THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
03/20/09 -- Vol. 27, No. 38, Whole Number 1537
El Honcho Grande: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
La Honcha Bonita: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
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:
Turner Classic Movies Science Fiction Festival
Science Fiction Discussion Groups
Puzzle from FERMAT'S ROOM
The Shape of Things That Came (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Jackie the Embarrassment (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
DOPPELGANGER and Symmetry (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Sale Weirdness (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
FERMAT'S ROOM (LA HABITACION DE FERMAT) (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
WATCHMEN by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
(book review by Joe Karpierz)
WATCHMEN (letter of comment by Nick Sauer)
WATCHMEN (letters of comment by Susan de Guardiola)
Star Trek Fragrances, Barbie, WATCHMEN, and Rush Limbaugh
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (SHAMBLING TOWARDS HIROSHIMA,
PLANET OF THE APES, and translations)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Turner Classic Movies Science Fiction Festival (March 31)
It's coming... IT'S COMING...
The following is the Turner Classic Movies schedule for the night
of March 31 into April 1.
8:00 PM I Married A Monster From Outer Space (1958)
A young bride suspects her husband has been replaced by a
space invader. Cast: Tom Tryon, Gloria Talbott, Peter Baldwin. Dir:
Gene Fowler, Jr. BW-78 mins, TV-PG, CC, Letterbox Format
9:30 PM Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Soulless pods take over the inhabitants of a small California
town. Cast: Kevin McCarthy, Dana Wynter, Carolyn Jones. Dir: Don
Siegel. BW-80 mins, TV-14, CC, Letterbox Format
11:00 PM 27th Day, The (1957)
Aliens give five people from different nations the power to
destroy their enemies. Cast: Gene Barry, George Voskovec, Stefan
Schnabel. Dir: William Asher. BW-76 mins, TV-PG
12:30 AM H-Man, The (1958)
Nuclear tests create a radioactive man who can turn people
into slime. Cast: Yumi Shirakawa, Kenji Sahara, Akihiko Hirata.
Dir: Ishiro Honda. C-79 mins, TV-PG
2:00 AM Forbidden Planet (1956)
A group of space troopers investigates the destruction of a
colony on a remote planet. Cast: Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis,
Leslie Nielsen. Dir: Fred M. Wilcox. C-99 mins, TV-PG, CC,
Letterbox Format, DVS
3:45 AM Lost Missile, The (1958)
Scientists try to stop a mysterious missile from destroying
the Earth. Cast: Robert Loggia, Ellen Parker, Phillip Pine. Dir:
William Berke. BW-70 mins, TV-PG
5:00 AM Hidden Values: The Movies of the '50s (2001)
A look at some of the movies that defined the decade and what
they said about Americans and American culture. BW-47 mins, TV-PG,
CC
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction Discussion Groups
March 26: WORLDS OF WONDER edited by Robert Silverberg, Old Bridge
(NJ) Public Library, 7PM
Four in One, (1953), by Damon Knight
No Woman Born, (1944), by C. L. Moore
The New Prime, (1951), by Jack Vance
Home Is the Hunter, (1953), by Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore
The Monsters, (1953), by Robert Sheckley
Common Time, (1953), by James Blish
Colony, (1953), by Philip K. Dick
April 9: "Return of the Master" by Harry Bates, Jr./THE DAY THE
EARTH STOOD STILL, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, original
film at 5:30PM, discussion of film and story after film
==================================================================
TOPIC: Puzzle from FERMAT'S ROOM
See below for a review of FERMAT'S ROOM, but here is the first
puzzle from that film:
What determines the order in the following sequence:
8,5,4,1,9,7,6,3,2
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Shape of Things That Came (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The country has fallen on hard times. The magic is gone. These
days "Meet the Press" is more like "Meet. Depress." [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Jackie the Embarrassment (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Comedian Jackie Mason is in hot water for calling President Obama a
"schwartza" during a performance. He says, "It's not a demeaning
word and I'm not going to defend myself." The word is simply
Yiddish or German for "black." Whether it is racist or not depends
on the person who uses it. I doubt that he would take kindly to a
Baptist calling him "Jackie the Jew." If Mason's brother says he
is a Jew it means one thing and can mean something quite different
if an anti-Jewish person applies the word. Enough people have used
it in a racist way that it was stupid for Mason to use it. Mason
is a funny comedian, but he has a penchant for being a bad boy and
has a way of intentionally getting under people's skins in a way
that Don Rickles only pretends to. It may be an accurate term to
use, but I myself have no doubt he did it to get a laugh drawing on
the racist usage. [-mrl]
==================================================================
Resisting the temptation to write about the AIG bruhaha...
TOPIC: DOPPELGANGER and Symmetry (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Last week I was talking about DOPPELGANGER known in the United
States as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. I was a little less
than reverent about the film because it has a lot of ideas that do
not bear close scrutiny. An astronaut has landed on a planet that
sits in Earth's orbit, is exactly like Earth, everybody on one
Earth has an exact copy on the other planet, but for one thing.
Everything is the mirror image of what it is on our planet on the
counter-Earth.
So we have the question can the so-called "solarnaut" get back, and
if so, is it worth it? After all, he has everyone he misses right
here. They are just flipped-around versions of people he already
has here. Well actually, an astronaut in such a pickle would have
much better reasons for wanting to get home. One problem that the
filmmakers skipped over is sugars. For every sugar you eat, there
is a mirror image sugar. One is right-handed and one is left-
handed. Our sugars are right-handed. And I am told that mirror-
image sugars would taste just as sweet. There is just this one
problem. They are less digestible by any Earth creature. The
mirror-image sugars do not naturally occur on this planet and they
have less nutritional value. We have right-handed sugars on our
planet, and on the other earth, they also have right-handed sugars,
but their right hands look a lot like our left hands. So what they
would call a right-handed sugar, we would call a left-handed sugar.
