@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/31/97 -- Vol. 16, No. 18
MT Chair/Librarian:
Mark Leeper MT 3E-433 732-957-5619 mleeper@lucent.com
HO Chair: John Jetzt MT 2E-530 732-957-5087 jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 732-949-7076 njs@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
Rob Mitchell MT 2D-536 732-957-6330 rlmitchell1@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 3E-433 732-957-2070 eleeper@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
201-933-2724 for details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society
meets on the third Saturday of every month in Belleville; call
201-432-5965 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. URL of the week: http://www.magg.net/~dkeyes/!dkeyes.htm.
Daniel Keyes (FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON) home page. [-psrc]
===================================================================
2. I suppose this subject is going to be just slightly unsavory. I
am going to say a little bit about sex. But I will try to keep
this on a higher plane and talk not so much about sex itself as the
scientific study of sex. In fact, there are a lot of scientists
out studying sex these days. It is a lot like tropical islands.
Garrison Keillor points out that scientifically we know a lot more
about tropical islands than about the Arctic. The reason is that
it is really easy to find scientists who are willing to go and do
research on warm, inviting tropical islands. Not a whole lot of
scientists think that it would be a really great idea to go and
study the Arctic tundra. As a result tropical islands are far
better understood. Perhaps the same sort of thing is true with
people studying sex.
The topic itself is somehow fascinating and people really want to
study it. What got me thinking about this was a listing in SCIENCE
NEWS about a new book on the subject of sex in human and animal
behavior. The book is WHY IS SEX FUN?: THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN
SEXUALITY by Jared Diamond, $20.
Now, the description of this book starts out, "Humans are virtually
unique in their habit of engaging in sexual intercourse for
pleasure, not just procreation." Right there I was saved from
reading this book and saved $20. The author clearly wanted to
study the subject without having much understanding before or
gaining much along the way.
Mr. Jared Diamond is clearly no gem of a thinker. What does he
think, there is some sort of a conversation like:
Mrs. Timber Wolf: Uh, Lobo, Let's fool around a little. I think we
ought to start thinking about having pups.
Mr. Timber Wolf: Whoa! What, are you kidding? Don't you think we
are a little young to be talking about cubs?
Mrs. Timber Wolf: Not at all. The time is just about right.
Mr. Timber Wolf: How do you figure that? We are still pretty much
puppies ourselves.
Mrs. Timber Wolf: We are not. The Fangs have pups and White is
younger than you are.
Mr. Timber Wolf: Look, I really really think that it is too soon.
I was planning to go out and bay at the moon with the guys tonight.
Mrs. Timber Wolf: Lobo, we got to start soon.
Mr. Timber Wolf: What do you mean? I'm still a growing wolf. I
need my food. I don't want to start coughing it up for cubs.
Mrs. Timber Wolf: Lobo, my biological clock is ticking. Now come
on. I want to have a litter of pups in the spring.
Mr. Timber Wolf: So soon?
Mrs. Timber Wolf: Soon? Spring's still two dog years away! That's
plenty of time to howl.
Well, you get the idea. This is not what happens in nature. This
is not how an animal thinks about sex. There is no evidence that a
timber wolf even knows that there is a connection between sex and
puppies. It is far more likely that Lobo feels attracted to
Caprice and things just take their course. Animals are thinking of
the pleasure when they engage in sex. It is just a quick roll in
the hay (or dead bird or whatever). Mr. Diamond would have to go a
long way to prove to me that any animal but humans uses sex for
procreation or even associates the two. But he makes this
statement and builds a whole book on it and there is nobody to
point out it is starting flawed. I tell you there is a lot of bad
science out there. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. GATTACA (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: GATTACA is a cold film that frequently
stretches credibility, but still it stands as
one of the more intelligent science fiction
films of the 90s. Anatomy truly is destiny in
a world where almost everything about you can
be determined quickly from a DNA sample. One
man with a dream of traveling in space carries
out a long identity deception in a world where
it should be impossible, by using another man's
DNA to fool all the detectors. This is also a
philosophical detective story a well as a
science fiction film that looks deeply at the
implications of too much genetic knowledge.
