Rather surprised this did not turn up in a search from 'the beginning of time,' except mentioned in passing on some non-Solaris titled threads ...

Mrs.D is doing a "great course" on scifi in the movies, and turned up some beauts including this one. Or these ones. First we watched the 2002 remake starring George Clooney (which I had definitely seen before), then she read the book, then we watched the original(?) 1978 Tartovsky outing, which I dunno, maybe seen before?

Mrs.D is admant that the Tartovsky original is a more faithful adaptation, and exposition-wise differs significantly from the Soderbergh-Cameron version, however I thought they were very similar plot treatments of the material, though with considerable differences in how scenes were staged and intercut (it would be fair to say the Soderbergh is a tad dumbed-down). I felt I knew exactly how the T-version would unfold, and wasn't surprised or confounded by any unforeseen plot wrinkles, having seen the S-version so recently.

The T-version has better effects (surprising, given its age, and James Cameron's producer role in the Soderburgh), and has an overall more convincing portrayal of the humanoid creature summoned by the alien life-force from the Kelvin character's memories of his dead wife, including a memorable scene in which she recovers painfully from having swallowed liquid oxygen -- which did not rely on any remarkable effects, but on superb scripting and acting.

One thing I realized from my forum search was that I had confused Solaris with T's other film, Stalker, which I found unwatchably dull.

The T-version Solaris is reckoned to be one of the 'best' (as in profound) portrayals of an alien in a scifi film, a claim I have no quarrel with.

The Tarkovsky version had been showing in London for a year or so when I turned up as a fresh-faced art student. I remember conversations along the lines of:

"Isn't 2001 a great film?"
"Yes, but I've seen Solaris, and it's better."

As though the two were somehow in competition. I never did get to see it while I was at St. M's, but I sneaked back in late 1975 to see it. It's one of the few films that really blew me away then and there. I went back to see it again a few months later. Probably the reason I was ready for Stalker when I saw that. They aren't exactly similar, but there's a Tarkovsky mood in both of them.

No problem with the Soderbergh-Cameron version. It's a pretty similar telling of the story, and not badly done. I guess they liked the original, and decided to make some money. 

Tartovsky definitely brings the mood! My favourite is still Andrei Rublev.

I did not know you were an art student. Which school?

St Martin's (which was) in Charing Cross Road. Only did a foundation year there.

Heard of it! I was at the Edinburgh College of Art for two, non-consecutive years, roughly around the same time, Massachusetts CoA (Boston) before that for a year, and much later (early 90s), NSCAD where I did a design degree.

You did better than me. I might have been able to take it further, but I was a very young 18 when I started and needed a bit of guidance (or slapping into line). St Martin's was completely laid back so I did the same. I must have had some ability but I stopped using it there. It didn't work out too bad though. After doing bit-jobs and stuff for a couple of years, I discovered that the year didn't affect my qualifications for a grant (life was easy back in the pinko-commie-socialist 1970s) so I went to university and did a philosophy degree. 

My wife went to St Martins, but the Holborn building. 

I have the T-Solaris on a Criterion Blu-ray, it's really nice. I should watch it again, been ages!

Holborn is after my time, I think. There was a separate building when I was there for the fashion school, but I have no idea where that was. I didn't think it was Holborn. What did she study?

And yes, Mrs WilliamA gave me that Criterion bluray too.

Ceramic Design. I remember a lot of her cohort were knocking out these beautiful pieces, would fit straight into a fancy shop or something. Meanwhile she was doing conceptual art things like recording videos of her tipping about a thousand ceramic doorknobs out of an upstairs window... long story short she got the only First in the year, I'm still so proud but not sure why they called the degree that  :'-D 

I think it's all moved to a fancy new building in Kings Cross now, we went to some sort of opening do that the alumni were invited to.

It was St Martin's School of Art when I went. It went through various mergers and management changes, the main one being with the Central School of Art and Design. It appears to style itself as 'Central St Martin's' now, although looking around t'web, I still see extra bits of name tagged on. The holborn site is still in use, along with a building in Archway and as you say, the fancy new buildings in Kings Cross. Well done to Tina for her first. I'm always impressed by potters and ceramicists. Does she still potter about?

When I was there, Foyles was opposite and along a bit, but they've taken over the old St Martin's building and moved in now.

 

She does a bit now and again yeah, we have a kiln and a wheel in the shed. Output seems to be much more in the “a nice set of little bowls” vein these days so some of that practical design stuff must have stuck. 

That's one of the things that always impresses me. I remember we had a ceramics teacher in our school art department and he made some goblets for the banquet scene in the school play (Macbeth). So one lesson he showed us how to turn one on the wheel, then that afternoon there were 20 of the things, all pretty much identical, drying on the window sill. God knows when he did it, but it was so quick and skillful. I think they were all pinched by the cast as souvenirs.

Circling back to Solaris's author, I just read another of his books, "The Invincible," described as a "hard science fiction novel," which, fair enough. It reminded me a lot of Jules Verne, and a bit less of H.P. Lovecraft's "Mountains of Madness." The writing quality is absolutely ace (bearing in mind I read a translation from the original Polish), it seems less philosophical and more scientific-technical than Solaris (the films, haven't read the book). Some major scifi tropes (notably militaristic themes) are attributed to Lem, and recognizable in literally dozens of derivative works.

Interesting that Lem hated Tarkovsky's first screenplay for Solaris, as did the soviet authorities, so T had to go and write another. 

I have a British Film Institute account for their online streaming thing, and Stalker is critic Mark Kermode's film of the week. Amused to notice that the crew ran out of booze (and other provisions) during filming and resorted to drinking cheap cologne mixed with sugar. Much drunkenness ensued. Tarkovsky sacked his art director on a charge of "behaving like a bastard".

For different reasons, I assume?

I imagine so, although it was probably the same departures from the original that displeased both parties.