And the chemistry is not the same. This all fits into a study in
chemistry called "chirality." This deals with molecules that are
mirror images but cannot be super-imposed. They would cause our
astronaut a great deal of trouble.
But what I found really interesting is the question of symmetry
between the two planets. What kind of symmetry was there? I had
to do some thinking about what symmetry really is in various
dimensions. There are multiple kinds of symmetry. You really have
to look at what things are symmetrical around. Are they
symmetrical around a point, a line, or a plane? In three
dimensions they must be symmetrical around a space of fewer
dimensions. Subtract the dimensions of the space they are
symmetrical around from the number of dimensions of the space. If
you get an even number, the two parts will be indistinguishable--
not mirror images. If you get an odd number they will be mirror
images. In fact, a mirror is a two-dimensional plane in three-
dimensional space. 3-2 = 1, 1 is odd so the two are mirror images.
A valentine heart is symmetrical, and so is the King of Diamonds in
a pack of cards. But these are different kinds of symmetry. The
King of Diamonds is symmetrical around a point. There is a point
at the center of the card that is the point of symmetry. You could
stick a pin in this point and rotate the card only 180 degrees and
it would look a lot like it started except that some idiot had
ruined the card by sticking a pin through it. You have a two-
dimensional object that is symmetric around a zero-dimensional
object, a point. If you mounted the King of Hearts on plywood and
cut it out you would now have a three-dimensional object
symmetrical around the long pinhole which is now one-dimensional.
2-0 = 3-1 = 2 and 2 is even, and the two halves are identical and
indistinguishable (i.e., not mirror images).
Now consider the valentine heart. It is two-dimensional. It is
not symmetrical around a point. There is no point you can put a
pin through the valentine (as ungallant an action as that would be)
and then be able to rotate it less that 360 degrees for it to be
indistinguishable from the original heart. But there is a line
down the center. It cuts the heart in two halves that have all the
same measure (that is what symmetrical means) but they are just
reversed. Thicken the heart with plywood and you now have two
thick pieces that symmetrical around a plane, or if you prefer a
mirror. But the two pieces remain distinguishable. You have a
two-dimensional object that is symmetric around a one-dimensional
object, a line. If you mounted the heart on plywood and cut it out
you would now have a three-dimensional object symmetrical around a
plane which is two-dimensional. 2-1 = 3-2 = 1 and 1 is odd, and
the two halves will be distinguishable (i.e. mirror images).
The two Earths are distinguishable (i.e. mirror images), and they
form a three-dimensional system. Can they be symmetrical around a
one-dimensional line? No 3-1 = 2. That would not create
distinguishable worlds. It would be like the symmetry on a merry-
go-round. Imagine a merry-go-round in which all the horses are
identical and evenly spaced. No matter where you get on the horses
they look like they look everywhere else on the merry-go-round.
That is because the merry-go-round is three-dimensional and it is
going around a one-dimensional axis. 3-1 = 2 which is even. So
two halves are indistinguishable.
Now the situation in JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN is that the
two worlds are not identical. That means that they are now
symmetrical around a one-dimensional axis or you would have a
situation like the merry-go-round. 3-1 = 2. The two worlds must
be symmetrical round either a plane or a point. They could be
symmetrical around a plane, but there is a problem. This would be
like each is a mirror image of the other and they are symmetrical
around a plane. That would make the two Earths distinguishable
mirror images, but they would go smashing into each other. It is
like you taking your hand and punching a mirror. The mirror-image
hand would come to meet your hand. That is no good. The two
worlds have to be symmetrical around a point. To see this, think
of yourself as a schizophrenic Roman attending a gladiatorial
event. You have to choose if a gladiator who has been defeated
will life or die and one of you says "live," and the other says
"die." With your right hand give a thumbs up indicating death.
With your left hand give a thumbs down indicating mercy. (Yes,
thumb-down meant "mercy," thumb-up meant "death." It got reversed
a long time ago, before Siskel and Ebert.) Now touch a joint on
one hand to the corresponding (symmetrical) joint on your other
hand. Your hands are now symmetrical around a point. And they are
distinguishable. (More so with me because I bite my nails.)
But notice that the thumbs are pointing in opposite directions.
This is a problem in the movie. No, this time it is not Mars
causing the problem but Polaris. Only one of these Earths can have
Polaris above its North Pole. So on only one can have Boy Scouts
learn that Polaris is always north in the sky. So once again the
film does not work.
But it was a nice try, and at least it gave me something to write
about. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Sale Weirdness (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I am a big fan of courses from The Teaching Company
(http://www.TEACH12.com). They sell college-level "courses" on
DVD, CD, and audiotape, and I have reviewed a few here. The
regular price for the courses is fairly high (e.g. $255 for 24
half-hour lectures on DVD, or $180 on CD). But all their courses
go on sale at least once a year, and then it is more like $70 for
24 lectures on DVD, or $50 on CD.
But their current sale catalog is really peculiar. They have a
36-lecture course on "Biblical Wisdom Literature" on sale for $100
(DVD) or $70 (CD). They also have a set of that and the 36-lecture
"Jesus and the Gospels" for $180 (DVD) or $130 (CD). But if you
want *only* "Jesus and the Gospels", that is $374 (DVD) or $269
(CD). In other words, if you want only "Jesus and the Gospels"
they will pay you $194 or $139 to take the other course and throw
it away! [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: WATCHMEN by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (copyright 1986,
1987 by DC Comics, $14.95, graphic novel, ISBN 0-446-38689-8) (book
review by Joe Karpierz)
I am an original when it comes to a lot of things: I watched the
original "Star Trek" series as it aired in the 1960s; I saw 2001:
A SPACE ODYSSEY when it came out in the theaters in 1968; I saw
MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL in the theaters when it first came
out; and I read WATCHMEN in the original 12-issue comic book series
when it first came out all those years ago (for those immediately
wondering what happened to those original issues--along with the
original issues of V FOR VENDETTA--I sold them when I ran out of
room in the house for my comics collection. At least I had already
bought the graphic novel edition.). I was an avid comic reader in
those days, and when I went into the comics shop for my monthly fix
I was told by the owner, "You have to read this, it's fantastic",
and "this" was WATCHMEN.
