tried a hundred actresses, he suddenly saw Natalya in a new way and approved for the role.

“For me, as well as for many of his favorite actors, Tarkovsky was the center of the universe,” Bondarchuk admits.

Andrei Tarkovsky was an amorous man. During the filming of the film "Solaris" he had an affair with the performer of the role of Hari Natalia Bondarchuk.

Andrei Tarkovsky was 39 years old, Natalya Bondarchuk - 21 years old.

“Look how beautiful she is, she's an angel!” Tarkovsky told members of the film crew.

“Andrey generally loved to look at me,” recalls Natalya Bondarchuk. “For him, I was like a picture, he constantly decided where else to put a smear in order to bring the image to perfection. He studied me to understand what the heroine of Solaris should be like.

“I feel like I gave birth to you. No, not as an actress, but as a person. Maybe in some other life it was like that, ”Andrei admitted to Natalya.

“For some reason, he let me get to him,” Bondarchuk recalls. “And I felt that this is a person infinitely close to me in spirit.”

“You are my woman,” Tarkovsky said, “which means ... This means that I love you. Don't think that I don't see anything, I don't understand how you feel about me. True love does not go unanswered."

Sometimes this happens between the actress and the director: working together, they begin to recognize each other and feelings arise. “The same sea of ​​fish,” Marina Tsvetaeva wrote about such a state.

If the director does not love his main character, then he will not be able to make a film about love, and not about love will also fail.

Better than in Solaris, no one has ever shot Natalya Bondarchuk in a movie; even Sergei Gerasimov in the film "Red and Black", where Natalia played Madame de Renal.

When Hari breaks through the metal door to his lover, it is unlikely that someone will be shocked!

“I completely trusted him,” recalls the performer of the role of Hari Natalia Bondarchuk. "I played Andersen's The Little Mermaid."

Hari is not human. But when she has learned to love, she becomes a man!

"I'm already human and I love you! Hari says. “I have learned to love.”

Perhaps the purpose of life is to learn to love, to love no matter what!

The Artistic Council gave the film Solaris 42 comments. Particularly strong cavils were to the scene of the resurrection of Hari.

This scene was filmed after Tarkovsky's explanation with Natalya Bondarchuk, when he admitted that he could not marry her. "My girl, I love you, I'm ready to live with you all my life ... But I can't betray my son a second time."

To marry Bondarchuk, Tarkovsky wanted to divorce Kizilova. But Larisa threatened that he would never see his son again.

Natalya Bondarchuk, according to her, was passionately in love with Andrei. Perhaps it is because of this that the scene of breaking through the door and the scene of the resurrection of Hari were especially successful.

“The not resurrected Hari looks, Solaris, Cosmos, God looks through her ...”

"What is Solaris? - Natalya Bondarchuk asks a question, and she herself answers: - This is life after life. Each of us will have such a meeting. A conscience that cannot and cannot be extinguished here, on the earthly plane, by any prayers to atone for one's sin. Let's leave, everyone will get his guest - what he is actually guilty of.

“There is no death, I am convinced. There is a transfiguration, a transformation, but the spirit cannot be destroyed.”

Solaris is a film about immortality, about human love and human conscience.

Today, such a film would be impossible. It is natural that the younger generation cannot understand Tarkovsky's films. After all, they are talking about a disturbed conscience. Young people do not believe in conscience, remorse is called depression and they hope that a psychoanalyst will cure them of pangs of conscience.

“Today we are the most unscrupulous society in the entire history of Russia,” says the famous film director Sergei Solovyov. - A society where even a drop of conscience is a hated vestige that hinders the achievement of success ... "

What is our unscrupulous society heading towards?

“We are now not a society with a developing economy, but a colossal den. Because they arranged a life for themselves without conscience, and the laws of this life are built on shamelessness, and no matter how many churches we build, our society lives without God. This means that all of it is doomed to convulsive agony, which should frighten all of humanity, ”says Sergey Solovyov.

Today people prefer not to remember conscience. No one, or almost no one, will give up wealth for the sake of a clear conscience.

What kind of conscience can be called for when self-interest and profit are propagated everywhere?!

Conscience is guilt and shame; when you feel someone else's pain as your own.

“Shame is the feeling that will save humanity!” exclaims Chris Kelvin.

Is it possible to live according to conscience in our shameless time?

Theoretically possible. But who lives like this? Units are the righteous, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The rest live according to the "laws of the wolf": deceive and "devour" the other in order to survive yourself!

How to live according to conscience in a world where "wolf laws" rule?

Either live according to the laws of the wolf, or according to conscience.

Most want to be shamelessly rich. Money is dearer to people than conscience. People choose to live a lie; the truth is they prefer money. Even when they are wrong, they will justify themselves and lie to the last.

Today, no one will say that "the most correct deed is a moral deed." Repentance and repentance are extremely rare things. No one believes in inevitable retribution, when everything that has been done will have to answer to the Supreme Justice.

But is there a Supreme Justice? Is the universe fair? What is good and what is evil? And if it is not all the same how to act, then WHO and HOW evaluates our actions?

The whole life of a person depends on the solution of this question. This is the key question of human existence!

"Solaris" is a film about the test of a person's conscience, the test of love!

Professor Gibaryan fails the test and commits suicide.

Professor Snout doesn't seem to believe in conscience and tries not to think about it.

Professor Sartorius resembles Faust, he is looking for conscience in the organics of man, and not finding it, he denies its existence.

And only Chris Kelvin withstands the test that the ocean of Solaris sends him in the form of his beloved Hari.

Hari is an unsleeping conscience. Thanks to Hari, Chris understands that love is more important than science, love is above everything.

“You are dearer to me than all the scientific truths that existed in the world,” Chris says to the resurrected Hari.

Love is a test of humanity.

Through love we become human.

Without sympathy and without love, we are not human.

Only love makes a man a man!

“Maybe we are here to experience people for the first time as a reason for love?!” - Chris Kelvin understands after all the tests.

“Love is a feeling that can be experienced, but cannot be explained. The concept can be explained. And you love what you can lose: yourself, a woman, the Motherland.

The universe is a "woman", it is "Hari"!

Hari is the eternal feminine. She is the embodiment of a man's dream of an ideal woman.

When I saw Hari tear open doors to connect with her lover, I realized what a woman is capable of. A man can't do that!

The performer of the role of Khari, Natalya Bondarchuk, recalls: “If he had ordered him to throw himself into the fire, he would have thrown himself without hesitation. But I fit into the world of Tarkovsky as something ideal, unearthly, so for a long time there was no talk of any physical connection between us ...

After we got close, Andrei admitted that he was afraid of women.

“I could not imagine Tarkovsky as my husband. Whether he introduced me as his wife, I do not know. When we talked to him, it was always about something very important, divine.”

“Oh, this world was not created for me, it is much worse than me,” Natalya complained.

“No, it’s not true, it’s better! Andrei objected. – Everything here is arranged beautifully and wisely, it is we who are not good, sometimes very, very bad. But we have been given the opportunity to improve ourselves and the world, but we must always begin with ourselves.”

