[HN Gopher] Solaris movie review and film summary (1976)
___________________________________________________________________
Solaris movie review and film summary (1976)
Author : walterbell
Score : 90 points
Date : 2023-04-01 14:43 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rogerebert.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rogerebert.com)
| pohl wrote:
| Just yesterday I learned something about the translations of this
| book:
|
| _Note, there are two translations of Solaris. The bad one is
| from 1970, which was translated from Polish to French and then
| from French into English. All physical print versions of Solaris
| in English use this translation. In 2011, the first direct
| translation of Solaris into English was published in audiobook
| and ebook. It 's only available digitally, but this is the one
| you want to read._
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/printSF/comments/12932gh/my_review_...
|
| I wonder if this is why, among all of the Lem books I have
| devoured, Solaris was one of my least favorites. I'm going to
| have to give it another shot.
| cubefox wrote:
| You beat me to it by one minute. The problem with bad Solaris
| translations exists at least also in German.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of Tarkovsky. _Stalker_ and _Mirror_ are two of my
| all-time favorite films, and _The Sacrifice_ is great too, but
| _Solaris_ was a huge letdown.
| cubefox wrote:
| If you enjoyed the movie, I absolutely recommend reading the
| novel by Lem. It is less mystical and much more
| analytical/philosophical than the Tarkovsky movie. (And the
| ending actually makes sense, which I found to be somewhat of a
| weak point of the Tarkovsky adoption.)
|
| But be sure that you read the new English ebook translation by
| Bill Johnston! The old Kilmartin/Cox translation was a
| retranslation from a French translation, and it's not good.
| cubefox wrote:
| One interesting problem in the book is only hinted at in the
| movie. It is basically a form of moral philosophy science
| fiction.
|
| The issue is this: According to traditional Christian morality,
| God can forgive all sins (salvation). Like the fact that Kelvin
| was partly responsible for the suicide of his wife. But Kelvin
| doesn't believe in God, this is an outdated thing from the past.
| So he is left with secular morality, where the only person who
| can forgive him is the person he affected. But his wife is dead,
| she can't forgive him anymore. So Kelvin has to live with his
| guilt.
|
| Except...
|
| Solaris seems to offer him something unbelievable, namely a
| second chance: A recreation of his wife, so that he can reconcile
| with her. But if she forgives him, what is this worth? Isn't she
| just a copy, a different person?
| bvrmn wrote:
| Author literally gives a plot description. Review itself is a one
| paragraph. It's not a kind of review one can expect from a movie
| critic.
| dharmab wrote:
| This review would have needed to fit in a newspaper at the time
| of publication.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _would have needed to fit in a newspaper_
|
| For comparison, Ebert's 2002 review of the remake [1].
|
| [1] https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/solaris-2002
| hulitu wrote:
| > Solaris movie review and film summary (1976)
|
| Looks like a review written by a 10 year old.
| walterbell wrote:
| Who won the Pulitzer Prize a year before this review.
| coldtea wrote:
| A pretty low bar.
|
| Then again the intended audience is the average movie goer,
| so the level of analysis is adequate.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah. Without seeing the context of the review, it's hard to
| say why it seems a bit thin. I'd just note that newspapers
| and magazines routinely ran capsule reviews of things they
| considered of lower interest to their audience--which Solaris
| would presumably have been for Chicago Sun Times readers.
|
| Ebert certainly had a _serious film critic_ side but he was
| mostly pretty mid-brow.
| walterbell wrote:
| 1976 was during the Cold War, still a decade away from fall
| of the Berlin Wall.
|
| 2003 review had more depth,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35429240
| initramfs wrote:
| I am not going to try to compare the 2002 Soderbergh film
| version, but I like how they both compare the human mind to an a
| nearly unknowable alien (ocean of clones that appear on the ship)
|
| I haven't read or seen the full 1972 version, but does anyone
| know if this line is in Stanislaw Lem's book?
|
| ""We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our
| enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds. We want
| mirrors." -it is from the 2002 screenplay, but I am curious if it
| has any analogue in the Polish book or Russian film.