I knew at the time that I was reading something special--comic
books were *never* like this. I just didn't know *how* special. I
didn't know that what I was reading was going to change the face of
comic books forever.
I read Watchmen again recently so that I could be up to speed when
I went to see the movie, and I'd forgotten a lot of it--I haven't
read it for at least twenty years. But man oh man, does it hold up
well over time. If I didn't know it was written over twenty years
ago, I certainly never would have guessed it was written over
twenty years ago.
Well, this *is* supposed to be a review, so I might as well get on
with it, although my guess is that everyone knows the story. It's
set in an alternate version of the United States in 1985, a version
where Nixon is still president, having been able to get the
Constitution changed after winning the Viet Nam war in short order
with the help of one of our "heroes", Dr. Manhattan. Super-heroes
have been legislated out of existence by the Keene Act, which
outlawed all costumed vigilantes except those sanctioned by the
government after the police strike of the 1970s. All of the heroes
the story follows either are retired--Nite Owl II, Silk Spectre II,
Ozymandias--or working for the government--The Comedian,
Dr. Manhattan--except for Rorschach, arguably the most popular of
all the characters in the story. It is October of 1985, and The
Comedian has just been thrown out a window to his death. The
ruthless vigilante Rorshach is investigating, and has come to the
conclusion that someone is offing all the "masks"--and it indeed he
is correct, as costumed characters from the 1940s and now continue
to be negated--the original Nite Owl is killed, Dr. Manhattan, the
omnipotent being, exiles himself to Mars, and even Rorshach himself
is framed and sent to jail. So, what's going on? The present day
Nite Owl and Silk Spectre set out to solve the puzzle, but only
after they free Rorshach from prison. While all this is going on,
World War III is approaching, the world is a mess, and everything
is going to hell in a hand-basket. What scares our remaining
heroes is who they find behind everything that's going on, and why
it's going on, and they don't know how to stop
it.
As noted in numerous places elsewhere recently, WATCHMEN is an
extremely densely packed graphic novel. There are layers upon
layers of story-telling going on here. We get characters' back-
stories in various types of prose pieces at the end of each
"chapter"; chapters correspond to the original comic book issues.
We get an intriguing story-within-a-story with the pirate adventure
of the man who has to deal with pirates--and his own demons--who
attack him and, he believes, the island where his family resides.
The pirate story is nicely woven into the fabric of the main story,
including adding the fictional author of the pirate story into the
main story. The characters are *extremely* well done and
developed, and their stories intertwine more than we could ever
guess. Through the masterful writing, we come to loathe The
Comedian, we're intrigued and sometimes disgusted by Rorshach, we
feel sorry for Nite Owl II (and Silk Spectre II), and are just
plain old puzzled by Dr. Manhattan (the only character with true
super-power) and the world's smartest man, Ozymandias. This is
great writing.
The artwork is terrific as well--no panel is wasted, including the
background. Pay close attention as you read WATCHMEN--there are
things going on in the background art that will astound you when
they fit later on in the story. Absolutely amazing.
The ending is probably very well known as well, but for the three
people out there who haven't read it yet, I won't spoil it. It
worked well enough for me, although I suspect that some folks (as
well as the filmmakers, as I understand it) found it a tad on the
hokey side.
But for my entertainment time and money, WATCHMEN is the real deal.
If you haven't read it--do so right now. You'll be happy you did.
[-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: FERMAT'S ROOM (LA HABITACION DE FERMAT) (film review by Mark
R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Luis Piedrahita and Rodrigo Sopena write and direct a very
different sort of suspense film in the Spanish language. Four
strangers, mathematicians, must solve mathematics puzzles against a
time limit. Each time they fail to solve the puzzle in time the
walls of their room close in on them like the jaws of a vice. Can
they solve the individual puzzles and the mystery of the room
before being crushed to death? Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Mysteries and thrillers occasionally have side themes of problem
solving that become as interesting as the main storyline. In DEAD
CALM the main character is thrown off of his yacht mid-ocean and
has only another boat, one at the point of capsizing, with which to
stay alive. He must save the doomed boat to get back to his own
boat where a psychotic holds his wife. The main plot is a cliché
but the seamanship makes the film fascinating. FERMAT'S ROOM is an
Agatha Christie sort of murder mystery about four mathematicians
who must solve puzzles to slow the walls of their room from closing
in and crushing them. Anyone who has ever been given a tough
mathematics exam understands what it is like to try to beat a clock
to solve a difficult mathematics problem. It is that experience
that is at the center of FERMAT'S ROOM.
Four unnamed mathematicians each receive by mail a puzzle to solve.
If they can solve it they will be invited to a nice dinner with
other mathematicians. Each will, for the party, be assigned a
false name, that of a great mathematician. The party night begins
at a very remote house. Their host, Fermat, greets them, but tells
them little of why they are here. A phone call summons Fermat
away. In Fermat's absence the problems begin, but each time they
do not find the answer to a problem in the allotted time the walls
of their room crush in on them like the jaws of a very powerful
vice. Can they solve the problems and of the mystery of the night
before they are compacted.