With her second husband, Nikolai Burlyaev, Natalya Bondarchuk lived for seventeen years without signing. "We were united by love for Tarkovsky."

Or maybe she separated Andrei Tarkovsky from Nikolai Burlyaev?

Tarkovsky fell in love with almost all the actresses who played the main roles in his films. In the film "Ivan's Childhood" he fell in love with Valentina Malyavina (although she was married to actor Alexander Zbruev). And Andrei married the performer of the role of mother Irma Raush.

Malyavina recalled: “I took a genius into my heart - not a man. I loved him with my special love."

It was because of Malyavin that Andrei Tarkovsky's relationship with his friend Andrei Konchalovsky was upset.

Once Andrei Tarkovsky shared with Nikolai Burlyaev his “theory” about the origin of a woman. The crown of the “theory” was the phrase of a man addressed to a woman: “Who untied you? Go, lie down!"

In an interview with journalist Irena Bresna, Tarkovsky said: “A woman does not have her own inner world and should not have it. Her inner world must completely dissolve in the inner world of a man.

Irena Bresna writes: “Tarkovsky demanded from a woman what he himself was incapable of. Somewhere I understood him, he was unable to love, and I told him this. Why don't you love yourself? And give a woman freedom of action? And then he admitted that it was very difficult for him to love and that it was very difficult for him to sacrifice himself, but a woman ... After all, a woman is a symbol of life, a symbol ... A woman is just a myth for him, everything good and beautiful, and she should be just like that.

In 1974, Tarkovsky wrote in his diary: “What is the organic nature of a woman: in submission, in humiliation in the name of love!”

He was an opponent of emancipation, and believed that a woman's contact with society should occur only in order to arrange personal (love) happiness and family life.

“My roots are that I don’t love myself, that I don’t like myself very much,” Tarkovsky admitted.

“I consider a woman not only equal to a man, but also better than him, but only if she remains a woman in everything. Then she causes in me great respect and love. However, in love, I feel more shocked than happy.

As a child, Andrei had many loves, but the first "adult" love happened to Olga Ganchina when they worked together on a geological expedition in the summer of 1953.

The Don Juan list of Andrei Tarkovsky is hardly less than that of the “sun of Russian poetry”.

The most serious love interests of Tarkovsky are known. These are Donatella Balivo, an Italian documentary filmmaker who created the film Poet in Cinema - Andrei Tarkovsky;

a certain young woman who flew to him in Chisinau when Tarkovsky was filming the film "Sergey Lazo". (Andrey already lived with Larisa Kizilova, but has not yet divorced Irma Raush);

a certain Daria - a teacher from Leningrad, whom he almost married ...

On the set of The Sacrifice, Tarkovsky had an affair with Norwegian costume designer Inger Person, a member of the film crew. As a result of the affair, Andrei Tarkovsky, shortly before his death, had a son, Alexander, whom Andrei had never seen. Now Alexander lives with his mother in Norway.

Olga Surkova (author of the book “Me and Tarkovsky”), who followed Tarkovsky everywhere on the set of his films, claims that Margarita Terekhova was also close to Tarkovsky (acting in the film “Mirror”). But then she preferred the cameraman Georgy Rerberg.

Was this not the true reason for the quarrel and parting of Rerberg with Tarkovsky?

It is known that in the films of Tarkovsky there is a lot of personal. The model for the sexy translator in Nostalgia was Layla Alexander-Garrett, who wrote the book Andrei Tarkovsky: Collector of Dreams. She was also a translator during the filming of the film "Sacrifice". Andrei has known her since 1981, and even offered her the role of Mary in the film "Sacrifice".

In her book, Leila writes: "Andrey was a very nervous person, he was vibrating all over." "He could talk about higher worlds, but at the same time suck all the details out of life. He "copied" from the environment everything that he liked.

It is hard to imagine, but the scene of Hari's coming to life was copied by Tarkovsky from the hysterical fits of his wife Larisa. And in the film "Sacrifice" the wife of the protagonist is a psychological copy of Larisa.

Andrei Tarkovsky was afraid of his second wife Larisa Kizilova and considered her a witch. Her scandals unsettled Tarkovsky for a long time. He even wrote the script for The Witch, which later turned into the film The Sacrifice.

Larisa Pavlovna Kizilova met Tarkovsky when she worked as an assistant director on the film Andrei Rublev. For five years she lived with Tarkovsky "without signing", and achieved her goal only after she did not have another abortion and thus forced Tarkovsky to divorce his first wife, Irma Raush.

Everyone knew that Andrei was walking right and left, including Larisa Pavlovna herself.

Once Larisa even paid for the abortion of one of her friends, who became pregnant from Tarkovsky.

They say that Tarkovsky was in love with his stepdaughter Olga (daughter of Larisa Pavlovna from her first marriage). He even shot a red-haired beauty in two episodes: in the film Solaris and in the film Mirror.

Feeling something was wrong, Larisa Pavlovna did everything to remove her daughter from Tarkovsky.

Andrei was nervous and explosive. A couple of times he beat Larisa hard and even whipped his 18-year-old stepdaughter with a belt. Settled in the house 18-year-old village simple Olya "for relaxation."

Stepdaughter Olga speaks of her stepfather Andrei Tarkovsky in this way: “He had a lot of these women. He constantly cheated on his mother. I changed my panties for clean ones and left the house. Mom made scandals, but it was all useless. He said: "If the director wants the actress to understand what needs to be done in the film, you need to sleep with her."

Olga Surkova recalls: “Being a womanizer, it seems to me that he basically did not understand women, did not love them, or was afraid, maybe because of self-doubt ...”

“Larisa Pavlovna arranged a holiday for Tarkovsky every day, set tables, gathered companies where toasts were made for Andrei's directorial talent. Fulfilled his slightest whim. This is a pleasure for any man, even a great artist. And Tarkovsky could not resist, he probably thought: how will this woman love and protect me! So I got married."

Andrei Tarkovsky was a complex, controversial person. Apparently, the concepts of family and love did not coincide with him. "Having reliable wife, life partner, Andrei Tarkovsky reserved the right to be above the family - in the name of some ideas or just out of a whim, but above ... ".

“Many still accuse Larisa Pavlovna of all sins. Their marriage also seemed strange to me at that time, Natalia Bondarchuk writes. – Especially since Tarkovsky told me many times how much he loved his first wife, Irma Raush. That marriage was destroyed by Larisa Pavlovna. Yes, and our relationship with Andrey was interrupted thanks to her vigilant control. …

Larisa Kizilova met with Natalya Bondarchuk and explained:

"Girl, he's not for you! You can't take this. Andrew is not what you think. This is a very difficult person. He is fond of women, can drink, go on a spree for a week. Recently I found out that my friend is pregnant. Pregnant by Andrey! What was left for me to do? I paid for this idiot's abortion...

Yes, it's hard for me. But I forgive him for everything, this is my cross. My life commitment to a great man. I have to save him so that he can make films. For history, for eternity."

