@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 02/06/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 32
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 irregularly; call 201-652-0534 for details, or check
http://www.interactive.net/~kat/njsfs.html. 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.imaginet.fr/fourmis/. Bernard
Werber's home page. [Warning: it's in French.] [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. Let's get this over with. Our next Leeperhouse film festival is
going to feature a Shakespeare film.
Okay, I know I just lost a bunch of you. Now at least we have a
smaller and more intimate group. Truth is I knew they were going
to leave. Or they would have when they heard that our next film
festival will not even be one of Shakespeare's light-hearted
comedies. We will be showing RICHARD III.
Oops, we just lost a whole bunch more. Well, now that we are down
to the serious few people I will say that this production of
RICHARD III is done in modern dress.
Uh-oh, now we have lost just about everybody left. Hey, thanks for
sticking around, Charlie and you two or three others. In any case,
what we are going to show is the 1995 version of RICHARD III
starring Ian McKellan. This is the alternate history Richard III
set in a very stylish 1930s Britain. It is the one with tanks and
planes and a fascist takeover of Britain, all to Shakespeare's
words. This is Shakespeare as it has never been done. Your
mileage may vary, but I think this transcends the academic
experience to be an actual fun film. We will show it February 12
at 7:30pm at the Leeperhouse. My original review follows.
RICHARD III (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: This is nothing less than the most
enjoyable performance of Shakespeare I can remember
seeing. By staging RICHARD III sumptuously in 1930s
England, Richard Eyre's stage production, the basis
of this film, has created a fascinating parallel
history in which the dynastic rivalries of the War
of the Roses occurred in the 20th Century. Rating:
+3 (-4 to +4)
I generally do not like to see historical dramatic works done in
modern dress. I was excited when the Bayreuth production of
Wagner's RING OF THE NIBELUNGS was to be broadcast in this country,
but when all of the fantasy was sucked out by staging it in late
19th Century dress, I decided that I was not really so anxious to
see it after all. It seemed an attempt to replace the magic with
social comment. But in this film, based on a popular London stage
production, the modern context is as much the show as the story.
We have a Britain in an age to which we can relate brought under
the control of a Fascist King. Suddenly it is clear why modern
dress (relatively speaking) can open up and even transform the
meaning of a story. RICHARD III is told with visual imagination
and panache unusual for a 1930s film or a Shakespeare play. There
are huge sets out of THE TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, while other scenes
have almost the flair of a Terry Gilliam. The view of 1930s
England has a nicely accurate and detailed view even if this is
politically a very different 1930s England than the one we know
from history.
Ian McKellen gives us a more immediate and riveting Richard than
the one we are used to from Laurence Olivier. A bit more soft-
spoken than we usually think of for Richard, he nonetheless makes a
chilling and wonderfully vicious Fascist dictator. Americans
Annette Benning and Robert Downey, Jr., at first may seem odd
choices for Elizabeth and her brother the Earl Rivers, but a 1930s
King of England might well have married an American and for once it
might be perfectly reasonable to cast Americans in Richard III.
The major roles are nearly all played by familiar and respected
British actors. If Downey plays his fey playboy a little too
broadly there is the marvelous casting of Adrian Dunbar, formerly
cast as sweet and callow in HEAR MY SONG, here as the amoral
assassin Tyrell.
Stylistically the film has some terrific moments, oozing period
feel. Richard's political rally seems to come from somewhere
between Nazi Germany and Ruritania with its boar's head party
symbol. Great art deco buildings, stylish royal residences and
sterile hospital hallways form the setting. The battle scenes are
unexpectedly violent but also unrealistically brief. Richard's
army seems much too easily beaten at the end of the film. The final
minute of the film is perhaps the worst stylistic misstep of the
film leaving the viewer with a slightly bad taste in his mouth. The
only other real problem with the style is that the invented setting
is so compelling and has such a powerful effect on the thrust of
the film that the staging threatens to overshadow even
Shakespeare's writing. Considering the wit of the writing, that
says a great deal.