Mathematicians are generally not the type of people that hold much
interest for most movie audiences. However, the nifty plot and the
puzzles that keep coming should be a pleasure for any thinking
viewer. Perhaps this film owes some of its success to television's
"Numb3rs" which has romanticized mathematics in the same way that
"CSI" has romanticized forensic detection.
The idea of throwing puzzles into a film is not totally new. Most
mystery films are puzzle films. That is what makes them a mystery.
In DIE HARD WITH A VENGENCE Bruce Willis's character must solve
puzzles to prevent crimes. The problem is given explicitly to the
audience to solve them also. CUBE similarly has people in a
bizarre sort of trap in which mathematical problems give clues for
which cells are dangerous. There is less emphasis there on having
the audience participate on solving the questions. I saw FERMAT'S
ROOM in near perfect conditions. I watched it on video in a group
of four people. None of us were professional mathematicians, but
we each had an interest in math. We stopped the film and tried
each puzzle. How did we do? I am happy to say we solved every
problem. It was not always with the film's solutions, but with a
workable solution for each.
That brings me to my major complaint with the film. If these were
real mathematicians it is unlikely that any of the problems would
give them much trouble for long. A more realistic set of problems
would probably have been incomprehensible to most of their audience
and certainly would not be so easily solvable. Of course one
accepts substitutions in films to make them more comprehensible.
Spartacus speaks English and not Latin. Outdoors scenes that are
supposed to be at night are sometime obviously shot in the daytime
("day for night"). It is a more enjoyable film if simpler problems
are substituted for tougher ones.
This is certainly one of the most enjoyable thrillers of the year.
I rate it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. One final question
is how you would design a room for which the four walls can each
crush in without getting in the way of the two contiguous walls.
The solution is in the film and worked into the wallpaper pattern
in the room. The answer is also in the poster of the film, but not
made obvious.
This film is available from Blockbuster by Mail and it has been
shown on the Independent Film Channel.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1016301/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fermat's_room/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: WATCHMEN (letter of comment by Nick Sauer)
In response to Mark's review of WATCHMEN in the 03/13/09 issue of
the MT VOID, Nick Sauer writes:
While I'm sure some hardcore fans might take offense at your review
I don't feel it is all that unfair and their are a couple of points
I find myself in agreement on.
The first is that of Richard Nixon's portrayal in the film. He was
not featured in the novel at all (other than being the sitting
president at the time of the story). His addition would have been
fine except that, like you said, he was given a comically long
nose. If this was an attempt to inject some humor into this
otherwise darkly serious film it was extremely misplaced. In fact,
I sort of got the impression that they added Nixon and Kissinger
largely because they could. The injection of these characters also
added unnecessary length to the film. In the novel the revelation
of the date of the war came when Rorschach and Nite Owl searched
Veidt's office. They find this huge graph on one wall with around a
dozen factors plotted on it. The data is extrapolated out into the
future and, there is a point where all of the data converges which
is Veidt's predicted date of the inevitable nuclear exchange
between the super powers. I guess it was decided that this would
be too hokey for the film but it would have shortened the already
long film considerably if it had been left in.
I was not as put off by the costumes as you seem to have been. To
some extent, the characters in the movie, like most superheroes,
tend to fall into some specific (some would argue Jungian)
archetypes. In fact, Moore specifically re-enforced this in the
novel because he was afraid people would not be able to associate
with the new characters to the point necessary for his points to
have the impact that he desired. So, yes Nite Owl = Batman and
Dr. Manhattan = Superman with Rorschach and Ozymandias being
variations on the same two themes, respectively. As far as
Manhattan's blue tally-whacker goes, I have seen enough naked women
in films that I felt this was acceptable and not overdone here.
Since this story is primarily about people and what being
brave/foolhardy enough to done a costume and "fight crime" entails,
I will focus on the characters at this point. I felt that the two
best-acted characters in the film were Rorschach and The Comedian
in that order. I was especially impressed with Rorschach's
"origin" scene with the child molester. The collapse where he goes
from mere vigilant policeman to vigilante judge, jury and
executioner was an awesome bit of acting considering the actor had
to project through a full-face mask. As a side note, I didn't find
the mask all that distracting and, given that it is a metaphor for
the character's black and white view of the world I thought it was
appropriate. Dr. Manhattan, while well acted, was made
considerably more human in the movie. For example, my recollection
(albeit a number of years old) of the romance between him and the
junior Silk Spectre was totally initiated by her in the novel.
Manhattan very impassively mentions during a conversation with her
that they will be making love four hours from now. He didn't seem
to have anything invested in it other than as a cold statement of
fact.
This leads directly into what I consider the two biggest re-writes
and/or weakest acted characters, those being the aforementioned
Silk Specter and Nite Owl 2. Back when the novel was being
released, I had a friend who called Silk Specter "codependency
lass". This was an aspect of the character that was basically
completely removed from the movie. Nite Owl suffered from the same
problem himself to a lesser degree which is why it was somewhat
inevitable the two ended up in each other's arms by the end of the
novel. I can only guess that this aspect of the characters was
removed to make them more "heroic" and/or accessible to the
audience. To a large extent, one of the subtexts under-running the
original novel is that to make the leap that one feels they have
the right to done a costume and subject one's fellow human beings
to their unique interpretation of the law requires some sort of
underlying mental disorder. So, I am not sure really how to
critique these two performances other than to say I didn't find
either of these particular characters all of that engaging.
