THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/17/06 -- Vol. 25, No. 20, Whole Number 1361
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Announcement
Jack Williamson (1908-2006)
I Guess I Should Explain (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (THE DARWIN CONSPIRACY, MOVIES THAT
MATTER, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE THUNDERBOLT KID,
and RAN and KING LEAR)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Announcement
Next week's MT VOID will probably come out a few hours later than
usual. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Jack Williamson (1908-2006)
John Clute said it best, "It seems that there was never a time
when Jack Williamson, who has died at 98 after an active career
extending from 1928 until late last year, was not the father of
American science fiction. 'If your father read science fiction,'
the editor and novelist Frederik Pohl once wrote, 'he very likely
counted Jack Williamson high among his favorite writers.' What
now seems remarkable about this statement is that it was made in
1953."
Winner of Hugo and Nebula Awards, the Nebula Grand Master Award
(1975), the World Fantasy Life Achievement Award (1994), the
Science Fiction Hall of Fame (1996), and Grandmaster of the World
Horror Convention (2004), Williamson had a career spanning nine
decades (1928-2006). His best-known works are his "Legion of
Space" stories, "With Folded Hands" (later incorporated into the
novel THE HUMANOIDS), and DARKER THAN YOU THINK.
John Clute's full article may be found at
http://tinyurl.com/ykd5va. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: I Guess I Should Explain (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The film reviews I write for the MT VOID I also post on the
Internet. I have been embroiled there in a discussion there about
my recent review of the film BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA
FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN. This is the film
in which British comic Sacha Baron Cohen pretends to be from
Kazakhstan and acts extremely boorish to bring out negative
reactions in others.
I did something with the BORAT! review that I had never done with
a film review before. I not only gave a very negative review to
the film, I actually included a light insult to the fans of the
film. The last line of my review was "BORAT was just not on my
wavelength. If this film is on your wavelength, perhaps you need
to recalibrate." I do not think it was a terrible insult, though
there were people who seemed to be terribly insulted.
I had people following up on the Internet or sent me e-mail very
angered that I would imply that there was something wrong with
them if they liked this film. If you are one such person, I will
accept it stings a little bit, and I freely apologize to you and
the other fans of this film for my comment. But do you see any
irony here? You took such pleasure in this film that you feel
you have to defend it. This is a film that claims Kazakhs have
regularly incestuous relationships, bring feces to the dinner
table, have strongly anti-Jewish traditions like the running of
the Jews, etc., etc. That seems to you to be humor. But when the
circle of the insults is extended to you, suddenly it is not such
a joke to you any more.
People who defend the film seem to try to frame it as a noble
effort. The claim was made repeatedly that Cohen's insults are
somehow "fighting fire with fire." That is, the film supposedly
holds a mirror up to our racism so that we can see it. I am not
convinced. I saw someone else on the Net making an anti-Kazakh
joke so the practice is spreading. Before the advent of Cohen who
ever heard an anti-Kazakh joke? The Kazakhs certainly did not.
My understanding is the Kazakhstan government started to express
their displeasure when Borat was only on television and now that
is it a film they have protested to the United States government.
Of course, the United States government, though embarrassed, could
do nothing because making such films is (rightly) protected by the
United States Constitution. Still, the Kazakhs are irate that a
(British) comic in an American film is attacking their country
with unprovoked insults. I would defend the company's right to
make such a film, but I can also see the Kazakhs' point of view.
It is particularly embarrassing when much of the world is
questioning whether democracy and free speech are really as good
as the United States and Britain claim. Among other things we are
defending the right to make bad taste unprovoked insults. I think
that it is a good thing that we *can* make this film but a bad
thing that they *did*. Our free speech is not playing well around
the world.
In my conversations about this film somebody made the argument
that Borat's insults do not really matter. After all, we are all
mature enough to rise above such insults and the Kazakhs should
be also. Nobody really believes what is said in a Kazakh joke.
My joke, on the other hand, some people clearly did not rise
above. Well, I don't think with any insulting ethnic jokes that
there are many people who believe that they represent reality.
Insults that are actually believed would not be insults but
libels. And yes, libels are a lot worse than these insulting
jokes. But even obviously fictional insults do hurt also and are
remembered. I know I have gotten my share. But it really had
been years since I have heard anyone tell an insulting ethnic
joke. Society seemed to have risen above that, at least in the
circles I go in. Now they seem to be making a comeback. Rather
than fighting fire with fire, I think that Borat is just setting
his own fires.