Maybe Larisa Pavlovna did not correspond to the intellectual and spiritual level, but she protected Andrei from everything that could interfere with his work, she was his faithful assistant.

Tarkovsky lived on Larisin's salary as an assistant director and in debt. Larisa took care of Andrey like a mother, a guardian. Tarkovsky absolutely needed this. He is one of those people who can starve to death next to a full refrigerator. Next to such a person should be a woman who can solve any domestic issues. This is what Larisa Pavlovna did.

This year, while traveling in the UK, I met a woman who, according to her, knew Andrei Arsenievich very closely. So close that he even wanted to shoot it in his film. They went to visit together, and sometimes she was even embarrassed for Andrei's actions in front of her friends.

When I asked what secret Larisa kept about Tarkovsky, tenaciously holding Andrei in her hands, my fellow traveler replied that perhaps his sado-masochistic complex was to blame.

Today, more books have been written about Andrei Tarkovsky than films made by him.

In 2012, the book by Lyudmila Boyadzhieva “Andrei Tarkovsky. Life on the Cross. I was pleased to see in it some of my thoughts and formulations, which I outlined earlier in the article “Solaris love test” (published on my blog on March 03, 2010). Of course, this is not plagiarism, but a mutual enrichment of the image of a great artist.

Lyudmila Boyadzhieva writes: “Andrey was always aloof and cold with his mother and sister, he did not know how to throw himself on the neck in a fit of feeling either to his father, or to his beloved woman, or to his child.” "Tarkovsky did not differ in warmth or generosity of feelings." “The inability to love, to sympathize, to sympathize is a serious handicap that interfered with Tarkovsky in his work.”

Andrei Tarkovsky himself wrote about himself in his diary: “I am not a saint and not an angel. I am an egoist who fears more than anything else the suffering of those he loves!

Andrei was in many ways like his father, the poet Arseny Tarkovsky, including in his love for women. My father also had several wives and numerous loves.

An artist needs love for creativity like food, like air...

Thanks to love, the artist catches a revelation coming from another world.

It is love that inspires greatest works art. And that's her excuse!

Can we blame an artist for his love interests if they produce such masterpieces as the movie "Solaris"?

Love is the greatest value of all, and it justifies everything done in the name of love!

Tarkovsky, without exaggeration, burned out in love. For him, love is not an instinctive mating, but a way to comprehend the secret of the universe!

It seems to me that Andrei always looked into the abyss. In his diaries (the book "Martyrology") Andrei Tarkovsky frankly admits:

"I know that I am far from perfect, even more so that I am mired in sins and imperfection, I do not know how to deal with my insignificance."

“Everything in this life is terrible, except for the free will that belongs to us. When we unite with God, then we will no longer be able to use it, it will be taken away from us ... "

"Only time will tell if I was able to become a medium between the universe and people."

“If it were not for the dream of an ideal lover, nothing would have restrained the bestial instinct. So, you need to strive for the ideal, even if it is unrealizable. Unrealizable, but it balances the animal egoistic nature. It is necessary, you need to dream and strive for the ideal in order to remain human.

I don’t need pleasure, but release, creativity, creation, I need a woman to whom I could give myself, and she would take me into herself, absorb my spirit, become a part of me, accept and share my spiritual aspirations, give my life purpose and meaning...

I don't need a woman, I need the universe! The universe with which we would have created new world, created a man, flesh of my flesh, made him happy, passed on the spiritual experience that he would have developed, and thus continued me in eternity ... I want immortality from a woman!

Nothing disappears in the universe. Everything is reflected to return again. Everything is natural, and my path in mortal life, and that, whose blood I have inherited. The world is I, planets are blood cells, Galaxies are part of my body. And the heart beats - someone yearns for pain. I am happy - I comprehended the Meaning of Everything! I became a particle of the meaning of the universe - And my life now has a meaning. I can’t hold back the exclamation: I am God’s part, I am God, I am His thought!

(from my true-life novel "The Wanderer" (mystery) on the site New Russian Literature

P.S. I dedicate this post to the memory of Andrei Tarkovsky.

And in your opinion, WHAT IS CONSCIENCE?

© Nikolay Kofyrin - New Russian Literature - http://www.nikolaykofyrin.ru

Cut scenes from the Solaris movie can be viewed here:

Nikolai Kofirin, 29 December, 2013 - 11:19

Comments

Thanks for the thoughts on Tarkovsky...
"Solaris" and for me in my youth became a true revelation and shock ... But the soul and completion of his thoughts about the irrationality of the human soul for me in his "Stalker" ..

Good post, thanks a lot!

WHAT IS CONSCIENCE?

From the position of philosophy and in my opinion, conscience is a property of the subject, in contrast to consciousness - the function of the subject. This property of the subject to feel shame, pity, love or think irrationally. At the same time, in situations of moral choice, such a subject always and in relation to all people gives priority to feeling (irration), and not logic (ration).
I note that the decision on this or that action taken by the subject with the priority of feeling is not erroneous. That is, to live according to conscience is easy and pleasant. :)

***
God: behind the looking glass of nature.. Pure reflection, inverted truth... God is looking for his reflection in nature.. Nature inadvertently and innocently reflects God... But what or who is the mirror..? Who is the mediator between nature and God? Who is the boundary between them..? Who does not let them disappear, die in each other ..?
This mirror is a man... But in the man himself, in the infinite facets of his inner being, this highest God-natural mirrorness is also reflected.. In the man himself, both nature and God disappear already in the proper human infinity... Less and less a person sees inside himself himself and nature and God.. And more and more in this diminishing mirror point he sees himself, his own image.. ..
Conscience is a God-natural essence reflected within the person himself .. An essence in which the original, external mirror image of God and nature has disappeared ..
Conscience: conscience in man of his own divine nature...
Conscience is a message conveyed, a message about the presence of God in a person...
Conscience is the refuge of God himself in human nature.... .
But Tarkovsky also had his own "Mirror" ...

Thank you, Nikolai, for a wonderful post dedicated to the memory of Andrei Tarkovsky! I learned a lot of interesting things and thank you very much for the links! Happy New Year and Merry Christmas! I wish you new creative success and all the best in the New Year!

Victor writes:

Dogen, champagne is on the New Year's Eve menu, not ear noodles. :) It was not Nietzsche who denied conscience, but Goebels.

I answer! Do you really think that the Goebels could think of it without a clue? :-) Read "The Anti-Christian" by Nietzsche and everything will become clear to you without champagne, and you will answer for the noodles! :-)))

Dogen, perhaps you are right, Goebels learned this from Nietzsche. Only after all, Nietzsche denied the Christian teaching in general, placing above all "healthy" human instincts. In fact, Nietzsche did not understand the difference between a wild animal and a man. Illness, disability, constant pain, drugs, there is no time for conscience and morality, you cannot realize simple animal instincts and this is what you dream about. You can understand Nietzs...
So, I take back my words about noodles. :)

The main difference is that a person is able to feel (shame, pity, love), and a wild animal is not capable of this. Other differences (upright walking, speech, thinking in concepts) are just additional options for the convenience of human existence.