The other statement I would agree with is that you found parts of
the movie to be pretentious. This is, for better or worse,
directly ported from the novel itself and is a hallmark of Alan
Moore's writing style. The more recent series Promethia, by Moore,
is a perfect example of this (which I will state for the record is
one of my favorite of Alan's stories but, you are getting his
philosophy of life presented to you very unapologetically). This
leads into something I found to be a puzzling weakness of the film,
given that it is clear Mr. Snyder didn't have a whole lot of
reservations about tampering with the story where he felt it was
needed, and that is a slavish attention to getting details from the
novel right for the audience. I don't know whether Mr. Snyder was
operating from a fear of alienating the fans or his worship of the
original work but, he seemed loathed to removing some stuff that
really should have been. I could have lived without the sophomoric
Freudian release of the flamethrower during the love sequence on
Archimedes and, I really don't get why the Outer Limits was shown
playing on the older Silk Spectre's TV when the ending had been
changed from the original novel's Architects of Fear ending.
One thing that Snyder did change, and for much the better in my
opinion, was the nature of the ending. Making Dr. Manhattan into
the boogey man to unite humanity made considerably more sense, and
would raise considerably fewer questions, than teleporting an alien
cadaver into the heart of Times Square. It also had the added
effect of making the whole ethical question a lot greyer than in
the original novel. Of all the characters in the original novel,
Ozymandias was the one I most empathized with and in the end found
the most truly heroic. Saving the world at the cost of a few
hundred thousand was within my personal acceptable loses limit and,
even though I still think I side with the actions of the character
in the movie, the price tag gives me a lot more pause to think
whether I *really* do or not.
I'm wondering if our different expectations of the film are what
might be resulting in the difference of opinion on the film. I
like to refer to the most recent Batman film as a movie that
happens to have superheroes in it. In the case of the original
Watchmen novel this is even more so. However, even with this, our
opinions are not too far apart. At the moment, I would rate the
film a +1 but, really need to get a second viewing in before I
finalize my opinions on the film although I don't expect that
number to move up or down by more than one point. The problem was
I watched the film the first time through the lens of one very
familiar with the novel. I would like to try and watch it again as
just a movie in its own right and see how I feel.
Overall, I think Snyder made some mistakes that a more experienced
director probably would have avoided. He might have been well
served to have an older colleague act as associate director to help
with the film. One thing I will say about the director is that he
definitely knows how to start a film. I thought the credits on
Watchmen were pretty amazing much like I found the first 10 minutes
of his Dawn of the Dead to be some of the most amazing film I have
ever seen (unfortunately, that's really all that is worth watching
of the latter film as the rest is a huge pile of disappointments
heaped on top of one another).
One last thing, Alan didn't want his name on V for Vendetta either
which is a mistake I think he will ultimately live to regret later
on in his life.
[And here are comments] specifically with respect to your comments
about the film examining what "real" superheroes would be like. I
play an online game called City of Heroes and, my son and I have a
common thought that if it was at all a model of what people having
actual super-powers would be like, there wouldn't be heroes and
villains, there would just be jerks and bigger jerks. Watchmen
pretty much agrees with this assessment but, predicted it 18 years
before the online game did.
There are a number of really interesting ideas that I feel did
manage to make it into the film (and one that stands out in my mind
that didn't). The fact that they would ultimately used as weapon
systems (sort of human sized weapons of mass destruction, before
the term existed) was fairly unique at the time. This then leads
into the whole history-altering concept of such a use by the US
government in the victory in Vietnam. I liked the concept that Dan
couldn't perform sexually until he "was" Nite Owl (i.e. in
Archimedes). That is a thesis that Moore would mention again in
Tom Strong and, one that I think is very believable. Of course,
the possible effect on the individual was rather graphically
illustrated through Rorschach's transformation from Walter Kovacs
into just Rorschach. The Keane anti-mask laws where a new idea as
well (also used in The Dark Night Returns by Frank Miller a year
earlier but, rumor has it that Miller and Moore were in close
association during the authorship of both novels so, the idea might
have been a joint concept). This idea was certainly the
inspiration for some of the plot of THE INCREDIBLES. The one piece
that got left out of the movie that I really wish had been included
was a scene in the novel involving the original Nite Owl. When Dan
reactivates his superhero career he arrests a drug dealer who has a
number of friends in the neighborhood where the retired Nite Owl
lives. Upon hearing that the Nite Owl arrested their friend, they
realize that they know where he lives and break into Hollis's
apartment and, ironically, beat him to death with the civic service
award (shown on the desk in the film) given to him for his years of
service as the Nite Owl. The assailants never realize that they
have the wrong Nite Owl. Even without this scene though, I think
the movie did cover some interesting, if somewhat dated, territory
with regards to a more hard-science fiction examination of
superheroes and their impact on society. Unfortunately, this will
probably all be lost on people who are turned off by the film. [-njs]
Mark replies:
I had a bunch of comments on your mail about WATCHMEN.
1. For the most part you are finding different pieces to dislike in
the Nixon character. I probably agree with most that you say. But
there is also something I think I wrote about in the past given a
nickname like "the uncanny valley." A robot that looks nearly but
not quite humane will look more creepy than one that looks entirely
different. The Nixon makeup was just enough off to not even look
human. It was just the wrong note.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824/2007/VOID1207.htm#human
2. I have to look up the graph scene. I am not sure what kind of
factors would converge at one point unless it is resources all
running out on a certain day. Even then it is probably not the
best use of your resources to have them all run out on the same
day. If you have resources of machine-gun bullets, sides of beef,
and oil reserves, their usage curves are not likely converge on
some given point.
3. I am not sure that a former human would run around starkers as
his costume. Of course he had been through a lot of changes.
Could you figure out when he wore the thong and when he went around
"sky-clad?"
4. Rorschach's mask was a distraction for me because it was
constantly moving. Humans and animals' attention is instinctively
attracted to motion, and that was probably bred into us as an
obvious survival trait long ago in our evolution. Later the tribal
meeting place in the evenings was the fire because it provided heat
and a moving visual image. That is why ads on web pages frequently
move. They are attracting attention.
