@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 05/21/99 -- Vol. 17, No. 47
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. Our Glorious Editor has been achieved further honors this week.
Roger Ebert's column citing Mark Leeper's comments on STARS WARS
was republished at http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-
man/ebert16.html (ninth paragraph). And Mark's dialogue with
"LawnMedic" has been featured by the "Cruel Site of the Day" at
http://www.cruel.com/oldcruel (May 18). The "Cruel Site of the
Day" claims to be a "link to the world of the perturbed, peeved,
pensive, and postal." It doesn't say which category this
particular article falls into. [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. This issue of THE MT VOID is brought to you in part by Potent-8
for a richer and fuller life. Ask your physician if Potent-8 is
right for you. (In a small number of cases usage of Potent-8 has
been linked to increased risk of a particular kind of birth defect
which in some parts of Puerto Rico has given rise to legends and
rumors of a goat-sucking vampire.) [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. A few years back there was a popular theme in movies suggesting
that the world is growing too dependent on computers. I seem to
remember plots like computer controlled systems claiming that we
were under attack from the Soviets. One lone human has his doubts
and refuses fire a missile to retaliate. And of course it turns
out that the human was right. Nuclear war is averted and the
audience is reassured that humans are better, more reliable, and in
general superior to machines. At least that is true in the movies.
I am concerned that that may be a misimpression that could lead to
some dangerous decisions.
The actual history of computer-involved disasters is more a mixed
bag. There is at least in folklore--but I do not know of any real
confirmation--cases where a flock of migrating geese or the rising
sun was misinterpreted by defense computers as incoming missiles
and the computers suggested returning fire. Now what is more
important to know is in what phase of testing were the programs. I
have no doubt that a complex decision-making computer program will
at some phase of its testing make some obviously wrong decisions.
That is the point of testing a system. The system is refined
during testing until it is more and more dependable. A computer
system is a lot like a human in this regard. Someone not very well
trained for a decision making job should not be given a lot of
responsibility and autonomy initially. Once the person has
experience and his results carefully checked one gets a feeling for
whether it is dependable. Apparently the computer program was
still in a phase where it could be over-ridden by human
intervention. To date I know of no major disaster that was ever
caused by relying too heavily on a computer program. Yes, there
have been some small disasters, small by comparison to nuclear war.
There are cases of people killed by software errors. Certainly
there was one case of a bad interface for error correction on the
mechanism to set the dosage on an X-ray machine. The X-ray
technician made an error in setting the dosage, thought she had
reset it, and administered a fatal dose of x-rays to a patient.
That is bad enough, but so far there have been no major incidents
where multiple people were killed by a software problem. In
general computer systems have not been so trusted that they have
been given positions of real trust where the stakes are what we
would consider to be really high. About the worst was an AT&T
telephone outage.
On the other hand we really have had some major disasters because
humans have decided that computers were wrong and have over-ridden
them. The Northeast power blackout of the late 1960s would have
been limited to one small power grid when a human intervened to try
to save that grid. The operator tried to save the grid by
diverting power from another grid. It was too much power and that
grid started to go down. An attempt was made to save that one and
one grid after another went down in a domino effect. Instead of
one power grid going down, the whole northeast part of the United
States was plunged into darkness because a human did not trust a
computer decision.
There is a major example of where a program not being trusted
almost caused what would have been the biggest disaster in United
States history. I will discuss that next week. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. Let me add another quick editorial. There was just another
school shooting yesterday and people are up in arms to keep weapons
out of schools. That is fitting and proper. HOWEVER, put yourself
in the position of a high school student, perhaps not a really
brilliant one either. You have access to a gun. And you will need
to defend yourself today. There is a kid who has been threatening
you. And the kid has studied martial arts for a couple of years
and IN SPITE of the philosophy of martial arts NEVER being used in
an evil cause, this kid is really scaring you and you have good
reason to believe he can hurt you. About the only way to defend
yourself is with the gun. Do you take it or do you go to school
unprotected and take your lumps?
If you think that gun control is the whole answer to violence in
schools in a culture where every strip mall has a marital arts
school to which doting parents bring their children, think again.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
5. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (a film review
by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: The eagerly awaited summer release of
Shakespeare's light fantasy tale of fairies and
dukes is surprisingly mundane. In spite of
some good acting by Stanley Tucci and Kevin
Kline, director Michael Hoffman brings little
innovative or interesting to the telling
besides star power. But the contribution of
having familiar actors instead of good unknowns
in a Shakespeare play is minimal. Rating: 5 (0
to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
There was a time when seeing a particular Shakespeare play might be
a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. People would rarely have a
chance to see two different companies performing the same play.