Victor writes:

The main difference is that a person is able to feel (shame, pity, love), and a wild animal is not capable of this. Other differences ( upright posture, speech, thinking in concepts) are just additional options for the convenience of human existence.

This is to the phrase about upright posture.

O ocean WITH olaris is a metaphor for society, O public WITH awareness, WITH social O organism, and conscience is a reflection of society in the mind of a person, or, as Comte believed, the representation of society in a female form.

There are memories of S. Lem about the filming of the film "Solaris".
He wrote, as I remember, that Tarkovsky saw the abyss (unknowable) in man, and the book was about the abyss (unknowable) awaiting man in the Cosmos.
And their argument was not about the number of scenes on the ground and on Solaris, but about the very concept of the film .. what is Solaris.

There is a philosophical concept of the Society and a model of the relationship of the individual with this concept. In Russian there are concepts of conscience, pangs of conscience, etc. From the point of view of the Comte model, a person who destroys society should receive "pangs of conscience" in response, and according to Comte, society is symbolically represented in a female form. In the film, the whole plot develops exactly as it should develop according to Comte, only with the convention that society is depicted as a material object - the ocean.

If someone believes that Solaris is a meaningless simulacrum, and the plot is pure fantasy, then he has the right to think so, but in my opinion, this is an impoverishment of the plot and a decrease in the value of the film.

The Russophobe Nikolai Dostal filmed Cloud-Paradise in 1991, where Kolya, getting ready to go, instead of a bag with the inscription "USSR", which is "small, and you can't wash it already," took the convict's suitcase. There is no more prophetic film yet. And what did you, Mikhail, find in Tarkovsky's "creativity"?

Of course, the plot and plot of "Solaris" are somewhat naive. But there is a point. And moreover, the meaning is such that it is very rarely put so squarely in front of the viewer. Man is born and he has to adapt to the environment. But what is this environment? Oddly enough, but this environment has two different modes - life (physics, nature) and society, which are intertwined in the most cunning way. Animated and inanimate. Humanity in its history has two extreme attitudes towards these modes of the environment. Everything is animated, and stones and stars, or everything is just physics, even the person himself. The whole horror is that the ways of adaptability in these environments (society and physics) are completely different. The concepts of conscience, ethics, love, for example, are relevant only for society. Solaris shows that society can be structured and organized in different ways, but it is still society.

Animated and inanimate. Humanity in its history has two extreme attitudes towards these modes of the environment.

Solaris came before The Matrix.
The matrix is ​​technically developed. Moreover, it is being implemented almost by order.
The Matrix is ​​the embedding of a ready-made human "I" into "virtual reality". Placing the "I" in an even stronger prison than the human body.
With the help of the "I" this new "prison" will be "self-sustaining" and "self-pupating", "feeding" at the limit of "a lonely ray". (The stanzas of Dzian).
Is the ocean of Solaris the opposite of the Matrix?

Dilettante writes:

Is the ocean of Solaris the opposite of the Matrix?

Well, yes. Solaris is the unity of the original, indefinite, natural. And the Matrix is ​​a synthesized unity, or rather, synthetic, produced in an unnatural, violent way from ready-made components. I'm happy for you, Vladimir. For your growing ability to see clearly.

And I welcome you, Alexander. For me, the individual is, after all, the universal. It only happens that it shocks a lot, shorts, twitches, when you suddenly start to seriously think about it, I just can’t get used to it. In life, it seems to be so, but for logic, a real cancer of the brain. But also an incentive for poetic creativity.

Jan Bother writes:

... but for logic, a real cancer of the brain. But also an incentive for poetic creativity.

What would you and I do if the wings of Poetry did not close us at least occasionally from these poisoned philosophical arrows? I'm glad that under the branches of Solaris we met again)

Alexander Kostenko writes:

Jan Bother writes:

Alexander Kostenko writes:

I'm glad that under the branches of Solaris we met again)

And there is another room that grants all wishes, in the "Stalker". Philosophers-systems specialists are generally forbidden to enter there. And the poets - please.

Yes, Jan... "Stalker" in my 5 favorite films.. it's incredible so far... This is a kind of sacred zone for me the film itself... Kaydanovsky.... His eyes, soul... This film from above... When I plunge there again... I physically feel that Room.. And its warmth... and something incomprehensible... these reflections and shadows of Light...

Yes, Alexander, there is no place for a person who is hesitant between his desires and categorical imperatives. There you just need to breathe and enjoy breathing as the simplest initial sensation and as the simplest initial thought. It is one whole and everything comes from it! For me, both the film and the thought embedded in it are the true starting point.

Yes, exactly the starting point ... and the end point ...
Actor Anatoly Solonitsin, after filming at this abandoned, polluted chemical plant somewhere in the Baltics, fell ill ... fatally ...

That is why philosophers, in search of truth, most often leave God... or create God with their minds... It's nice to enter the room that is ourselves.. Tarkovsky stopped people in thought... There the mind itself stopped... scary, if this Room is our soul..

Alexander Kostenko writes:

scary if this room is our soul..

And I have no illusions, Alexander. Tarkovsky gave in the film the image of the room as the inner self-identity of a person. If I sometimes imagine such a room (everyone has their own), then often the image of a very impudent black machine gun with a full magazine is added to my associations. I'm scared with him, but also reliable. I rarely see my hands empty, even when alone with myself. Also an image of a possible solution to the problem of bifurcation, when it can arise even inside the holy of holies of a person (well, he has nowhere to hide from himself) - just make a decision, pull the trigger, send God to God, home to yourself. And you still can't breathe freedom.

Jan Bother Also an image of a possible solution to the problem of bifurcation, when it can arise even inside the holy of holies of a person (well, he has nowhere to hide from himself) - just make a decision, pull the trigger, send God to God, home to yourself. And you still can't breathe freedom.

I understand you, but if in this duality the half is ourselves, and the half is God? To which house and where will we send whom? How far and by how far? And who in us wants to pull the trigger more: God or our human "part"? Splitness can still be endured.

I understand you too, Alexander, there are many nuances that arise, but they cannot be expressed in words and cannot be solved with the help of ordinary logic. You have to rely on animal instincts. Here it is very difficult to determine whether you are aiming at yourself or at God, who, in general, doesn’t care. But already what I understood - self-identity is possible, it happens, although it appears for a short moment, already a lot. The rest is a matter of hard practice. Most often, there is enough time to make the right decision in life without bifurcating too much. But I'll tell you honestly, I never had to experience complete fragmentation, I never came to such a conflict with my conscience. One thing is clear to me - no matter how difficult the task is, sooner or later you have to make a decision, even if not fully thought out, it is the same medicine for splitting. A person gets behind the wheel, knowing that everything depends on himself, that he has one life, unlike virtual heroes, but in the end he begins to learn to appreciate the moments and thus collects himself into one whole.

Jan Bother A person gets behind the wheel, knowing that everything depends on himself, that he has one life, unlike virtual heroes, but in the end he begins to learn to appreciate the moments and thus collects himself into one whole.