5. To me The Comedian looked like Robin grown up and having gone to
pot. He looked old enough to be Nite Owl's father. That might
make sense in the plot, but it just felt like Batman had gotten
younger and Robin got older.
6. You talk about Jungian archetypes. The audience I saw it with
did not seem to really be noticing the archetypes, but I suppose
different people react to different things. The father of the
family I mentioned in the review was reacting on a baser level. He
seemed to be really getting off on the violence in the film. He
really enjoyed the fight with the hot grease. (And said it was
cool in front of his kids. Thinking about it now it does not make
sense. Ask yourself who puts a hot-oil frier on a serving line?
Any serving line I have ever seen has several feet between the
"customers" and the cooking, particularly with hot oil. Anything
else would be criminal negligence. The writers were not asking
themselves what would a fight in a prison be like. They were
instead rationalizing a scene in which somebody could throw hot oil
in someone else's face.) To me it was a sort of violence
pornography we see multiple times in the movie. This film seems to
ratchet up the level of violence. I got tired of seeing fights and
particularly slow motion in fights so you don't miss a single
detail.
7. THE DARK KNIGHT dealt with what I considered engaging moral
dilemmas. These are dilemmas that show up in the real world.
["The chief of police of Ciudad Juarez resigned after his deputy
was murdered and the drug cartels threatened to kill a cop every 48
hours if he stayed on." http://tinyurl.com/cs8ask]
I just do not see any real world relevance to the issues in
WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN is about what would it be like if there were
really superheroes. DARK KNIGHT was about how someone faces the
problem that continuing on his mission, a benevolent one, was
getting people killed.
8. You say that our different approaches to the film is about
differences in expectation. It is hard to envisage any set of
expectations that would make WATCHMEN a good film for me. But I
did say in my review that other people would think differently. I
think if you are really into the concept of super-heroes and have
thought a lot about them WATCHMEN becomes a much more interesting
film.
9. You use the phrase "hard science fiction view of super-heroes."
This is just not what I would call "hard science-fiction." [-mrl]
Nick replies (context entered in []s):
Thanks for the refresher on [Nixon]. It's interesting in that I am
not as put off by this as you are (I tend to be different like this
a lot). So, I saw the Nixon make-up as more of a poorly placed
caricature. I can see rereading the article now how most would
find it creepy.
My recollection of [the graph scene] was that he was plotting more
than just resources. It sort of fell into this idea I've had for a
long time that while people are irrational, that doesn't make them
unpredictable. In fact, it's quite the opposite in that humans are
particularly poor random number generators (if asked to pick a
number from one to ten there are strongly favored numbers most
people will choose). So, if I remember correctly, Veidt was
tracking stuff like crime rate and other social changes as well.
Like I said, it was something that most people might consider hocum
which is why I suspect it was replaced with the Nixon scenes in the
film.
In the comic [running around starkers] was clearly a function of
time. In fact, when he first joined the Watchmen Manhattan was
wearing more of a 1950s style full-body swim suit. The Speedo
showed up around the Vietnam era and he was naked as a jaybird in
all of the current scenes. Of course, given Manhattan's view of
time, this chronology wouldn't make sense to the character himself.
I appreciate [that Rorschach's mask was distracting] but, somehow
still didn't find the mask distracting. Maybe I surf the web
enough that I've gotten desensitized to it? I don't know. It's
something I'll have to think about more.
I can see [that the Comedian looked old enough to be Nite Owl's
father] but, they were enough their own characters in the novel
that I didn't make the Batman and Robin connection. This is one of
the reasons I want to see the movie again and try to assess it as
its own story. Given the relative shortness of the film compared
to the novel, I could see this being a problem. Have other
reviewers commented on this as well?
That's okay [about Jungian archetypes not being noticed]. Most
people don't. I'm unusual in that I am actually interested
in studying super-hero literature as its own genre.
[The people described in the audience] are the people that Diane
and I think should have their parenting licenses revoked
immediately.
["Ask yourself who puts a hot oil frier on a serving line?"] In a
prison (as you said), no less. Yes, this was yet another scene
taken directly from the comic that probably should have been re-
written for the film. I remember that even when I read the comic I
thought the idea of a prison food line arranged that way was not
right.
[The "violence pornography"] was all Snyder. The comic really
didn't get into the violence pornography aspect. Snyder added that
in the film big time. Given that his first film was remake of Dawn
of the Dead it is not surprising to me that he would go down this
road.
"I just do not see any real world relevance to the issues in
WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN is about what would it be like if there were
really superheroes. DARK KNIGHT was about how someone faces the
problem that continuing on his mission, a benevolent one, was
getting people killed."
This is an excellent summation of the difference between the two
films (you should put it in the VOID somehow). This was part of my
concern about the movie being made in the first place. How
accessible is the film to a non-comic reading audience? You sum
this up nicely here...
"I think if you are really into the concept of super-heroes and
have thought a lot about them WATCHMEN becomes a much more
interesting film."
...and that may very well be the difference in our views on the
film. Given that I study the genre (such as it is), I would find
the film more interesting than a casual viewer. If this is the
case then the film definitely has a problem. I wonder if there is
some way to correlate reviewer's opinions based upon whether they
read super-hero comic books or not. That would be interesting data
to look at and see if there was any sort of correlation.
It is definitely not hard-science. Actually, that was a poorly
thought-out metaphor on my part. What I meant to say is that
Watchmen is a an attempt to take a more realistic look at how the
existence of super-heroes would impact our society.