Then it was sufficient to be simply providing Shakespeare. That is
not so any more. Turner Classic Movies frequently plays the 1935
film version. It is not so long since PBS broadcast a BBC version.
In fact, the Internet Movie Database lists nine TV versions and it
does not list the comic version featuring the Flying Karamazov
Brothers. If a filmmaker wants to do a new version of a
Shakespeare play, it should be at least in some way very original.
It should have something that the previous versions do not offer.
Certainly two films that I thought did that were Kenneth Branagh's
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING and Ian McKellan's RICHARD III. The former
managed to use diction that made following the dialog easy and a
pleasure to follow. That and its pleasant Tuscan setting made the
film a real joy. And McKellan's reframing of RICHARD III as an
alternate history with a Fascist takeover of Britain in the 1930s
stands as the single most exciting and inventive performance of
Shakespeare I have ever seen. The new WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S A
MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM was presenting a very familiar story, so
with a fixed plot it should have been greatly creative in some
other way. It should have been as innovative as those films. It
was not.
Michael Hoffman adapted the Shakespeare play and directed. Hoffman
did a beautiful job creating a sumptuous look and feel for the 1995
film RESTORATION, but his ideas were far less rich or original for
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. As the film
starts we are immediately plunged into cliche with Felix
Mendelssohn's "Midsummer Night's Dream." It is a rather obvious
choice and hardly one that is inspiring. The first original touch
is to move the setting from ancient Athens to late 19th Century
Monte Athene in Tuscany. But there is something of a problem there
almost immediately. The play has many references to its setting,
and there is an immediate dissonance to see Italy and hear it
called Athens. It is also jarring to have characters whose names
are Theseus, Demetrius, Lysander, Helena, and Hermia. The move of
location is probably an attempt to repeat the effect that Branagh
achieved with his Tuscan setting, but it really does not work the
same sort of magic.
For those who do not know the story, I will say just briefly that
Duke Theseus (David Strathairn) is preparing to wed Hippolyta
(Sophie Marceau) when he is asked to settle a dispute between a
father and daughter. Egeus (Bernard Hill, recently seen as the
captain going down with the ship in TITANIC) has arranged a
marriage for his daughter Hermia (Anna Friel) to Demetrius
(Christian Bale). But the rebellious daughter instead loves
Lysander (Dominic West). Another woman, Helena (Calista
Flockhart), loves Demetrius. Getting involved into the action is
also a traveling theater company preparing to put on a bad play
about Pyramus (Bottom (Kevin Kline)). And as if that were not
enough in another part of the forest is Oberon, King of Fairies
(Rupert Everett) is having his problems with his queen Titania
(Michelle Pfeiffer).
The stars of the film are really Stanley Tucci and Kevin Kline.
Kline has a somewhat expanded role from the Shakespeare involving
Bottom's wife who never appeared in the original play. These
sequences have to be done without dialog since it is easier to do
it that way than to get Shakespeare back to write lines for their
interaction. Stanley Tucci is almost always a pleasure to watch on
the screen. Here he does his rubber-faced thing a little too much
and amazingly he overstays his welcome. But Calista Flockhart
(TV's Ally McBeal) manages to out-rubber-face even Tucci and to
almost achieve the level of a Macaulay Culkin (not appearing in
this film, thankfully).
Sadly, the film is never as enchanting as it is supposed to be or
even as it needs to be. Many of the intended magical elements turn
leaden. Having Puck ride a bicycle again and again is just not all
that whimsical. Having him ride a silly-looking plastic turtle
intended to be real is even less so. Hoffman even has a mud-
wrestling scene with Helena and Hermia. Really. The sequence of
the play of "Pyramus and Thisbe" may be where some of the humor
works the best in a sort of imitation Monty Python way. Still,
this sequence comes off as gratuitous filler, but then it always
did in the original play also, so that is not Hoffman's fault.
Once one accepts the Italian setting, the use of Italian opera
melodies is pleasant and does add to the mood, though when the same
melodies are repeated one starts to wonder if there were not more
to choose from.