In other words: don't get into the cars of other people's philosophical systems, don't humiliate yourself before gods we don't know well... and don't go into other people's Rooms that aren't waiting for us...? But maybe we ourselves are that Room into which we must let our fate go? In my opinion, Stas is leaning towards this idea... but, alas, I'm not so sure of myself..unfortunately..that's why instead of my own being I'm looking for my own mind... Mind is probably the Room of almost all philosophers..?

Alexander Kostenko writes:
Skovoroda once said: don’t think, if you think that you are praying to God, then it is God who is listening to you ... And if it is He, then he can hear something different in you ... You must go to God with the very latest authenticity his own and truth ... He alone is given to see who is real in us ...
em>

Here is the closest thing to the topic raised, namely, what conscience is. "God" or call it what you want - this is conscience and justice. A priori "grasping" of justice is the presence of conscience, and this grasping is implicated in the morality prevailing in society and a critical attitude towards actions. The Mirror of the Thinking Ocean helps and enhances this subconscious critique.

Now, if S. Lem would send Nietzsche to "Solaris"?)

Alexander Kostenko writes:

But still, it’s scary to go to confession to the morality prevailing in society ... I’m even afraid to think about it ... What if my morality is different? And then, in the abyss of my moral consciousness, will I become my own dissident ghost? I think the morality of society as a phenomenon of the conscience of a certain community as a subject has been little studied .. It is generally difficult to "study" it only by external actions ... And society can let only the elite into its "a priori" moral truth ... Maybe geniuses?
Now, if S. Lem would send Nietzsche to "Solaris"?)

I appreciate your humor, Nietzsche would have gone completely crazy, or vice versa. With the morality prevailing in society and the conscience based on it, it is really scary to go to confession. Fortunately, Christian morality, contrary to Nietzsche, survived, although the god, along with the cloud on which he sat, evaporated.

Deutsch writes:

Fortunately, Christian morality, contrary to Nietzsche, survived, although the god, along with the cloud on which he sat, evaporated.

I don't think Nietzsche opposed Christian morality as a general moral idea..
Nietzsche had a personal account of Christ as a God-man, and therefore also as a superman...
I remember Bulgakov's image: maybe they are now walking somewhere in the moonlight and talking to each other...

Alexander Kostenko writes:
I don't think that Nietzsche will remember Bulgakov's image: maybe they are now walking somewhere in the moonlight and talking to each other...

I beg you, don't talk about Nietzsche. I don’t catch the connections of Tarkovsky, especially Solaris, with Bulgakov.

Deutsch writes:
I beg you, don't talk about Nietzsche. I don’t catch the connections of Tarkovsky, especially Solaris, with Bulgakov.

I won't do it again.. I will only say that for me there is a connection between Pilate and Nietzsche..
And Pilate is also an interpreter of Christian morality ... and Pilate's dream is akin to the dream of the heroes of Solaris ...
I keep quiet)

And the Matrix is ​​a synthesized unity, or rather, synthetic, produced in an unnatural, violent way from ready-made components.

The astronauts were in fact in the likeness of the Matrix.
Their essences were created in their heads in the "usual" way - with the help of their "I". But in addition, in addition to their "I", Solaris extracted the forms of entities from their heads (substrate) and reproduced them in the station's "Real".
Was Solaris basically a substratum, conjugated with the substratum of the astronauts' thinking, or was Solaris a substance?
In the case of the substrate, the astronauts themselves could copy (realize) their essences. But this requires a mechanism to control the power of the surrounding substrate.
In the case of substance, the astronauts could only "remember" the stored forms of their essences with the help of "I". Then the Solaris-substance itself could imitate (replace) the "I" of the astronauts, and "play" with the stored forms of entities, forming ersatz-substrates of filling the forms with the "power" of relations.
It should be noted that Solaris perfectly used Love as a control mechanism. That is, possessed "female logic".
Thanks Jan.

It seems to me, Vladimir, that you are somewhat teaching the plot of the film. It is, in essence, an allegory. Solaris is simply a kind of generator of conscience for those people who have encountered it. Each of them acts with his embodied conscience as best he can. Main character decides to just get rid of it, which he later bitterly regrets. And it's the most dramatic choice possible, a wonderful story for a movie. Solaris here does not unify people, like the Matrix, but, on the contrary, has its own approach to everyone, emphasizes individuality, tries to help realize it, and love also serves this, emphasizes this idea. A kind of dissent.

Solaris is simply a kind of generator of conscience for those people who have encountered it. Each of them acts with his embodied conscience as best he can.

So I say that Solaris is armed with conscience, and love, and something else like that as a tool.

The main character decides to just get rid of her, which he later regrets bitterly

And people take it seriously, and begin to experience these remorse, trying to rationally understand what is happening.
There is a struggle between rationality and irrationality. But the irration does not seek to destroy the frames of the rational, but persistently creates them, trying to "please" the person.
For a man this is Drama, but for Solaris? - contact option.

Solaris does not unify people here, like the Matrix,

Matrices may vary. Including unique personalities.
The common thing in the Matrices is building up an artificial "cocoon" around the "I", designed to increase the "immortality" of the "I" stay in the current, changing Being, to increase the power of influence on the environment around this cocoon, to become the sole ruler of the environment - this is in the limit.
But each aspiring to become a "superruler" will have to give a planet, and then this will not be enough.
At the same time, the “I” body itself, in principle, may not be born in the usual way, but only the environment (substrate) of thinking can be cloned.
This development of events predetermines the development of artificial organs that replace natural ones.
That version of the Matrix-film is, in principle, feasible, but, in my opinion, the forms (electronic, digital) of entities there, as a product of the machines themselves, are not feasible. But it is quite possible to "educate" the "I" in such a digital framework-rules that will be perceived by other "I" as digital monsters.
Now moving forms-dolls are created programmatically, which are virtually perceived as real, can "work as avatars".

It is, in essence, an allegory.

Yes. Everyone perceives to the extent of his own ... If the work allows. S. Lem allows.

Well, Tarkovsky is not Lem, he was not involved in techno-scientific modeling of the future. I've read that many science fiction writers envision a future dominated by corporations and corporate ethics, and company stocks instead of money. But there is no philosophy here, there are only departmental instructions. On a philosophical level, there is nothing to even discuss.

Nikolai, you really, in a New Year's way, easily and unobtrusively unfolded a topic that was rather difficult for the Fshturmovets to lift. Our heavyweights may begin to bore on the subject of philosophy or philosophizing, or to find out whether conscience is a phil. category. I confess that your article is a balm for my soul. I subscribe to every word. Holiday greetings!

Solaris is an Eagle (Castaneda) devouring awareness that has not mastered its existence (alchemical gold) as a tool. In order to slip past the Eagle's nose, you need to "become flat" - 0-dimensional, at least in terms of time - learn to roll up all three dimensions of time (past - undigested - unchewed - unexperienced memories, and claims to the future and present) and become inaccessible, hiding in the shell of the 0-dimensional womb (subsoil). In the masterpieces of anecdosophy, this is about it: “A madman, seeing the gentlemen-commission that appeared while he was writing from the balcony, decided that he would be pulled down by the trickle and disappeared.