| Tade0 wrote:
| It's a heavily modified version of a quote by one of the
| characters - Dr. Snaut (Snow).
| initramfs wrote:
| Thank you!
| agarren wrote:
| I see the following in the English kindle version - seems like
| it's the same in spirit:
|
| "We're humanitarian and noble, we've no intention of
| subjugating other races, we only want to impart our values to
| them and in return, to appropriate their heritage. We see
| ourselves as Knights of the Holy Contact. That's another
| falsity. We're not searching for anything except people. We
| don't need other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to
| do with other worlds. One world is enough, even there we feel
| stifled. We desire to find our own idealized image; they're
| supposed to be globes, civilizations more perfect than ours; in
| other worlds we expect to find the image of our own primitive
| past."
| initramfs wrote:
| Thank you so much! I've always been curious of that-it's
| stuck with me.
| baerrie wrote:
| Solaris inverts the space epic dynamic of the human mind
| overcoming space with new technology. Solaris presents the human
| mind as the ultimate limit to our exploration rather than
| technology. For this reason, Tarkovsky puts a lot of time in the
| movie to exploring the main characters existing mental climate so
| that as viewers we feel the claustrophobia, the scientific
| problem of understanding the planet Solaris proven moot in
| comparison to the constricting consequences of our own mental
| model.
| duxup wrote:
| > the human mind as the ultimate limit
|
| At least in the American version of Solaris I felt like it
| asked if what we "know" or remember about a person is real /
| enough to make a person / how much we can even know.... and by
| extension what we really know about anything.
|
| And regarding the character in the end who chooses to simply
| live with those memories/ ghosts created by his memory... maybe
| he isn't any different than the rest of us.
| nailer wrote:
| This might be seen as heresy by many but: if you're not a fan of
| the glacial pace of very old films, you may enjoy Clooney's
| remake more.
|
| This takes nothing away from the original film, which inspired so
| much of modern scifi. But if you were raised on modern sci fi,
| Tarkovsky's original is a hard watch. You might feel the same in
| the nineties listening to Sonic Youth's 80s grunge, or reading
| Lord of the Rings after you've read the Song of Ice and Fire /
| Game of Thrones books, or playing System Shock 1 after growing up
| on Bioshock and Prey.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _But if you were raised on modern sci fi, Tarkovsky 's
| original is a hard watch_
|
| Most good things in art are hard and require some work.
|
| If you want the easy version, you're missing a lot.
|
| You'd be better served to be listening to Sonic Youth's 80s
| records instead of me-too grunge during the nineties too.
| nailer wrote:
| I don't know re: Grunge. I feel like in the mid nineties
| Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins were already
| taking grunge to new places and Sonic Youth had evolved into
| something else entirely - Diamond Sea was the first Sonic
| Youth track I heard and was this weird desolate digital
| thing.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > This might be seen as heresy by many but: if you're not a fan
| of the glacial pace of very old films, you may enjoy Clooney's
| remake more.
|
| I agree. I have both versions, and while it would be easy to
| knock the latter given the reputation of the former, I think
| they're both good in different ways.
| abruzzi wrote:
| the issue I had with the Soderbergh/Clooney version is it
| almost stops being about Solaris at all, and is instead just
| about the individuals.
|
| What was brilliant about the novel (to me) was that it was
| about our inability to understand of communicate with the alien
| intellegence, while at the same time, we are unable to
| understand and communicate with others of our own species. The
| two threads mirror each other, and almost completely removing
| one, leaves it a less interesting story. The Tarkovsy version
| doesn't do a great job of this either, but Solaris plays a
| bigger role, so you at least get an inkling of the ocean
| mirroring our own inadaquacies.
| justin66 wrote:
| The newer film stands on its own pretty well, it doesn't really
| need to be compared against the previous film. There are enough
| ideas behind _Solaris_ that yet another film could be made
| based on that material (and probably will be, someday).
|
| The most obvious variation would be shorter still: a film
| similar to Clooney's remake, but without quite so much
| development of what was already a dead character (Kelvin's ex)
| and without the softening of what was objectively a pretty
| bleak ending. But I think the newer film actually works really
| well. All the other people who were seated in the theater when
| I went to see it during its theatrical release seemed to feel
| the same way. All three of them.
