@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 12/31/99 -- Vol. 18, No. 27

       Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
       Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
       HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
       HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
       Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
       second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
       201-447-3652 for details.  The Denver Area Science Fiction
       Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
       Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.

       ===================================================================

       1. Well, here we go.  Tonight that big leading  digit  changes.   I
       won't  make the common mistake of saying we start a new millennium.
       As an intelligent and discerning person, you know that  it  is  not
       true.   But  people  will  THINK  it  is the new millennium, and to
       explain why it really is not you have to  talk  about  there  never
       having  been  a  year 0.  Well even to the better informed among us
       the year 1 is ancient history.  Actually there never was a  year  1
       either.   There  was  a  year designated as a year 1 well after the
       fact.  Even that was not the year they wanted  to  be  the  year  1
       since  it was supposedly the year Christ was born and they were off
       by about four years.  I think that many of  those  graduating  high
       school  these  days  are  not  even convinced that that time really
       existed.  The age of Xena and Hercules is more real to  them.   But
       you  cannot  blame  them  too much.  The history of the calendar is
       just full of supposedly smart people making  dumb  mistakes.   Some
       time I ought to tell you about Austerlitz.

       So never mind the fact we still have better than a year to  run  on
       the  century,  people who assume that all that makes a century is a
       digit in a year are flooding us with little millenniumisms.  Man o'
       War  has  just  been  named the Horse of the Century.  I suppose if
       there was going to be a Horse of the Century it would be for racing
       and  winning a large Pot o' Money for its owner.  Just as firmly as
       people are convinced that  this  is  the  new  millennium  starting
       tomorrow  there  are  those who are convinced that the whole reason
       there are horses is racing them.  The horse of  the  century  would
       have  to  be  a  racehorse.   Horses might think differently.  What
       contributions would horses value?   If  they  were  asked  I  think
       horses would be more likely to pick a horse that had done something
       like figuring out how to unlock the paddock gate and let a bunch of
       horses  go free.  In general I dont think it is a good idea for one
       species to be choosing the best member of another species  for  the
       century.  Time Magazine's choice was Albert Einstein, by the way.

       The moment is coming that I have thought about pretty much  all  my
       life.   I  suspect I am not alone in that.  From a young age I have
       been thinking about how old I would be when I became  a  person  of
       the  2000s.  Somehow I had the age number exactly right, but I am a
       lot younger than I thought I would be.  This was  the  time  of  my
       life  when  I  would become a person of both the 20th Century and a
       person of the 21st Century.  I was  going  to  see  what  the  21st
       Century  was  like, like it is going to be different from the 20th.
       Well the 20th Century was a lot different from the 19th.  So I  was
       expecting the 21st Century to be a lot different from the 20th.  It
       will be, but not for a while.  The beginning of  the  21st  Century
       will be a whole lot like the end of the 20th Century.

       When I think of the people born in the  middle  part  of  the  19th
       Century  who  lived into the 20th Century, I don't think of them as
       understanding our century.  They just saw an early piece of it  but
       to  my  mind  these  people  always  remained artifacts of the 19th
       Century.  Somehow I expected full-fledged membership  in  the  21st
       Century  for myself.  I now realize that is not the way it is going
       to be.  People who are REALLY of the 21st century will consider  us
       old  fogies and something of an embarrassment.  We may even have to
       take the rap for the Y2K fiasco.

       If history is any sign  the  most  important  events  of  the  21st
       Century  will  happen  after  we die.  Suppose that a time traveler
       from 100 years tried to explain to you the most important event  of
       the 21st Century.  The odds are good you would have no idea what he
       was talking about.  Technology is moving that  fast.   If  you  had
       Teddy Roosevelt here how would you explain to him the modern world?
       I  think  I  could  almost   explain   the   problem   of   nuclear
       proliferation,  but  try  thinking of how you would explain the Y2K
       problem to Teddy Roosevelt?

       I guess this is part of the human condition.   We  just  dont  live
       long  enough  so  that we can really be much of a part of more than
       one century. Nobody lives long enough to ever really understand two
       different centuries.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       2. GALAXY QUEST (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: What would happen if the cast of "Star
                 Trek"  actors  was  whisked into space and told
                 they had to fight real aliens?  Aliens  who  do
                 not  understand  the concept of fiction and who
                 believe in the crew of  "Galaxy  Quest"  borrow
                 the  actors  to help save their race.  The film
                 is consistently amusing but  it  never  becomes
                 any  more  than  a one-joke film.  Worth seeing
                 once.  Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)

       The cast rivalries of "Star Trek" actors, and  the  conventions  of
       "Star  Trek"  as  well as "Star Trek" conventions, all get a fairly
       loving shellacking in an enjoyable comedy that asks if the cast  of
       "Star Trek" had to fight real aliens, how well would they do.