The force that governs the fate of all living beings is called the Eagle. Not because it is an eagle or something that has something in common with an eagle or somehow related to it, because for the seer it looks like an immeasurable blue-black Eagle, standing straight, as eagles stand, going to infinity in height.
When the SEER looks at the blackness that is the Eagle, four flashes of light illuminate his essence.
The first flash, like lightning, helps the SEER to grasp the contours of the Eagle's body. Then you can see white strokes that look like feathers. A second flash of lightning illuminates a wavering, wind-created blackness that looks like the wings of an Eagle. With a third flash, the seer notices a piercing inhuman eye. And the fourth, last flash reveals what the Eagle is doing. The Eagle devours the awareness of all beings that lived on Earth a moment ago and are now dead, flown to the Eagle's beak like an endless stream of moths flying into a fire to meet their Master and the reason they lived. The eagle breaks these little shards of flame, laying them out like furrier skins, and then eats them, because awareness is the Eagle's food.

Truth has long been waiting for the philosopher lying on the marriage bed in the midst of Man, but he prefers the fornication and caresses of the Gap of his vast Opinion.

Alexander Kostenko writes:

In other words: don't get into the cars of other people's philosophical systems, don't humiliate yourself before gods we don't know well... and don't go into other people's Rooms that aren't waiting for us...?

Yes, Alexander, I was definitely thinking about this during that night, from time to time. "Solaris" and "Stalker" what are they talking about? That one must live in peace with one's conscience. But they do not finish saying that conscience can be false, inspired from outside. It seems that I am one, but is this my unity? I begin to split in two, to reflect on my imaginary unity, but I immediately realize that this reflection can also be imposed on me. And it turns out that in my room there can be neither unity nor duality, but there must be something else that unites them. What unites all people, at the same time distinguishing them from each other. But this intuition is already beyond the usual production logic.

I did not immediately understand the meaning of that scene from "Stalker", when we see those sitting at the threshold of the Room, being, as spectators, inside this room ... As if we see them with the "eyes and soul" of the One Who is waiting .. And for the time being these dripping moments We become that Room... And people sit at our Threshold...

That's right, Deutsch. "Is" also means to eat (in Russian), but "to eat" does not mean "to be". Conscience is always imposed, but I choose from what is imposed on me by my environment, which I do not choose. And ultimately, I choose my own intuition, because I completely trust it, because it has never failed me, even if sometimes it was wrong. She decides everything for me, albeit not without some struggle on my part (to clear my conscience; they say, I did everything I could), but this is primary. And Friday is like a tuning fork, the principle of building a hierarchy of relationships in a certain conditional social environment. Besides him, there were many other characters on the island. Robie would be completely helpless, we would not know anything about him at all, if he did not have an animal instinct - what to choose and when, and also what will follow from this. And it follows that conscience and intuition are different things.

Have you ever thought that the conditions in which one or another of your choices is made may contain a lot of small circumstances that you are not even aware of, but which, nevertheless, can significantly influence the situation? It is very easy to talk about conscience in general, sitting in a rocking chair and puffing on a cigarette. And in real life intuition and sufficient preparation can save the life of you and those around you. The same Roby could confidently choose, clutching a shotgun in his hands.

The system philosopher argues that there is a subject in the system and there is an object. The subject dominates and the object obeys. And point. There are no other options. But that's in theory. And in life, the subject can clearly dominate, but implicitly obey, and the object can clearly obey, but implicitly dominate. This is especially characteristic of society, but it also occurs in nature.

On the third day, my ribs were broken on the bus. He calmly stood in front, leaning on the crossbar. But the driver abruptly applied the brakes and a heavy pensioner flew up to me from the other end, landed on my back. Who's guilty? It's his own fault, it was necessary to foresee the situation in advance. Now I always look around on the bus and try to go in the back door. I advise you too.

deutch writes:

Your case has nothing to do with conscience.

Also right. People usually talk about conscience in an abstract way, often dissidents are commemorated at the same time. But in the film, everything is specific, so I think that the case is almost mine. There are situations in life, although rarely, when it is necessary to react instantly with minimal losses. Sometimes a person is lost because he is not ready, his reaction and ingenuity fail, and therefore he suffers physical or moral consequences. So in the film - the hero was not ready for a moral choice, because he did not have enough instinct and understanding of the situation. In such cases, I usually say - screwed up.

Russia & Solaris
(lumpen power)

Gaikin V.A. candidate of history Sciences. senior researcher employee.

The cosmonauts who returned to Earth make the longest reports, writing down literally every minute every day, every hour of their stay in orbit. Scientists studying the impact of space on a person are interested in everything: what they observed, what they felt, how they slept, what dreams they had. However, the cosmonauts preferred something, and still prefer to hide it. It's about about cases of so-called. "transformation of consciousness" or the phenomenon of FSS (fantastic dream-states). Among themselves, the cosmonauts call it the "Solaris effect", prophetically predicted by S. Lem.

Yuri Gagarin was the first to encounter the "Solaris effect". When he first heard music played on electric instruments, he mentioned that he had heard something similar during his flight. Aleksey Leonov also heard strange music, and Vladislav Volkov heard the cry of a child and the barking of a dog. Cosmonaut Sevastyanov claimed that while flying over Sochi, he saw his two-story house. Such cases are classified by specialists, and by the cosmonauts themselves, as hallucinations, although they affect the psyche, but are quite understandable. But there is also something that cannot be explained.

Many astronauts during their stay in space experienced daydreams associated with moving in space and time. For example, one astronaut saw himself in the "skin" of a dinosaur. The sensations were very real. He described in detail his paws, his scaly skin, his webbed toes. He walked on some unknown planet, felt the plates on the ridge rise, muscles tense and contract. Sounds of the surrounding world were heard, smells were felt. Visual images were bright and distinct. The unfamiliar world was perceived as familiar and dear. Another claimed to have been in the body of an alien humanoid. According to the astronauts, it was not a dream, and not hallucinations, but 100% "movements".

"Transformation" is always accompanied by the condensation of time. According to the on-board clock, a person stays in this state for only a few minutes, but for the “moving person” himself, several hours pass. Many of those who encountered the FSS phenomenon perceived this as the result of some external source acting on their brain, as if someone outside, powerful and great, sought to convey important and unusual information to them.

The cosmonauts preferred not to talk about the "movements" that had taken place, fearing disqualification by the doctors as persons with mental disabilities. But in confidential conversations, newcomers who were about to fly quickly were warned of what they would have to face.

The first to draw the attention of scientists to the problem of the "Solaris effect" was test cosmonaut Sergei Krichevsky, who made a report on the FSS phenomenon in 1995. In 1998, Krichevsky, who had never been in space, was expelled from the cosmonaut corps and transferred to the reserve ahead of schedule. Apparently his interest in strange phenomena was considered "unhealthy" by his superiors.

