A community to discuss, debate, and celebrate the history of cinema, emphasis on—but not exclusively—the groundbreaking, avant garde and experimental, with a healthy dose of irreverence instead of the usual navel-gazing that usually surrounds cineastic appreciation.
Community Rules
"All is fair in love and war" but keep it witty or, at minimum, intelligent. If you can't do either, keep walking. This community's administrators will not abide simpletons nor bullies.
"Franchise picture" fans and similar ilk, be forewarned: you are open game to be verbally flayed in this public square. Did you not see the name of this community?
There ~~may~~ will be occasionally adult subject matter (NSFW)—such is the nature of the beast. While it is not the scope of this community to purvey nor condone extreme or gratuitous sex or violence, neither subjects are necessarily condemned when in context with the subject matter at hand. It is also not the scope of this community to discuss only adult themes; how else could one discuss Fleming's The Wizard of Oz (1939) or Donen/Kelly's Singing In The Rain (1952)?
It is suggested you do not subscribe if you are highly sensitive to either subjects.
It is strongly suggested that authors of submitted posts mark NSFW content as such. Err on the side of doubt.
Logrolling
So said Andrei Tarkovsky speaking about Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.
"2001: A Space Odyssey is phony on many points, even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated."
And with that provocatory remark, MovieSnob presents for your viewing pleasure, Tarkovsky's Solaris (1972).
Bonus Link: also via Open Culture, Antonios Papantoniou's analysis Solaris Shot by Shot.
Of course Kubrick's—and all cinema—is phony. One photographic image presented in a context external to itself immediately displays a skewed or phony representation. Multiply that by placing different additional images in time to the first (montage) and it's "phony all the way down."
That said, when has truth ever been an important factor in cinema, even for the Soviets at the time? In any case, both films are works of art.