       Back in the early 1970s there was a science fiction  TV  show  that
       would  be  immortal  to  its  fans, "Galaxy Quest."  Even today the
       die-hard fans want more.  Let's get this part out of the way so  we
       can  proceed.  Tim Allen plays Jason Nesmith who on the show played
       Comdr. Peter Quincy Taggart.  Alan Rickman plays Alexander Dane who
       played  Dr.  Lazarus  of  Tev'Meck.   Sigourney  Weaver  plays Gwen
       DeMarco who played Lt. Tawny Madison.  Tony Shalhoub, who does  not
       look  the  slightest  bit  Chinese, plays Fred Kwan who played Tech
       Sergeant Chen.  And Daryl Mitchell plays Tommy  Webber  who  played
       Lt.  Laredo.   With  each  but  possibly  Laredo,  the writers were
       clearly thinking of a corresponding member of the "Star Trek" cast.

       In spite of the fact that Galaxy Quest has been  off  the  air  for
       many  years  the cast continues to be a hot item at science fiction
       media conventions.  Just about everyone in the  cast  is  tired  of
       being  type-cast,  but  they  have  to  contend  with  the fame and
       popularity they got from the TV show.  Most tired is Alexander Dane
       who  at  one time played Richard III to raving audiences but now is
       reduced to repeating the tire TV show catch-phrases over and  over,
       ad  nauseum.   And  all are a little tire of how Jason Nesmith, who
       played their leader, basks in all the glory at the conventions  and
       treats  the  other cast members like decoration.  He behaves like a
       rude, ego-centric jerk.  When four  teens  in  alien  costumes  ask
       Nesmith  to  see  their  space  ship and fight an alien for them he
       plays along with the gag.  Then he finds out that they in truth are
       aliens,  their  spaceship  is authentic, and their foes are all too
       real.  Soon  the  whole  crew  is  pulled  involuntarily  into  the
       adventure.   For  once  they have no script, no director, no lines,
       and they are in real danger.

       As a story about the actors we have come to know so well from "Star
       Trek,"  this  film  is  passable but cliched.  By depending on each
       other they build firm relationships  of  mutual  respect.   Outward
       Bound  probably has hundreds of stories just as moving.  As a space
       opera adventure this film is fairly lame.  That is not  the  point,
       of course, but it might have been a better movie with a little more
       thought about the adventure.  In general the audience is a step  or
       two ahead of the characters.  The greatest value of the film is the
       lampooning of the "Star Trek" iconography.  And in doing that it is
       considerably  more  adept  than  anything Mel Brooks has done for a
       good long time.

       Nobody requires great dramatic scenes in a  film  like  this.   Tim
       Allen's  acting  was  more than sufficient and his timing adequate.
       He might have issued one little "To infinity and beyond,"  if  that
       would  not  have  been  mixing metaphors.  Sigourney Weaver did not
       have a lot to do besides wear a tight suit well,  which  she  still
       can  do  surprisingly  nicely for a lady who recently hit the half-
       century mark.  Alan Rickman does  little  with  his  role  but  act
       petulant.   He  can  be a very magnetic actor but here is not.  The
       biggest  disappointment  was  a  sort  of  lack-luster,  half-speed
       performance  from  character actor Tony Shalhoub.  He is one of the
       actors I tend to watch for, but not  for  the  sort  of  effort  he
       seemed  to  give  this  role.   He  looked like he just felt out of
       place.

       The ideal length for this material would have been as a  ten-minute
       skit.   It  is  impressive  that  director  Dean  Parisot  kept the
       chuckles coming as long as he did.  This is a one-viewing film, but
       pleasant  enough.   I  give it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on
       the -4 to +4 scale.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       3. CRADLE WILL ROCK (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule:  In  the  1930s   art   and   politics
                 inextricably  intertwine  in this (mostly) true
                 story of big money interests fighting the WPA's
                 Federal  Theater  Project.   Also retold is the
                 tale  of  the   disagreement   between   Nelson
                 Rockefeller  and  Diego  Rivera  over the mural
                 that Rivera  painted  for  Rockefeller  Center.
                 Tim   Robbins,  who  both  wrote  and  directed
                 captures  a  feel  for  the  heady  days   when
                 American  talent  seemed  to  be blossoming but
                 when the mostly liberal sentiment  of  art  was
                 seen  as  a  threat to the wealthy who strongly
                 influenced  the  government.   This  film  will
                 certainly be in my top three films of the year.
                 Rating: 9 (0 to 10), +3 (-4 to +4)

       In the  1930S  during  the  Great  Depression  massive  numbers  of
       Americans were out of work.  In 1934 the number was 11 million.  To
       cut unemployment and get people working again  the  Works  Progress
       Administration was established.  It eventually employed 8.5 million
       people to improve the infrastructure and culture  of  the  country.
       Laborers  built  roads,  bridges,  parks,  buildings, and airports.
       Artists were employed by the  Federal  Arts  Project,  The  Federal
       Writers  Project,  and  the  Federal  Theater Project.  The Federal
       Theater Project (FTP) lasted from 1935 to 1939  when  it  was  shut
       down  by  the  House  Committee  on  Un-American Activities for its
       left-leaning plays.