Oh, and certainly I can see why people would take offense at my
comment. I apologized for it and explained the point I was
making. I am unconvinced that a claim that to say *perhaps* some
recalibration is necessary is such a horrible insult next to the
film's accusations of incest. What is a recalibration? It is a
fine-tuning adjustment. That has to be pretty minor as calumny
compared to what we saw in the film. It would be easy to
minimize the discomfort that such a film would cause because the
Kazakhs are distant geographically, but the Kazakhs who are
complaining do have a point. A lot of political correctness does
not make sense, but some of it does. Avoiding unprovoked ethnic
insults does fall in the latter category.
So why do so many critics like this film? I suppose the humor
appeals to them. I also strongly suspect that BORAT! is this
year's BILLY JACK. For those who do not remember it this was a
film about an ex-Green-Beret, militant-passivist,
half-Native-American martial artist. The sort of scene it would
have would be a whole lunchroom of people would be being nasty to
some nice hippies trying to run a "Peace School." Billy Jack
would get up and tell the room, "You now, I am a man of peace.
But when I see something like I just did it makes me so angry
that . . . ." Blam! Blam! Blam! Next thing you know everyone
in the room is on the floor beaten up and Billy Jack is that last
man standing. When it came out it sort of caught the pulse of
the anti-Vietnam-war movement and a lot of critics reviewed the
film very favorably.
Critics saw BILLY JACK years later and thought they were looking
at a different film. It had not aged very well at all. The fact
that so many rated it so well was something of an embarrassment.
Its rating in movie guide books started dropping from one edition
to the next. I think we will see film reviewers and critics
reassessing BORAT! in years to come and see the BILLY JACK
phenomenon happening with BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA
FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Based on a novel but inspired by real events, this is
the story of a young Scottish doctor who becomes a personal
confidant of Idi Amin, one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants in
African history. The history of Idi Amin is an intriguing story,
but this film tells us too much about its fictional European and
not enough about the politics of Uganda under an all-too-real
tyrant. Forest Whitaker gives a superb performance as a dictator
of many faces, often changing from one to another in seconds.
But we need to see more of what Amin did. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4)
or 7/10
Besides one or two rarely seen documentaries and docu-dramas,
cinema has paid little attention to the rule of Idi Amin (or Idi
Amin Dada) of Uganda from 1971 it 1979. Amin, formerly a member
of the British King's African Rifles and also formerly a champion
prizefighter, made an international spectacle of himself with his
truly weird behavior, including jokes that he was a cannibal, as
well as his inhuman tactics as a dictator. We see an important
and ruthless leader through the eyes of a European who is at
least inspired by a real person. That approach was used with
SHOGUN also, but SHOGUN was long enough that it allowed us to see
a good chunk of Japanese history. Nicholas Garrigan has other
things on his mind when Amin is doing his worst.
James McAvoy plays Nicholas Garrigan, a young Scottish doctor who
decides to leave home in order to escape from his overbearing
father. He chooses Uganda by chance and decides to use his
talent to help out at a rural clinic. This is in an area where
four out of five people still prefer the services of a witch
doctor to a medical one. Garrigan arrives just after a military
coup. Garrigan is caught up in the excitement of change to the
then popular leader Amin, and it is not long before Garrigan
actually meets the now-President Idi Amin (played by Forest
Whitaker).
Garrigan is offered a Faustian bargain. Amin has a volatile
personality, but he does have a predilection for the Scottish and
on an impulse--how Amin seems to make most of his decisions--he
asks Garrigan to be his personal physician. It is an offer that
the young doctor is not actually permitted to refuse. Garrigan
takes the position and becomes what Amin calls his closest
advisor. He finds that Amin has his own charm, at times almost a
childlike quality. But being a close advisor makes Garrigan a
pawn caught between the sinister forces of the Ugandan
dictatorial regime and what may be equally sinister, the forces
of the British government. Simon McBurney has a nicely ambiguous
role as British diplomatic agent Nigel Stone. Garrigan finds
himself figuratively riding a tiger that he dare not dismount.
The presence of the British in Uganda very much hangs over this
film. Amin himself worked his way up the ranks in the British
military and it was the British who helped to install Amin in
power. Still, Amin hates the British because of his ill
treatment by them, yet he loves the Scottish whom he does not
think of as British. And when Amin decides to expel foreigners,
it is the Asians he wants removed and notably not the British.
There are some dissatisfying aspects of the script. Garrigan is
kept in the Kampala palace, isolated from and largely ignorant of
the reign of terror that Amin is inflicting on Uganda. That
means that much of what would be of interest is simply not
possible to shown in this story from Garrigan's point of view.