| cubefox wrote:
| I agree, the Soderbergh/Clooney version is fine as well.
| Though I wish movie adoptions of books wouldn't so often
| replace bleak endings with less bleak ones. It feels almost
| patronizing. Like a mother who reads a book to her children
| for which she thinks they are slightly too young, so she
| replaces more serious parts with watered down fragments she
| invented herself.
| eternalban wrote:
| I'm with you. It's a serious snoozefest. It is not _cinema_ so
| I disagree about generational shift*. The problem is
| foundational. It 's a novel, not a film. Interior space of man
| is not very cinematic from the outside. (Yes, I know few giants
| of film disagree.)
|
| * p.s.: Take _The Andromeda Strain_ (1971)
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/
|
| imho, an absolute gem of Sci-Fi that still works. This is also
| a 'slow pace' film, there is also a great deal of matter
| happening inside the characters' heads, but it still works as
| _film_. (hn bonus: CalTech and JPL are in the credits.)
| AlanYx wrote:
| Part of the problem is that there are multiple slow "art
| sequences" in the film that seem to have no clear purpose and
| run counter to Tarkovsky's usual dislike of intentional
| symbolism in film. Some seem like they might have been
| intended as homages to other sci-fi films, especially
| Kubrick's 2001.
| eternalban wrote:
| Apparently he "disliked"* Kubrik's film:
|
| https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/andrei-tarkovsky-solaris-
| artist...
|
| * "absolutely hated" was also mentioned /g
| cubefox wrote:
| Which "art sequences" do you mean? The zero g part with
| Bach and Bruegel's "Hunters in the Snow" is one of the most
| iconic scenes in film history (in my book).
| vidarh wrote:
| I fell asleep to the remake, but was transfixed when I saw the
| original for the first time around age 7. Sure, it's long, but
| to me at least it hits much harder. The new one doesn't feel
| like it is about Solaris (the planet), to me. It feels much
| less interesting.
|
| Then again I'm old enough to perhaps be more used to the pace
| of it.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I've seen both the original and the remake and enjoyed the
| remake a lot more.
|
| The original was IMHO plagued with useless lengths and a
| somewhat pretentious/cryptic tone.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| The pace is a key element of Tarkovskys style
| tpm wrote:
| It's not that the glacial pace is a feature of old films. It's
| a feature of Tarkovsky's movies and even today some directors
| use similar techniques.
|
| Fritz Lang's Metropolis has a much faster pace and it's a scifi
| movie from 1927.
| jfengel wrote:
| I saw the original.
|
| I'd rather watch a glacier.
| drittich wrote:
| I think the Clooney film is excellent, and can be enjoyed
| without knowing anything about Lem's book. And it just might be
| enough to make you want to dig in to the source material.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Will second. Viola Davis' performance is worth it alone along
| with a character twist.
| bloak wrote:
| I think there's a (probably US) film that appears to be inspired
| by "Solaris" but is called something different. Can anyone tell
| me what it's called because I can't remember and it's annoying
| me?
| tantaman wrote:
| Solaris starring George Clooney
| rainworld wrote:
| Annihilation (2018) borrows heavily from both Solaris and
| Stalker.
| tehnub wrote:
| Note, he later added it to his Great Movies list and penned a new
| essay for it: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-
| solaris-1972
| walterbell wrote:
| _> I saw his 1972 film "Solaris" at the Chicago Film Festival
| that year. It was my first experience of Tarkovsky, and at
| first I balked. It was long and slow and the dialogue seemed
| deliberately dry. But then the overall shape of the film
| floated into view, there were images of startling beauty, then
| developments that questioned the fundamental being of the
| characters themselves, and finally an ending that teasingly
| suggested that everything in the film needed to be seen in a
| new light. There was so much to think about afterwards, and so
| much that remained in my memory._
|
| Much deeper essay, thanks for posting.