       CRADLE WILL ROCK combines the  stories  of  two  incidents  of  the
       1930s.  In 1933 Nelson Rockefeller objected to the mural that Diego
       Rivera was creating for Rockefeller Center which depicted Lenin  as
       a liberator.  In 1937 Marc Blitzstein's play "The Cradle Will Rock"
       was to be produced under the aegis  of  the  FTP  staged  by  Orson
       Welles  and John Houseman, but the government withdrew support with
       dramatic consequences.

       The film begins with a homeless woman Olive Stanton (Emily  Watson)
       catching  some  sleep  behind  the  screen of a movie theater.  The
       theater is showing a  newsreel  about  the  spread  of  Fascism  in
       Europe,  but  how  things are better and more optimistic in the US.
       Stanton clearly knows more about conditions  in  the  US  than  the
       patrons  of  the theater.  Chased from this shelter she looks for a
       job with the Federal Theater Project.

       The FTP is an explosion of creative  chaos  presided  over  by  the
       tireless  Hallie  Flanagan  (Cherry  Jones).   She reads new plays,
       makes production assignments, and does a wealth of other jobs.   We
       are  soon  introduced  to  Orson  Welles  (Angus  Macfadyen),  John
       Houseman (Cary Elwes) putting on a creatively-staged production  of
       Marlowe's  DOCTOR  FAUSTUS.   They  are  also preparing a polemical
       play, "The Cradle Will Rock," for the FTP.

       The wealthy also mix in with a strong interest  in  the  arts.   We
       meet   Nelson  Rockefeller  (John  Cusack),  an  oil  magnate  more
       interested in art and Latin America than he is  in  petroleum.   He
       has commissioned the admired Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades) to paint a
       mural for Rockefeller Center, the theme of which is  to  be  "Man's
       Intelligence Controlling Nature."

       But not everybody is happy with this flowering of creativity.   Icy
       Hazel   Huffman   (Joan   Cusack)   and   a  frustrated  vaudeville
       ventriloquist Tommy Crickshaw (Bill Murray) do not like the leftist
       message of many of the plays present.  They are organizing to fight
       what they think is becoming  a  liberal  establishment.   The  film
       chronicles  their  collision  with the artists and playwrights they
       oppose.

       The casting  is  quite  good.   Especially  notable  is  the  Angus
       Macfadyen   impression  of  Orson  Welles.   Welles  has  now  been
       portrayed by a number of different actors on the screen  but  never
       by  someone who with so close a physical resemblance or who got the
       facial expressions down so well.  Less familiar  is  John  Houseman
       but  Cary  Elwes at least sounds a good deal like Houseman.  Cherry
       Jones just sparkles as Hallie Flanagan.

       The characters of CRADLE WILL ROCK are in a kettle with a  seething
       stew of politics and art.  Tim Robbins who wrote and directed, sees
       the events  of  this  film  to  be  the  beginnings  of  the  1950s
       Congressional witch hunts for communists.  It also provides much of
       the reason that even today there are few plays on Broadway with any
       real  political  meat.   Art today is about colors and textures and
       not political ideas for the most part.  Few works  in  art  museums
       have strong political comment and much of Broadway is given over to
       fluffy plays with little political bite.  Ironically Robbins  makes
       a  very  clear  statement  that  only some censorship is bad.  Aldo
       Silvano (John Turturro) does not want to see "The Cradle Will Rock"
       be  censored  for  its  unpopular  political  message.   Yet  he is
       outraged when he hears his children singing a song that is sung  by
       the  Brown  Shirts  in Italy.  In this case he is censoring his own
       children's singing of a Fascist song.  That seems right, but  where
       is  the  line  to be drawn?  Plays of this time could appeal to any
       political persuasion instead of having to appeal to people of every
       political persuasion as they do today.  The wealthy and powerful do
       not want art to have messages that threaten their  interests.   The
       rich  who  have been the patrons of the arts do not what to have to
       choose between what is good for art and their own welfare.

       The film is good entertainment.  Is it accurate history?  There  is
       some  distortion,  certainly.   Just  having  two art and political
       censorship events occurring at the same time instead of years apart
       leads one to believe that such clashes were more frequent than they
       really were.  Robbins  portrays  the  people  who  agree  with  his
       political   viewpoint   being  likable,  intelligent,  artistically
       fulfilled  people.   Those  who   oppose   artistic   freedom   are
       maladjusted  neurotics  if  not  out-and-out wackos.  By leaving no
       doubt as to whom the viewer should credit as being  in  the  right,
       Robbins  talks  down  to his audience and demonstrates that he does
       not trust them to choose the correct side of the debate.  One could
       ask if Lenin was the great liberator that Rivera wanted to portray,
       where are all the people who genuinely believe  that  he  liberated
       them?  History seems to have sided with Rockefeller.

       While CRADLE WILL ROCK plays a little fast and loose with  history,
       it  still  is  an  enjoyable watch and one of the best films of the
       year.  I rate it a 9 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +3 on the -4 to  +4
       scale.  [-mrl]

                                          Mark Leeper
                                          HO 1K-644 732-817-5619