I really want to say that I am very much enjoying this discussion
and hope that you are finding it as interesting as I am. [-njs]
[I enjoyed it also but it may be becoming too much of a good
thing. This is going to be a really long issue. I want to thank
Evelyn for editing it so that it would be readable here. -mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: WATCHMEN (letters of comment by Susan de Guardiola)
In response to Mark's review of WATCHMEN in the 03/13/09 issue of
the MT VOID, Susan de Guardiola writes, "While I haven't yet seen
the film, I'm curious as to what you thought of the opening credit
sequence. That's been posted all over the net, and I've watched it
several times. I think it's brilliant, and I'm seriously
considering it alone as a nominee in DP-SF next year. I've no idea
whether I'll like the film itself as much." [-sdg]
Mark replies, "I seem to remember it as being a dramatization of
what looks like newspaper photos. Is that right? It was a nice
idea if I am remembering it correctly. I tried to find it on
YouTube but apparently it has been pulled down for copyright
reasons. Do you know of a link that still has it up?" [-mrl]
Susan writes, "It's still here, for now [at www.marty.com.au]:
http://tinyurl.com/ajztx6. The studio, in all its wisdom, is
attempting to prevent effective viral marketing by sending out DMCA
takedown notices, which mainly has the effect of chasing it from
one site to the other. So watch it quickly before it vanishes from
this one too." [-sdg]
Mark answers, "Thank you for reminding me that early in the film I
was enthusiastic about what I was seeing. Yes, I do very much like
the credit sequence. I was too busy watching the screen to make
note of it and by the time the film was over I had too much
material to remember that had counterbalanced the credit sequence.
There was some good stuff in the film. This is the type of film I
say to myself is a film of "high standard deviation." That is a
statistical way of saying that there is some stuff that is very
good and some stuff that I really don't like. Thanks for a chance
to see the credit sequence again. That one sequence must have
been a big project all by itself." [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN (letter of comment by
Andre Kuzniarek)
In response to Mark's comments on JOURNEY TO THE FAR SAIDE OF THE
SUN in the 03/13/09 issue of the MT VOID, Andre Kuzniarek writes,
"The primary virtue of this movie is in the quality of the special
effects. While still flawed, they are mostly quite impressive, as
is true for most all of their productions, and tends to be the
primary attraction, at least for me. I would be happy just
splicing together all the effects shots, and in fact, I seem to
recall there being Japanese LaserDiscs that did exactly that (saw
them in a specialty video store in Boston once), with some kind of
pop music background. Do you know anything about these? I think
they might even be a genre that has a Japanese name."
[The closest I come is DVDs of film trailers. They would be of
some interest. Come to think of it Toho special effects and G&S
Anderson special effects are quite similar in approach. -mrl]
And in response to Evelyn's comments on Rush Limbaugh in that same
issue, Andre writes, "The thing about Rush is that he is primarily
and foremost an entertainer. This is a point Camille Paglia
insists on making in his defense (and that he is good at it). If
you take him to be just and only that, he simply says stuff that
his audience wants to hear, making them feel validated in their
worst thoughts, and them tuning in regularly makes good business
for him. Nothing he says has to be logical, responsible, or well
intentioned since he is not bound by any obligation to anyone. In
that sense he is no different than the filmmakers of the current
remake of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, a reprehensible, meaninglessly
crude and violent indulgence of an audience's basest entertainment
threshold. The current 'conversation' in 'conservative' circles
about Rush's relationship to the Republican party needs to take
this into account as well. While he services a particular party,
he does not represent it, though there seems to be some confusion
about that." [-ak]
Evelyn responds, "That's as may be, but since I find Republicans
quoting him, and citing him as a representative, I can only assume
that they actually believe or endorse what he is saying." [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Star Trek Fragrances, Barbie, WATCHMEN, and Rush Limbaugh
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to the 03/13/09 issue of the MT VOID, John Purcell
writes:
You had me giggling with the prospects of assorted other "Star
Trek" fragrances, like "Adversary" (assorted episodes involving
Klingons and Romulans), "Man Puppet" ("Is there in truth beauty?")
or "Lick Me" (based on the salt monster from the very first aired
episode, which title I forget offhand). The possibilities, are
shall we say, boundless?
[The Star Trek idea is to get men to wear their perfume more
liberally. Wear this perfume boldly where it has gone on no man
before. ?mrl]
The latest issue of AARP NEWS--yes, I am getting that now since I
joined this organization a few months back--has a full page
illustrated history about the Barbie Doll turning fifty years old.
It includes an artist's rendition of what Barbie would look like if
she had aged normally. That in itself is a bizarre thought: dolls
that age. That makes me wonder if Barbie will ever retire, or
become a Wal-Mart greeter since her social security payments won't
cover all of the cool stuff she has acquired over the decades. I
mean, think of it: cars, wardrobe, pets, boats, assorted homes,
nieces and nephews, accessories, etc. Barbie will need to hold a
massive garage sale to afford the mortgage payments on her dream
house.
Two final quick comments: First off, I haven't seen WATCMEN yet,
but would like to. It looks like they did a very good job of
recreating the graphic novel (I won't call it a comic book, for
reasons of semantics). And second, I never pay attention to Rush
Limbaugh mainly because I agree with the presumptive new United
States Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, that Rush Limbaugh is a
big fat idiot. The sad thing--no, the scary thing--is that many,
many believe in what that big, fat idiot is saying. Why, oh why,
pray tell, do conservatives gather so many blind sheep under their
fold? This is one of the things about politics in America that bugs
me. I know there are good and intelligent people in the Republican
camp, but none of them seem to take center stage. America is
certainly polarizing, it appears.
Nice selection of movie and book reviews, Mark and Evelyn. Many
thanks, and I thank you for the ish. [-jp]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
SHAMBLING TOWARDS HIROSHIMA by James Morrow (ISBN-13
978-1-892391-84-1, ISBN-10 1-892391-84-8) is an alternate history
in which the United States developed a secret biological weapon
towards the end of World War II: Gorgantis, a giant lizard designed
to stomp Japanese cities. But in order to demonstrate its power,
they enlist the aid of Hollywood to fake a demonstration using a
man in a suit, and that man is horror film star Syms Thorley.