Rating: +2 (-4 to +4), 8 (0 to 10)
While some pairs of identical twins lead surprisingly similar
lives, frequently they do not and frequently they show different
interests and potential. So there are limitations on the
information about the adult that can be augured by a DNA
examination. That makes it seem to be unlikely that we would ever
get to the world as it is shown in GATTACA where everything anyone
wants to know about you is encoded into your DNA. However, GATTACA
assumes that the world has decided that DNA is the most reliable
way of judging a person in spite of counter-examples like Vincent
(played by Ethan Hawke) the main character of this story. Vincent
has been delegated to the labor class based on his DNA. He looks
wistfully at the rockets blasting off from the Gattaca Corporation
and dreams of going off into space. He is highly motivated, but
nobody notices because his DNA says that he just does not have the
potential to be much more than a floor sweeper, permanently a part
of the under-class. One wonders how so inaccurate a test could be
accepted without question by a society, particularly after age of
civil rights and civil liberties advances.
Vincent knows he does not have a chance of being chosen by the
Gattaca Corporation for one of their probes into space, so he
decides to literally reinvent himself. There is a criminal element
who are willing to match him up with a human with a much better DNA
structure who can supply him with hairs, urine samples, blood
samples and any other kind of sample so that all the samples that
Gattaca takes from him will really be from Jerome (Jude Law).
Jerome agrees to live with Vincent, providing him with sufficient
biological specimens to give to the company and letting Vincent
take on Jerome's name. This is a tricky process involving things
like false finger tips filled with Jerome's blood form the ID
machine that takes a sample. We see how Vincent is occasionally
able to substitute Jerome's specimens for his own, but it is never
really convincing that he could do that whenever the need arises.
Vincent romances a fellow employee Irene Cassini (Uma Thurman) who
gets pulled into this web of deception.
The story moves at a languorous pace showing how the world has
changed since the conversion to the DNA standard. Andrew M. Niccol
who wrote and directed has given us a "not too distant future" that
is not entirely convincing, but is still worth seeing. Loose ends
abound, but that may be part of the point. For example, Vincent
has taken over for Jerome and is telling the world that he is the
same person, but Jerome has a "toffee-nosed" British accent and so
presumably comes from an environment that would produce such an
accent. Vincent does not have a British accent at all. Yet nobody
seems to even care to compare Vincent to his claimed background. It
is hard to place how far this world is in the future. Women and
men at Gattaca dress in almost identical uniforms and women wear
their hair in almost masculine styles. Cars make the whining sound
of turbines, but still look a lot like the cars of today.
The photography by Slawomir Idziak is just a bit showy, bathing
some scenes in yellow or blue light. Particularly in the first
half of the film it is often his camerawork that creates the mood
in scenes devoid of any music. It gives the world a repressive,
sterile, dry feel. Michael Nyman's score when it does kick in is
repetitive almost to the point of being minimalist.
GATTACA has a few places where it could have had the details better
developed, but it is a complex story, perhaps of the complexity of
a novel. It is told without the too common problems of science
fiction of too much special effects replacing careful thought. If
anything, GATTACA is a film that substitutes intelligence for
explosions. This is about people caught up in a sort of cautionary
dystopic world. It may not be a likely world, but it has well-
developed character in this world. Overall I would rate GATTACA a
+2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. FAIRYTALE: A TRUE STORY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: This fanciful retelling of a historic
incident is too slow and dour and offers too
little for the eye of a younger child and it is
a bit patronizing for adults. Still, its study
of why people believe what they do will play
better on an adult audience than a children's
matinee. Two school-girls create a sensation
by apparently photographing fairies in their
garden. The film does a nice job of creating
little people with dragonfly wings to come down
on the side of claiming that the fairies were
real. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4), 6 (0 to 10)
When Richard Adams wrote WATERSHIP DOWN it was not really clear who
his audience would be. The story seemed too violent for children
and a tale of rabbits looking for a safe warren seemed a little
puerile for adults. It was a difficult task for Adams to get it
published, but once it was it remained a bestseller for years.
