What is the meaning of life? Despite all of the questions that have been answered, problems that have been solved, and truths that have been uncovered, mankind has yet to answer this question that has daunted the minds of those who are not so lucky as to be blissfully ignorant. The movie “Solaris” produced in 1972 brought this question to my mind, along with the idea of what in life can be defined as real, and whether or not that which is not real should be considered as expedient and important as that which is ‘real’.
In the movie “Solaris”, Kris Kelvin finds himself on another planet that manifests his sub-conscience image of his dead wife. Eventually Kelvin falls in love with this, for lack of better word, creature. This creature is living, sleeps and cries as any human would, and even chooses to be annihilated for Kelvins sake. In the end, Kelvin chooses to stay on an island created by the oceans of the planet Solaris with a being that has been created to resemble his father, rather than return to Earth. This poses a lot of questions for the viewer. Is Kelvin’s love for the lady creature real, or is he projecting his love for his dead wife onto this being? Kelvin left his ‘real life’ wife because he did not love her, which must also be considered when deciding whether or not his love for the creature was real. Kelvin decides to remain Solaris. Does this make the rest of his life insignificant? “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Perception plays a large role in answering this question. Many people believe existence is defined by how it is perceived; if it can be touched, seen, heard, it is real. What about that which cannot be experienced through our senses? Love is one of the strongest forces on earth; it can not be touched or seen, yet there is no question of whether or not it exists. What does this say about Kelvin’s love for the creature that looks and acts like his late wife? Going back to the idea of the meaning of life, does the realness of this creature, or Kelvin’s love for her, even matter? Or is the question of Kelvin’s happiness and fulfillment of more importance when considering real existence?
While watching this movie, I was reminded of another movie titled “Inception” produced by Christopher Nolan. In this movie, people are able to enter their or other people’s dreams consciously, allowing them to alter the dreams to their liking. In the movie, the main character, Dom Cobb, and his wife spend hours trapped inside of a dream; however, in the dream world this feels like years. During this time they build a world for themselves and ‘grow old’ together. While his wife was happy living in their dream world, Dom could not accept this fake life and convinces his wife to kill herself with him so they can wake up. His wife ends up committing suicide in the ‘real world’ as she has lost her sense of what is real and believes she needs to wake up. This poses a similar question as “Solaris”. Is there a defining characteristic that makes something real, or is it a person’s perception of something that makes it real? Similar to Kelvin choosing to remain on Solaris, it is unclear if Dom chooses to remain in the dream world or return to ‘real’ life. It is left up to the audience to decide if person could accept a fake life with no real meaning or purpose in exchange for feeling happy and content, as Kelvin did. A person’s perception of life, and thus its meaning, is a key factor when debating these works.
Kayla's Sci-Fi Blog 
*subconscious* 🙂
You pose a lot of good questions in this post. A common thread throughout your writing here seems to be this idea:
“Kelvin decides to remain Solaris. Does this make the rest of his life insignificant? ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'”
I do think that is central to both Inception and Solaris. I’ll speak only about the second film as my recall of the first is a bit hazy. It is difficult to say whether the author, or the film itself, gives an answer to this question. But I am inclined to say that it does. There is a tragic, somewhat haunting mood at the end of Solaris which indicates that Kris has been ‘ensnared’ by Solaris and will live out his life in the labyrinth of his own psyche. This is actually similar to a question we will think about in the next unit on Virtual Reality when we watch The Matrix and some other works. And indeed is not unlike questions raised in ‘Her.’ Is a virtual experience no less valid as long as it suits the individual and seems real enough to one’s senses? In the Matrix, one of the characters says — I know this meat isn’t real, but here in the Matrix it is juicy and delicious. If I have to choose between the harsh reality of the outside and the Matrix, I choose the Matrix!’ One has the sense that the logic of these films argues against that. While facing the difficulty of ‘the Real,’ as philosopher Jacques Lacan calls it, is painful and does not provide the ease, sensory enjoyment or instant gratification of the virtual experience — it has a depth, an authenticity that the former can never provide. This may be my own personal view creeping in here, but I think these films suggest the same…
LikeLike