Unlike Krichevsky, test pilot, doctor of technical sciences Marina Popovich, who bit by bit collected evidence from astronauts about the “Solaris effect”, was in no hurry to show the collected information to the world, realizing that the time had not yet come for this. She collected more than 2,000 stories of astronauts about cases of "transformation of consciousness" for many years waiting in the wings. And only in Lately she obtained permission from some of the respondents to release the records provided.

The astronauts themselves, whose consciousness has been transformed, often experience a painful desire to relive this state. Therefore, many of them become esotericists, philosophers, go on expeditions in search of Bigfoot or explore UFO landing sites. They are drawn to another world. As Marina Popovich noted, “they go into space as one person, and return completely different, as if there they encountered something unknown and became part of it.”

The cosmonauts who returned to Earth make the longest reports, writing down literally every minute every day, every hour of their stay in orbit. Scientists studying the impact of space on a person are interested in everything: what they observed, what they felt, how they slept, what dreams they had. However, the cosmonauts preferred something, and still prefer to hide it. We are talking about cases of the so-called. "transformation of consciousness" or the phenomenon of FSS (fantastic dream-states). Among themselves, the cosmonauts call it the "Solaris effect", prophetically predicted by S. Lem.

Yuri Gagarin was the first to encounter the "Solaris effect". When he first heard music played on electric instruments, he mentioned that he had heard something similar during his flight. Aleksey Leonov also heard strange music, and Vladislav Volkov heard the cry of a child and the barking of a dog. Cosmonaut Sevastyanov claimed that while flying over Sochi, he saw his two-story house. Such cases are classified by specialists, and by the cosmonauts themselves, as hallucinations, although they affect the psyche, but are quite understandable. But there is also something that cannot be explained.

Many astronauts during their stay in space experienced daydreams associated with moving in space and time. For example, one astronaut saw himself in the "skin" of a dinosaur. The sensations were very real. He described in detail his paws, his scaly skin, his webbed toes. He walked on some unknown planet, felt the plates on the ridge rise, muscles tense and contract. Sounds of the surrounding world were heard, smells were felt. Visual images were bright and distinct. The unfamiliar world was perceived as familiar and dear. Another claimed to have been in the body of an alien humanoid. According to the astronauts, it was not a dream, and not hallucinations, but 100% "movements".

"Transformation" is always accompanied by the condensation of time. According to the on-board clock, a person stays in this state for only a few minutes, but for the “moving person” himself, several hours pass. Many of those who encountered the FSS phenomenon perceived this as the result of some external source acting on their brain, as if someone outside, powerful and great, sought to convey important and unusual information to them.

The cosmonauts preferred not to talk about the "movements" that had taken place, fearing disqualification by the doctors as persons with mental disabilities. But in confidential conversations, newcomers who were about to fly quickly were warned of what they would have to face.

The first to draw the attention of scientists to the problem of the "Solaris effect" was test cosmonaut Sergei Krichevsky, who made a report on the FSS phenomenon in 1995. In 1998, Krichevsky, who had never been in space, was expelled from the cosmonaut corps and transferred to the reserve ahead of schedule. Apparently his interest in strange phenomena was considered "unhealthy" by his superiors.

Unlike Krichevsky, test pilot, doctor of technical sciences Marina Popovich, who bit by bit collected evidence from astronauts about the “Solaris effect”, was in no hurry to show the collected information to the world, realizing that the time had not yet come for this. She collected more than 2,000 stories of astronauts about cases of "transformation of consciousness" for many years waiting in the wings. It was only recently that she received permission from some of the respondents to release the provided recordings.

The astronauts themselves, whose consciousness has been transformed, often experience a painful desire to relive this state. Therefore, many of them become esotericists, philosophers, go on expeditions in search of Bigfoot or explore UFO landing sites. They are drawn to another world. As Marina Popovich noted, “they go into space as one person, and return completely different, as if there they encountered something unknown and became part of it.”

mirpristrasten.com

The idea for a film adaptation of Solaris, a science fiction novel by Polish writer Stanisław Lem, came to Andrei Tarkovsky in 1968. On the one hand, this work interested the director with its philosophical depth, on the other hand, he saw commercial potential in it and, in case of audience success, expected to improve his financial affairs. The last question was especially relevant, given that after censorship problems with Andrei Rublev, Tarkovsky was not allowed to work. In this regard, the sci-fi genre seemed to the director to be more "passable" for the film authorities. And so it turned out - the project was put into production, considering the film adaptation of popular science fiction to be ideologically harmless. Another curious moment - "Solaris" was considered as a kind of Soviet answer to "" Stanley Kubrick. The films were diametrically different in ideological terms, but at the same time they competed in technical matters.

The first version of the script for Solaris was prepared by Tarkovsky in collaboration with the writer Friedrich Gorenstein (later the screenwriter of The Slaves of Love) in the summer of 1969. This version assumed that two-thirds of the action would take place on Earth. This option did not suit either Mosfilm or Lem. Lem was involved in further work, which turned into a series of conflicts. As a result, the writer remained dissatisfied with the final version of the script, ready for the summer of 1970. Tarkovsky changed storyline original source, shifted the focus from scientific to moral issues, removed a number of important scenes, introduced new characters - in general, he created more of a fantasy on the theme of the original novel. Interestingly, the script even went through something like a scientific examination. However, the astrophysicist Iosif Shklovsky, who was entrusted with the procedure, apparently treated it rather superficially, not wanting to obstruct filmmakers.

In parallel with the work on the script, Tarkovsky was looking for actors. The most difficult thing for the director was the choice of the performer of the role of Hari, who, unlike the book, was given almost the main role. In 1970, Tarkovsky saw the Swedish actress and favorite of Ingmar Bergman, Bibi Andersson, as the main contender. Tarkovsky's first wife Irma Raush and Alla Demidova were also considered. However, closer to the shooting, the director decided that Natalya Bondarchuk would be a more suitable candidate, despite her only twenty years of age and modest acting practice. And Tarkovsky was not mistaken. Later, he even noticed that Bondarchuk managed to outshine more experienced colleagues on the site. Among them were Yuri Yarvet, Vladislav Dvorzhetsky and Tarkovsky's regular actors Nikolai Grinko and Anatoly Solonitsyn. Banionis and Järvet, who came from the Baltics, had to be dubbed later because of their strong accents. Vladimir Zamansky voiced Banionis and Vladimir Tatosov voiced Yarvet.

Tarkovsky selected the actors in such a way that they matched their characters as much as possible. For the same reason, typically close people also played in episodes and extras with the director. For example, real foreigners were filmed in an episode of an international symposium.

Locations and scenery: from Zvenigorod to Tokyo

Filming for Solaris began in March 1971 and continued intermittently until December. The geography of filming is quite extensive. The pavilion scenes were filmed at Mosfilm. Full-scale - in Moscow, in the Crimea and in Zvenigorod - at the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery and on the banks of the Ruza River. There, for example, they managed to find a good place for the main character's house - a kind of pit with a pond and trees, in which it was possible to shoot at 360 ° without fear of "letting" into the frame modern world. In addition, in September-October, a limited group visited Tokyo with an expedition. Here they found a spectacular multi-level freeway with the necessary futuristic type of architecture - there were tunnels, junctions, overpasses, and it ran both under the city and above it.