That book notwithstanding, it is a good idea to know when you are
telling a story whom you expect to be your audience. FAIRYTALE: A
TRUE STORY is a film that was made without too much thought as to
who its audience would be. As a result it is too slow and
deliberate to be a children's film and it is a bit too logically
inconsistent to work well for adults. The story tells of how two
young girls during World War I produced what they claimed to be
authentic photographs of fairies in an English country garden. At
the time, the story caused quite a sensation. Notables including
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini investigated the claims
and Doyle became convinced. FAIRYTALE: A TRUE STORY is a
fictionalized account of what happened told from the point of view
that the fairies were real. To claim this to be a true story and
to have special effects fairies flitting around seems less than
strictly honest, though I suppose the filmmakers are taking the
viewpoint of believers.
It is a miserable time in 1917 England, with men returning from the
war having been shot to pieces in battle. Nine-year old South
African Frances Griffiths (played by Elizabeth Earl) lost her
father in the war and comes to England to stay with her twelve-year
old cousin Elsie Wright (Florence Hoath). [Historical note: the
actual children's ages were ten and sixteen respectively according
to one source. However, the "true" story plays better if they are
younger.] Elsie is also mourning a recent loss, that of her older
brother. The two girls, shown here as almost being too storybook
perfect, build a bond of friendship. Then one day when playing in
the garden, Frances sees a fairy. The fairies will not let
themselves be seen by adults, but Frances and Elsie determine to
prove the presence of the fairies by borrowing Elsie's father's
camera and taking a picture. That is just what they do and
resulting photographs cause a sensation. Peter O'Toole plays Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of the hard-nosed skeptic Sherlock
Holmes, who nevertheless is ready to accept the photographs as
real. He calls in master illusionist and debunker Harry Houdini
(played very nicely by Harvey Keitel).
If one looks for it there is some material that is worth
considering in the film. The story offers us a variety of people
in varying degrees of belief or skepticism and we can see their
motivations for their degree of belief. Generally it is the people
who have been most injured by reality who are willing to turn from
that reality and embrace the fanciful. Faith also works better on
children than adults in the film. And the film seems very
accepting of skepticism. The most sympathetic adult character is
Keitel's Harry Houdini. O'Toole, on the other hand, is not well-
cast as Doyle. Physically he is wrong to play the short and
plumpish writer. His character seems too anxious to convince
others to believe in the supernatural, at one point even saying to
be skeptical is to show disrespect to him.
But where the film is unsettling is in the question of whether the
photographs are genuine or not. Certainly the film shows you
fairies, so it really says that they are real. But the photos are
the historic originals or very good facsimiles and while we do not
get much chance to look at them on the wide screen, the originals
clearly are fakes. (Sorry, Sir Arthur.) It does not take much
examination of the original photographs to conclude that the
fairies shown are drawn by hand rather than photographed from life.
The film suggests that may be the case also, but never ties that
end up. Of course, there are many ends not tied up in this film
and left for the viewer to decide. The level of storytelling is
confusing and will be more so for children. The telling of the
story is a little muddled and not helped by thick accents
occasionally obscuring the dialog. Often parallel action is
inter-cut and one time they add a chess game that seems to have
nothing to do with the rest of the story, but they inter-cut it
with two pieces of inter-cut action to create a third one.
Some script problems and editing problems damage this well-
photographed and acted story of the Cottingly Fairies. It could
have been a lot better and rates a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-
mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
It makes no difference who you vote for--the two
parties are really one party representing 4% of
the people.
-- Gore Vidal