Garrigan is in a state of denial about the rumors that he hears
that things are getting very bad in the country. He continues to
admire and have affection for the initially populist Amin while
unbeknownst to him a bloodbath is going on mostly outside
Kampala. A more interesting story might have had Idi Amin as the
central character or perhaps the intriguing Nigel Stone, who much
more than the Scot has a global view of Ugandan politics.
Frankly, Garrigan's sexual adventures usually are a mere
distraction from the most compelling aspects of the story.
Garrigan is the third most interesting person in a film in which
he is supposedly the main character, and that is exactly how
McAvoy plays him.
Be warned that there are some harrowing scenes in this film. But
a more complete picture of Amin's reign would have been much more
harrowing. After very fine films about African politics like
HOTEL RWANDA and the even more riveting SOMETIMES IN APRIL, THE
LAST KING OF SCOTLAND is merely a good film among great ones. As
such I give it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The novel THE DARWIN CONSPIRACY by John Darnton (ISBN
1-4000-4137-6) sounded promising. The jacket asks, "What led
Darwin to the theory of evolution? Why did he wait twenty-two
years to write ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES? Why was he
incapacitated by mysterious illnesses and frightened of travel?
Who was his secret rival?" And the book manages to be at least
moderately engrossing on some of these--right up until the end,
when Darnton pulls the most bizarre rabbit out of a hat I can
remember for a long time. I do not want to give too much away,
in case some Darwin completist out there wants to read the book,
but, trust me, it is an even less likely scenario than that of
THE DA VINCI CODE. However, it has inspired me to put THE ORIGIN
OF SPECIES on my reading queue. (I cannot remember if I ever
read it--if so, it was probably forty years ago.)
MOVIES THAT MATTER by Richard Leonard, SJ (ISBN 0-8294-2201-3) is
not much more than a listing of fifty "inspirational" movies, or
at least movies with spiritual and ethical elements. For
example, the first film is GROUNDHOG DAY, and the "teachable
topics" are "creation, conversion, and Lent." However, Leonard
also claims that GROUNDHOG DAY repeated one day thirty-four
times--and then he finds significance in this number. We may see
only thirty-four different days, Bill Murray learns to play the
piano very well in that time, and but it clearly must take him
more days than that. Most of the films are set in the current
time, with only a few of what we might call "religious" pictures
(THE MISSION, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, THE EXORCIST, and THE PASSION
OF THE CHRIST). And of these, Leonard strongly criticizes two of
them (THE EXORCIST and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST) on theological
grounds. He is ironically much more favorable towards BRUCE
ALMIGHTY and GLADIATOR. But the discussion of each film is
very brief (really only about 500-600 words of text), and fairly
superficial. (I note, however, that the lessons he draws from
VERA DRAKE are very different than what I and many others drew.)
It is interesting for the list of films covered, though. ("SJ"
stands for Society of Jesus, otherwise known as the Jesuits, and
Leonard has a Ph.D. in cinema and theology.)
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE THUNDERBOLT KID by Bill Bryson (ISBN
0-767-91936-X) is Bryson's memoir of growing up in Des Moines in
the 1950s and 1960s. (As someone who lived in Rantoul, Illinois,
from 1959 to 1964, I find a lot of what he writes about familiar.
Bryson brings his usual dry humor to this topic, which is enough
of a recommendation for those familiar with his work, but for
those not, I would compare this to Jean Shepard's tales of his
childhood in Hammond, Indiana, of a slightly earlier time.
(Bryson writes about Fig Newtons and Shepard has a book called A
FISTFUL OF FIG NEWTONS, so there are definitely cultural
similarities.)
I recently watched Akira Kurosawa's RAN again. There is a book
connection--it is based on Shakespeare's "King Lear" (just as
Kurosawa's THRONE OF BLOOD is based on "Macbeth"). For that
matter, there is a fair amount of Lady Macbeth in one of the
characters in RAN as well. But my comment is that whoever did
the subtitles did an excellent job of capturing a Shakespearean
feel; for example, near the beginning of the film, Hidetora (the
Lear character) says:
"I hoisted my colours over the main castle.
I spent more years fighting lance to lance
with these two gentlemen.
Now the moment has come to stable the steeds of war
and give free rein to peace.
But old Hidetora is seventy years old."
[-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Do you know what a pessimist is? A person
who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself
and hates them for it.
-- George Bernard Shaw