In spite of the cast, this is a competent but unexceptional version
of one of Shakespeare's more popular plays. I rate it 5 on the 0
to 10 scale and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
6. ELECTION (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: An on-target satire and dark comedy
about politics set around a high school student
council election. An award-winning teacher
tries to make sure the school's most successful
student does not run unopposed for council
president. The result is disaster for several
people. Don't be put off by the fact the film
is about a high school election. This film has
some of the best writing of any film so far
this year. This is an intelligent, irritating
and in its own way delightful comedy about
politics in America. Rating: 8 (0 to 10),
high +2 (-4 to +4)
The time is coming for student council elections at Carver High
School. Unopposed for president is Tracy Flick (played by Reese
Witherspoon) the school's smug and snotty over-achiever. This is
the girl who seems to be in every school club, on every school
committee. Everyone knows that she is the best and nobody tries to
compete with her. What few people know is that she also was
instrumental in the firing of a teacher for a sexual misconduct in
which she was considerably more than a willing victim. Jim
McAllister (Matthew Broderick) is the star teacher of the school,
having won the Teacher of the Year Award a record three years in a
row. He also was a friend of the fired teacher. Partially because
he knows that the indiscretion was not all the teacher's fault, and
partially as a lesson in democratic principles to his students, Mr.
McAllister decides to try to see if he can whip up some competition
for Tracy. The idealistic civics teacher convinces Paul Metzler, a
likeable jock sidelined by a broken leg, to run against Tracy. He
is the exact opposite of Tracy. Less than bright in his studies he
is nevertheless a nice person with lots of friends. Soon there is
a surprise third counter-culture candidate running for reasons of
her own and collecting the vote of all the disaffected of the
school. This small beginning leads to chaos that engulfs several
people's lives, not the least of which is Mr. McAllister's.
ELECTION is a film that looks like it was shot in 16 millimeter and
blown up for the full sized screen. The production values overall
seem to have been designed for economy. About the only place it
excels is that it has a really good script. I call that a pretty
good tradeoff. In spite of the modest production budget co-writer
and director Alexander Payne has managed to do some things
extraordinarily well. The lower-middle class is rarely shown in
other films. Character's homes shown in films tend to be wither
upscale or on the level of trailer parks. Yet the housing
developments with their sparse vegetation strike a really
believable note. In fact the whole set of inexpensive production
values tend to make this film seem all the more realistic. Payne's
only previous feature film was CITIZEN RUTH, itself not a bad
social satire. But ELECTION shows a considerable improvement.
With the exception of the two leads, most of the cast has little
film experience, yet the acting in the film seems perfectly
professional. Matthew Broderick seems a little young for the role
of the teacher, but that could be just because he himself seems
boyish. Reese Witherspoon may well find that this is a defining
role in her early career. While she did not seem to bring any
special talents to her role in PLEASANTVILLE she is just perfect as
the smug and totally self-absorbed, over-achieving, Monica-
Lewinsky-in-training. ELECTION is a satire of the caliber of
Michael Ritchie's SMILE. That puts it miles ahead of recent
entries like WAG THE DOG. SMILE and ELECTION would, in fact, make
an excellent double feature. I give ELECTION an 8 on the 0 to 10
scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
7. THREE SEASONS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: This is an American film shot in Ho
Chi Minh City with a nearly all Vietnamese cast
looks at various aspects of love, self-image,
and life in modern Vietnam. The images are
beautifully filmed but the story telling is
slow and somewhat enigmatic at times. The
stories are reminiscent of other films.
Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)
THREE SEASONS is an odd melding of Asian film styling with the
story telling of Robert Altman. Like Altman's SHORT CUTS the film
involves multiple (in this case four) short stories, each
developing in parallel and in close geographical proximity but
otherwise mostly unrelated. Four plot lines are set in Ho Chi Minh
City and begin and end about the same time. In one story a cyclo-
driver becomes obsessed with a beautiful prostitute and decides to
do whatever it takes to win her. (A cyclo is a bicycle modified
with a wide passenger seat in front to be used like a taxi. One
sees them frequently in Southeast Asia.) In another plotline a
woman comes to the city for a job picking flowers in a lotus pond
and selling them in the city. She becomes involved with the
recluse who owns the lotus pond. The third story involves a street
boy who makes his living selling small items like cigarette
lighters from a box. When his box is stolen he must get it back
again or go hungry. The fourth plotline involves an American
Vietnam veteran who returns to Ho Chi Minh City driven by
conscience to find his daughter whose mother he abandoned during
the war.
It is very difficult to tell stories of any real plot complexity in
a film that is going to tell four stories in as little as 110
minutes. If one adds to it that the pacing of this or many Asian
films. Each of the four stories could probably be told in three or
four sentences. What is important is not the plot but the texture
of the telling and the feeling for what has become of Saigon after
it became Ho Chi Minh City. We see a daily life that in some ways
is not that different from what we have in the United States. The
story of the cyclo-driver and that of the street boy could take
place in just about any big city with few modifications. The man
looking for his daughter, the least developed of the four stories,
might also, but would be much more likely to occur in Vietnam, with
its particular problem of abandoned mothers. The story of the
lotus pond probably would not work any place but Asia.