| axus wrote:
| I'm very glad I read the story before the movie review, he really
| loads it up with spoilers! To make the point that the details
| weren't what he found interesting.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| Ebert's take focuses on the human aspect of Solaris, but the
| other aspect of both the movie and the book that is just as
| appealing to me is our inability to understand the alien ocean
| itself. All the attempts to anthropomorphize its behavior fail,
| and in the end Solaris research is abandoned because the ocean is
| essentially inscrutable to humans. This theme is also covered in
| another Lem book, "Fiasco."
|
| I love the idea of an alien, presented before us, completely
| available to us to interact with, and we cannot bridge the gap
| because we and it are so different.
|
| It just leaves you with "What is it doing?!" which is such a
| wonderful contrast to the deep emotional impact that its behavior
| (creating the doppelgangers) has on humans. Does it know? Is it
| coincidence? Is it malicious? So many good mysteries.
| goatlover wrote:
| The aliens in the Expanse universe are also very alien and
| difficult to understand. Which makes their technology and
| civilization (for the Ring Builders) quite interesting. But
| yes, the point of the book and even the 2002 movie was that
| Solaris wasn't human, and yet we keep trying to understand it
| as it if were a mirror. That seeking out alien life is really
| just seeking out more versions of humanity.
|
| Which was Lem's way of criticizing popular science fiction.
| Most aliens are either presented as humanoid or monsters from
| our nightmares. But Solaris is something else entirely. I would
| say the Arrival aliens are pretty alien as well, even though
| they do manage to communicate their language to the main
| character.
| cscheid wrote:
| > Does it know? Is it coincidence? Is it malicious?
|
| In case you haven't read it yet, you might enjoy Peter Watts's
| Blindsight.
| kh_hk wrote:
| Something I felt reading the book that I did not feel with the
| movie was a bit of horror sci-fi vibes. That alone to me is what
| makes Solaris one of Lem's top works, on which the crude
| descriptions add to the suspense and horror.
| zabzonk wrote:
| the bit where visitor-Hari punches through a metal door,
| injuring herself, because she can't stand being separated from
| Kelvin is quite scary, and was a shock to me when i first saw
| the fil in the mid 70s. and there are others.
| kh_hk wrote:
| Fair, I do agree. Both the book and the film are truly
| masterpieces on their own
| sparsely wrote:
| There's a lot in Solaris (at least in the 1976 movie and the
| book). In almost all sci-fi which contains aliens, they're easily
| comprehend-able by humans - they have motivations we can describe
| in our own language, a physical form that while strange is likely
| a mashup of earth creature characteristics (after all that's
| where our vocabulary comes from). Solaris asks what it might be
| like if this isn't the case, and where the limits of our
| comprehension are.
| dreen wrote:
| There is another great story by Lem called Golem XIV about an
| AI, constructed by the US Military. It is tasked with
| destroying enemies of the US, to which it says something to the
| effect of "Why? That makes no sense" and proceeds to give a
| philosophical lecture, then sort of disappears. Lem was really
| good at breaking down common scifi tropes and presenting them
| from a point of view it hasn't been considered, sometimes
| surprisingly obvious.
| RangerScience wrote:
| I think I found it!
|
| https://rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/golem-xiv.pdf
| te0006 wrote:
| It might be of interest that Lem wrote Golem XIV in 1981,
| more than _40_ years ago.
| scandox wrote:
| It's a persistent theme for Lem I guess. Fiasco and also His
| Master's Voice both investigate very similar ideas about the
| limits of comprehension.
| fpoling wrote:
| This theme is even in the Return from the Stars. There there
| is a failure to understand human civilization 100 years
| later.
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| The movie was released in the year 1972. The date in the title is
| for the article.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| sort of a haiku almost, this revue. The real movie takes time to
| develop the base plot, by indirection and example instead of
| prose description like this review. The "answers" provided in the
| review as descriptions are basically accurate, but the viewer has
| to puzzle it out, and it is never said directly by the movie.
|
| This movie has stuck with me for decades. I still refer to it
| when we get the "Star Trek" irrational exuberance crowd around
| spending multi-billions on space adventures. Secondly how about
| those small sats eh? Maybe not every space mission has to be
| decades long with budgets that match.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Incidentally, the Kindle version of Solaris is on sale today for
| 50% off its normal price:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Solaris-Stanislaw-Lem-ebook/dp/B00Q21...