Now, Syms Thorley is a fictional character, as are many of the
other Hollywood personages, but many others are real (though in our
world not involved in a giant reptilian weapon). Just to cover a
few that appear relatively early: James Whale and Willis O' Brien
are of course real, and THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS is a real
movie. Gorgantis is obviously a copy of Gojira/Godzilla.
Kha-Ton-Ra is obviously a copy of the cinematic Im-ho-tep (who is
also mentioned). Crepuscula is completely made up. Siegfried
K. Dagover appears to be a fictional relative of Lil Dagover (from
THE CABINET OF CALIGARI). Producer Sam Katzman, director William
("One-Take"), cinematographer Mack Stengler, and art director Dave
Milton are real.
All this should make clear that the book is aimed at fans of the
horror films of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. If you like Morrow's
other work, but are unfamiliar with the films, this book is not
going to be very meaningful.
The Middletown science fiction discussion group chose PLANET OF THE
APES by Pierre Boulle (translated by Xan Fielding (ISBN-13
978-0-345-44798-2, ISBN-10 0-345-44798-0) for March. Now, I
recently read a book (to be reviewed in a future issue) in which
the author seemed unfamiliar with Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics.
Boulle seems to be similarly unacquainted with Newton's Laws of
Motion. On page 4, he describes a solar sail: "Thus, when Jinn
wanted to increase his speed, he gave [his spherical sail] the
biggest diameter possible. It would then take the blasts of
radiation on an enormous surface and the vessel would hurtle
through space at a furious velocity.... When, on the other hand,
they wanted to slow down, Jinn pressed a button. The sail would
shrink until it became a sphere just big enough to contain them
both, packed tightly together. The effect of the light became
negligible, and this minute bubble, reduced to nothing more than
its own inertia, seemed motionless, as though suspended in the void
by an invisible thread." No, its own inertia would keep it moving
at that "furious velocity." Boulle, I believe, confused inertia
with friction, and forgot that the spaceship was traveling in a
vacuum.
It is true that Boulle is writing social satire, not "hard science
fiction." But he seems to forget his characters are on another
planet when the narrator describes the humans as being perfectly
human, even saying, "I saw she belonged to the white race," [page
29] and having the gorillas wear shirts and jackets "which seemed
to be made by the best Paris tailor" [page 60].
I commented in my review of Leopoldo Lugones's "Yzur" that in
Spanish there is only a single word which encompasses both monkeys
and apes ("mono"), and the translator chose to use "monkey" when
"ape" would have been correct. Well, here too, one finds Fielding
using "ape" and "monkey" interchangeably as a translation of the
French word "singe" (I assume--I don't have a copy of the novel in
French).
Boulle also writes something that may have been scientific belief
in 1963, but has since been discredited. "He told me there were
learned scientists who spent a large part of their time trying to
teach primates to talk. They claimed that there was nothing in the
conformation of these animals to prevent it." [page 79] As it
happens, I read PLANET OF THE APES during the same period I was
listening to the Teaching Company course "The Story of Human
Language", and the first lecture discusses the impossibility of
speech in non-human primates because of the lack of a gene named
FOXP2, which is necessary for the development of language skills.
And *then* I also read a "National Geographic" article on
Neanderthals which *also* discussed gene FOXP2, and its presence in
Neanderthals!
A big problem with the movie is that, due to limitations in
prosthetics, special effects, etc., in 1968, we are presented with
apes who are shaped like humans with ape heads. In the book, the
apes are apes, down to the detail of wearing gloves rather than
shoes on their feet. In the movie, their skeletal structure is
clearly human, and their feet have boots on them. In addition, in
the movie, the ladders, stairs, etc., are clearly designed for
humans, and the apes are no better at climbing a ladder than a
human would be. (The more recent film was able to use digital
effects to somewhat overcome this problem.)
In the 02/13/09 issue, I wrote about a pun in a Spanish-language
cartoon which was funny in Spanish, but not in English. (Actually,
it relied on the meaning of a proper name, so it was literally
untranslatable.) Well, we just watched a Spanish film in which
there is a group of people in a room, with the implication that
there may be a murderer among them. When it is discovered that
only one of them has a cell phone, someone else says (in the
subtitles), "He must be the murderer; he's the only one with a cell
phone." This makes no sense in English, but in the Spanish
dialogue, he is the only one with a "movil" (a mobile phone)--and
another meaning of "movil" is "motive".
And in my review of Horacio Quiroga's THE DECAPITATED CHICKEN AND
OTHER STORIES, also in the 02/13/09 issue, I wrote of "Juan
Darien", "... a tiger cub adopted by a woman turns into a human
boy, although still retaining some of his feline nature. I am a
bit confused, though, about whether Quiroga talked about a tiger or
not, since the story seems to take place in Argentina, and I did
not think they had any tigers there." A footnote by Roberto
Gonzalez Echevarria in THE OXFORD BOOK OF LATIN AMERICAN SHORT
STORIES says, "The South American 'tigre', of course, is not a
tiger at all, but a jaguar, erroneously named by the Spanish
conquerors." So it would probably have been better to translate
"tigre" as "jaguar" in Quiroga's story than to perpetuate the
confusion. Apparently the conquistadors also miscalled the puma a
"leon" or lion, which may be where we get the alternative name
"mountain lion". All this led Carlos McReynolds (whom I mentioned
earlier) to wonder if the tigers that constantly show up in Jorge
Luis Borges's work are truly tigers, or whether they are jaguars.
Or perhaps sometimes they are one, and sometimes the other. That
would be so very Borgesian! [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Get the fools on your side and
you can be elected to anything.
-- Frank Dane