THREE SEASONS was written and directed by Tony Bui, based on his
own stories. Bui was born in Vietnam, but raised in the US and
this constitutes a return to his parents' land. It is the first
American independent film shot in Vietnam since the war. The film
stays away from politics, however, no doubt in part because it had
to be passed by Communist censors and had to play in the United
States. Curiously they do not seem to object to the film calling
the city Saigon rather than its more politically correct name in
Vietnam. The film plays double duty as a fiction film and as a
documentary look at what Bui saw when he returned to his country.
Bui has the eye of an artist with much of the Asian sense of color.
We see this in the cyclo-race that is the centerpiece of one of the
stories and in the sensuous pleasure the camera takes in the bright
red blossoms of a country scene.
THREE SEASONS--where the title comes from us unclear since it
seemed to me to take place over a much shorter period of time--is
what used to be called a feast for the eyes but remains a simple
quiet little film and not one that says very much. I rate it a 6
on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
8. I frequently have trouble meeting all the commitments I make
for myself. Some I miss more than others. With STAR WARS EPISODE
1: THE PHANTOM MENACE fresh in theaters I would like to have a
review in this issue. However, I just saw it on Wednesday night,
the night of its opening. I have commitments for my Thursday
evening that imply I cannot meet a Friday deadline for publishing.
But I have had many people already ask me what I thought of the
film. A review next week will be of much less value. So I am
going to do something I have never done before. I will publish my
review in progress. My rating of the film is already in place, I
know what I am going to say about the film. That is in my notes.
I will publish a barely started review and my notes so people can
get a feel for my impressions of the film. Those who are
interested can also get some insight as to how I write a review.
Here, without comment, is my current review and the notes with
which I will create the finished review.
STAR WARS EPISODE 1: THE PHANTOM MENACE
Capsule: What George Lucas does well, nobody else does any better.
Simply put this film probably shows the greatest visual imagination
of any film ever made. (The only non-STAR WARS contender that
comes to mind is the otherwise painful WHAT DREAMS MAY COME). It
even as a few interesting science fiction ideas. George Lucas
returns to many of the values of Chapter 4, missing in the later
episodes. EPISODE I has a host of new species, another mythic
story, a few embarrassments, but overall a lot of fun. Rating: 9
(0 to 10), 3 (-4 to +4)
When KING KONG was released the trailers said "this was what the
films were made for." It may be a bit of an overstatement, but
they were implying that the films are made to show visual
imagination, to translate from somebody's mind's eye to a movie
screen. And KING KONG did just that. Willis O'Brien's stop-motion
animation was a giant leap forward in translating images from the
mind's eye to the movie screen. Things then stagnated for 44
years. Ray Harryhausen refined stop-motion and made some marvelous
films, but there were no major leaps until 1977 and STAR WARS.
This was really a big jump. It was also the starting gun on a race
to create new kinds of images on film. Since then the field of
special effects has been rapidly developing. In 1999 George Lucas
can no longer hope to create a film so far ahead of the
competition. He can create a film that blends new effects with the
best existing effects sufficiently to trump any other film that has
ever been made. For the most part he is competing only with his
own previous films. The only non-Lucasfilm to really compete is
the otherwise excruciating WHAT DREAMS MAY COME.
%Plot
%Acting
%Style
9 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale.
================
touches
why does beheading kill droid
in sw robots don't know obiwan, and vice versa
character flies on non-aerodynamic wings
much score from earlier films
more politics than one thinks of many mythic elements
twists in expected plot but not contradiction: uncle did not know father
religious symbolism tied in knot
more advanced technology loses to more primative one
little details in background, this is not all happening in these worlds
larger context for other films including what is force
know where characters are going, makes more interesting
fights more interesting than in matrix
back to polygot universe
tell doesn't show--not like lucas overly comic jar jar binks
little boy heroics fights too long
feel, don't think
accents make hard to understand
style
sensibility of samurai film, distant hero, more distant princess
opening fox banner and star wars
plot
taxation starts it all, like american revolution
mystical birth
federation vs republic
must stop at tatooine, picks up anakin
queen sends handmaid to coruscade
jedi and blockade, fired on
commentary
binks descended from hadrosaurs
will change fantasy, scenes will show up many places
what lucas does he does better than anybody else
reviewers i liked like this film
more imaginationation, visual and plot than any other film in history
wheelies fro oz
water city from abyss
sr71 blackbird deathstar, trench death of jedi from star wsrs
ben hur chariot race
acting
the professional, ann frank
stiff as queen chinese imperial robes
distant, but much an obiwan figure
trainspotting, does not leave much impression
a lot of personality for a young actor
Jackson nominal role--wasted
Stamp nominal role
[-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1J-621 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com