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Which is also the newer translation[1]. For quite a while
| couldn't be sold in the US as book/ebook due to licensing
| issues, only as an audiobook (which is how I enjoyed it).
|
| 1: https://english.lem.pl/works/novels/solaris/196-a-new-
| transl...
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Which would probably explain as well why _only_ Amazon can
| sell it. I 've been trying to buy only Kobo as of late, but
| the book literally does not exist (in English) in their
| library:
|
| https://www.kobo.com/us/en/search?query=solaris
| AlbertCory wrote:
| As I (dimly) recall, at the Google Cinema Club
|
| https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/culture-at-google-part-o...
|
| I ran a poll once for the movie people most wanted to see. The
| leaders were Solaris and The Big Lebowski. It was very close, but
| I, um, "encouraged" some people on the fence to vote Solaris.
|
| Accusations of "election fraud" are misplaced! This is called
| "getting out the vote."
| raajg wrote:
| Coincidentally started reading Solaris 2 weeks ago. About 60% in
| and really enjoying it. Love stories with novel sci-fi ideas and
| this one tackles a pretty interesting one. Would appreciate
| recommendations by the same author or other stories.
|
| Other stories that I really liked because I had not thought about
| those ideas before are: Diaspora (Greg Egan), Permutation City
| (Greg Egan), Dark Universe (daniel galouye), Three Body Problem
| series (Cixin Liu)
| cubefox wrote:
| I read pretty much all of his books. My favorite is "Wizja
| Lokalna", I've read the German translation, but there is no
| English one. Other books of his are available in English
| though: I like The Cyberiad and The Star Diaries, both quite
| funny. The former is about the adventures of the two great
| robot constructors Trurl and Klapaucius, the latter about the
| journeys of Ijon Tichy, a kind of space Munchausen. Tichy also
| plays the main role in the the later books The Futurological
| Congress, Peace on Earth, and "Wizja Lokalna" (which doesn't
| have a translation, as I said.) All these novels are often
| quite funny, unlike Solaris.
|
| He has also written other great but much more unusual books,
| such as Memoirs Found in a Bathtub (a Kafkaesque story set
| inside an underground Pentagon which was cut off from the rest
| of the world) or A Perfect Vacuum (a collection of reviews of
| books which do not exist.)
| xamuel wrote:
| Solaris is my favorite Tarkovsky film. Some observations:
|
| * When they assist the exhausted Kelvin to his room near the end,
| his body blocks the light but occasionally his body moves so the
| light can come through and blind the camera. This parallels the
| discussion about destroying the visitors with a burst of light.
|
| * Burton's extended unexplained car ride is (in my opinion) a nod
| to the 2001 star-gate. It's quite brilliant how Tarkovsky shows
| that what Kubrick achieves with exotic special effects can be
| achieved with everyday footage if we just look from the right
| angles and play the right soundtrack.
|
| * In the old footage they watch near the start of the film, we
| see stylistic artwork of important figures in the background.
| These would certainly be informed by Tarkovsky's expertise on
| Orthodox Iconography (see his "Andrei Rublev").
|
| * Interesting to compare and contrast the visitors with Kubrick's
| "HAL". The visitors are purely physical and totally unaware of
| where they are/what's going on. HAL is purely mental and totally
| omniscient. Both raise all kinds of interesting metaphysical
| questions about personality and the soul.
|
| * The swirling water-plants at the beginning and end of the film
| are evoked by the paper strips the crew hang up on their
| ventilators.
|
| * Near the beginning, Kelvin stands outside in pouring rain, as
| if not noticing it, when he could escape it by walking just a few
| feet. This becomes very meaningful with part of the twist in the
| ending.
|
| * Young Burton talks about how gigantic the child he saw in
| Solaris's ocean was. Later, when the visitor is frozen from the
| dry-ice suicide attempt, we briefly catch a glimpse of her face
| reflected in a concave mirror which makes it seem monstrously
| gigantic.