Fans of the sci-fi genre often reproach Tarkovsky for the fact that the space and design in Solaris do not seem futuristic enough. But this was precisely the director's task - he wanted to show the future from the point of view of the people living in it, that is, perceiving the future material culture as commonplace, a given, and not as exotic (this was one of Tarkovsky's disputes with "Space Odyssey" , where the future is shown precisely by exoticism). Therefore, costumes, furniture, interior details, such as remote controls and sensors, were made as something, relatively speaking, “used”. Among themselves, the authors even called the station "a broken old bus."

Of course, such a decision did not mean simplification of tasks for the artist Mikhail Romadin. Rather the opposite. Of all the Mosfilm projects of that time, Solaris was considered the most difficult in this regard. The scenery for the picture was developed by Mosfilm together with the VILS plant (All-Russian Institute of Light Alloys), which at one time made such things as moon rovers. The scenery occupied the largest pavilion of the studio and made up a whole complex. It included, for example, a spacecraft launch pad, a library, a mirror room. The largest object was the semi-circle of the station, ending in a library cul-de-sac. As conceived by the authors, the object was supposed to be a "human anthill", which means that the entire heritage of the material civilization of the Earth, "relics of the historical and artistic memory of earthlings" should have been read in the design. One example is copies of paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, made especially for the film by a special painting workshop.

A number of episodes with scenery specially built for them, as you know, were not included in the final version of the film. The most famous example is the mirror room scene. It was technically designed so that the mirrors would not give reflections of the film crew - for this, only one lens “looked” at the room through a narrow gap. However, the episode turned out to be too "outwardly spectacular", because of which it was out of the general style of the film and was eventually cut out by Tarkovsky. However, in 2012, a version of the film with deleted scenes became available, including a mirror episode.

Visual Decision: Kodak, one take and Rebirth

On the Solaris, Tarkovsky worked for the fourth time (after The Rink and the Violin, Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev) with cameraman Vadim Yusov. According to the testimonies of the members of the film crew, unlike previous projects, this time the relations within the tandem were tense - the director and cameraman were constantly arguing. In the end, no one was surprised to learn that this collaboration was the last.

Vadim Yusov and Andrei Tarkovsky on the set of the film Solaris

The film was shot on a scarce Kodak, which, on the one hand, had a positive effect on the visual side of the picture, but on the other, it complicated the shooting. They tried to shoot frames only after careful preparation from one take, since the amount of film was strictly limited. Sometimes, due to long preparations, only two frames were shot per day. By the way, black-and-white fragments appeared in the film precisely because of the lack of a color Kodak. Tarkovsky only tried to make the monochrome format look justified.

The basis of the visual solution of the picture is the opposition of the Earth and the space station. According to Yusov, when shooting earthly episodes, the authors tried to discern and capture on film the textures associated with nature: algae, trees, water, grass, and so on. The station and the other planet are associated with artificial and coarser textures. By the same principle, warm and cold shades, the colors of the earth and the sky constantly collide in the frame. The dominant color is yellow - the color of Solaris.

The pictorial solution of the picture, as well as the whole visual style of Tarkovsky, was largely influenced by the painting of the Renaissance. This is expressed in the choice of color palette, in the mise-en-scene and in the general atmosphere. Such a moment is indicative. The frame in which Chris Kelvin says goodbye to the Earth in the rain was influenced by one of the works of the Early Renaissance master Vittore Carpaccio - Tarkovsky transferred to his hero the detachment of the characters of the canvas he saw. Also in "Solaris" you can find many references to famous paintings. As already mentioned, in the design of the interiors, the authors used replicas of the works of Brueghel and Andrei Rublev, and the textbook final frame of Chris's meeting with his father was Rembrandt's painting The Return of the Prodigal Son.

Special effects: weightlessness, infrared screen and combined shooting

As befits a sci-fi movie, Solaris is replete with special effects. Let's start with the famous effect of weightlessness in the frame. To achieve it, special manipulators were developed - two bars on which the actors could sit freely. The manipulators were not visible in the frame, due to which the appearance of flight was created. The device, by the way, often broke down, which is why the shooting was periodically knocked out of the schedule. Objects flying in the frame, like books, rose into the air thanks to an invisible vein.

In continuation of the theme of flights - a rocket. After a series of unsuccessful designs, it was borrowed from a military training ground, where a suitable layout was found. It was finalized in the spirit of the works of Suprematist artists. The takeoff of the rocket was visually accompanied by flames and smoke, but in reality it was provided with manual lifting on cables.

Of particular difficulty was the frame approaching the station, hanging over the Ocean. For him, an infrared screen was used (in fact, the Soviet predecessor of chroma key). When the camera zoomed in, its movement had to be precise, that is, not have even the slightest fluctuations. To achieve this, it was necessary to transport a 12-meter lathe bed with a precision platform on which the camera was installed to Mosfilm from Leningrad.

As for the film's main special effect, the Ocean, Vasily Sevostyanov, operator of combined filming, took part in its creation. To achieve the desired look, chemists tried all sorts of compounds, including acetone, aluminum powder, dyes, as well as various ways highlighting. Taking into account the combined shooting, it was necessary to achieve a microscopic texture of objects. In addition, in order to slow down the movement of the Ocean during the projection, fast shooting was used. Filmed Ocean in a basin on the table, and then combined the material with other shots.

"Sound mass" by Eduard Artemiev: "music of life", synthesizers and Bach

If Solaris was the last work for the Tarkovsky-Yusov tandem, the film marked the beginning of the director’s collaboration with composer Eduard Artemyev (later he would write music for The Mirror and Stalker). Artemiev was by that time known for experimenting with electronic music, which was gaining popularity, and therefore he was suitable for solving the specific tasks of Solaris. Tarkovsky did not want traditional film music. He wanted the musical accompaniment of the tape to be decided by non-standard minimal means - a small set of sounds, intermediate between noise and music, which would simultaneously emphasize the meaning of the episodes and be a theme. Sometimes the sound was given a completely decisive role. For example, we realize the presence of the Ocean precisely thanks to the noise solution.

After a long search, the authors found an approach - the acoustic design or "sound mass" of the film was divided into two parts: the specific natural noises of the Earth ("music of life") and the sound of the cosmic world created by a mixture of orchestral music, choir or bells, as well as synthesizer music. With the noise in the film, they did a particularly delicate job. For example, there were several dozen foliage noises, and, say, in the episode of the passage through the tunnel, the sounds of moving tanks were used - this is how the authors achieved the necessary atmosphere of heaviness and depth.

Although Tarkovsky did not want to use traditional music, at some point he decided that Artemiev's sound design would be surrounded by one leitmotif. In this capacity, Tarkovsky chose the work of his favorite composer - Johann Sebastian Bach. Famous movie motif "Listening to Bach (Earth)" is an F-minor chorale prelude revised by Artemyev. Perhaps one of the most inspired musical themes in the history of our cinema.