|
| Right now the entire film is available free on YouTube:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LutMHAeCfLU&t=5193s (turn on
| closed captions unless you speak Russian)
| WalterBright wrote:
| > It's quite brilliant
|
| And unbearably boring.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| If you read the book first, then watch the film, it is not
| boring. At least it was not for me.
| horsh1 wrote:
| > Burton's extended unexplained car ride
|
| What do you mean unexplained? They clearly were showing the
| future. The multi-level Tokyo highways were percieved as
| extremely futuristic by the soviet audience. There was nothing
| like that in the Union at the time.
| horsh1 wrote:
| ... Using Tokyo as the vision of the future ten years before
| Blade Runner and Akira.
| pavlov wrote:
| Definitely. But the length of the first-person driving scene
| is unexplained in the story universe, and feels somewhat out
| of place in Tarkovsky's own body of work. I would agree it
| conceptually mirrors the "2001" stargate sequence.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Perhaps all that counts for you but all I'm getting from it is
| "stuff happens" and you're picking up patterns which may or may
| not be there, and if they are then so what. It sounds very
| typical of 70s films. However I have read Stanislaw Lemand
| respect him so I'm working up the courage to try and watch it
| sometime. Trouble is I know I'm going to be bored crapless and
| wish I hadn't.
|
| If anyone can convince me I'm wrong I'd like that.
| megmogandog wrote:
| If that's your attitude going in you're probably going to
| hate it. Why bother?
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Because I might not, I might be wrong, might find it opens
| a new door, for which other people's views are of great
| value.
| xamuel wrote:
| >Trouble is I know I'm going to be bored crapless
|
| You're certainly right. All Tarkovsky's films are
| astonishingly boring. It takes a lot to be able to appreciate
| that sort of film. Learning to enjoy boredom is one of the
| greatest things I've developed in my life. It's like a
| superpower, it enables me to read vast quantities of dry but
| wonderful nonfiction, for example. I wish I had developed
| this power decades ago, but maybe that wouldn't have been
| possible without the necessary life experience.
| megmogandog wrote:
| Personally I don't find his films boring at all. They are
| definitely slow-paced, but are totally engrossing for me. I
| have to assume a lot of the people who praise Tarkovsky so
| highly also don't find his films "astonishingly boring"
| dmoy wrote:
| > All Tarkovsky's films are astonishingly boring
|
| Is he the one who did the movie for roadside picnic? If so,
| yea. Also seemed almost completely unrelated to the book.
| xamuel wrote:
| Yeah, that film is Stalker (and boy is it boring)
| dmoy wrote:
| Ah yea that one.
|
| I need to go back and reread the book because I don't
| remember the book being so boring
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| > It takes a lot to be able to appreciate that sort of film
|
| to each their own but why bother? I get a break from work
| and entertainment from films, I simply can't understand
| what you're getting out of it.
| bathMarm0t wrote:
| I think it just requires a reframing of what to expect.
| Films from Tarkovsky or other capital D Directors "of
| Director's Directors fame" are less plot driven. Films from
| older eras are less plot driven / hadn't developed the
| tempo of modernity (I'd summarize the tempo change as
| needing to lead the viewer into what's next). Combine them
| both and you get something that feels like watching paint
| dry, the catch being the paint dries on 120ft of canvas.
| You're in the museum and the tapestry moves. Rather than
| trying to constantly figure out what's next / where this is
| going (you don't notice this in modern films as the tempo
| has already fed it to you / shuttled you along to the next
| plot point), just sit there and enjoy the view. In Stalker
| the shots are (op/im)pressively long. And I love them.
| dmix wrote:
| I recently watched another lesser known movie based on a
| Stanislaw Lem book (by a Czech director):
|
| Icarus XB 1 (1963) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122111/
|
| It also has great set design like Solaris but didnt have such a
| large budget. I love his style, I should read one of his books.
|
| Edit: the full thing is on YouTube https://youtu.be/WwodJW1ikFo
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-03 23:02 UTC)