While I enjoyed the warm Tuscan feel of Kenneth Branagh's MUCH ADO
ABOUT NOTHING, it just never was as riveting this amazing
production of RICHARD III. It may end a minority opinion but this
exciting adaptation was for me the better of the two films and I
rate this film a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. The chic seaside town depended on street artists to draw
tourists, but it was the wishing well that attracted the greatest
number of well-wishers. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. PHANTOMS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: An evil older than life on Earth takes
possession of a Colorado town in a horror film
featuring Peter O'Toole. The popular horror
novelist Dean R. Koontz adapts one of his most
enjoyable novels, but it loses a great deal on
its way to the screen. All of the gunfire is
here, but the intriguing possibilities are
sadly toned down. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1
(-4 to +4) A Heavy Duty Spoiler follows the
review, but I really want to discuss the ideas.
New York Critics: 1 positive, 5 negative, 0
mixed
If you are going to take a long novel and adapt it for the screen,
you are essentially cutting it to the length of a novelette.
Something has to go. It must have been a painful task for Dean
Koontz to cut down the scope of his novel. He had to make a lot of
choices as to what would play to a horror film audience. I
remember consciously thinking when I read the novel PHANTOMS that I
would have been willing to go through everything in the novel up to
this point, all the horror, if I could just be in on this one
conversation between a human and... well... something that was
definitely a long way beyond human. That moment--chapters long in
the book--either did not make it to the film or passes by so
quickly that it is hardly noticeable. The moments when something
violent or repulsive is happening seem to go on forever, but my
little moment with its sense of wonder seems to have been pushed
aside. Shame on you, Mr. Koontz, for not recognizing what was
really unique powerful about your own novel. Instead we have one
more horror film with grisly gore and in-your-face special effects.
On the other hand, at least it is played seriously. This is all
material that could have been played for laughs and perhaps the
film's greatest strength is that it was not If anyone is going to
treat Koontz's ideas seriously, it is going to be Koontz.
Dr. Jennifer Pailey (played by Joanna Going) lives in the high
Colorado town of Snowfield. She brings her sister Lisa (Rose
McGowan) to the town for a visit and to get her away from the
corrupting influence of life in Los Angeles. She does not imagine
that what she is bringing Lisa to is far worse than what she is
leaving. Their first discovery on arriving is that Jenny's
landlady is lying dead on the floor of her home, her skin having
turned strange colors. It is quite a shock, and it is only the
first. When they go to report it to the police, the officer on
duty is dead with identical symptoms. Most of the town is empty
and those that are still there are dead. This explains why the
streets seem so quiet. As in ANDROMEDA STRAIN they find that
whenever it happened, whatever "it" was, some people died
immediately and some went slowly insane. Finally after wandering
the museum of horror that had been Snowfield, they find three
living people, the sheriff (played by Ben Affleck) and his two
deputies, also returning from out of town. As they investigate
they find the telephones will connect them only with a mumbling
presence, but whatever killed the town is still present and still a
danger. More exploration turns up no new survivors, but a cryptic
message "Timothy Flyte the Ancient Enemy." It is on this clue that
the whole understanding of the nature of the menace will hinge.
Eventually the military is informed of what has happened and they
enter the town to find out what has happened. The Army brings in a
scientist (Peter O'Toole) with an oddball theory as to what
happened to Snowfield, tying it into previously unexplained
historical incidents.
The cast is of lesser-known actors, all but Ben Affleck and, of
course, Peter O'Toole. Frankly, great actors are not really needed
here, though the script calls for some, the doctor and the sheriff,
perhaps to be a little older than the very young actors featured in
this film. Under the direction Joe Chappelle the principles give
their lines but add little to the film beyond acting menaced.
There is only one actor who has to go beyond that. Peter O'Toole
has to act the role of a latter-day Dr. Van Helsing, a joke in the
scientific community but with the spark of an idea that might
explain a lot of history. He has to walk a gentle tightrope
between being wise and being a little unstrung. That is the same
tightrope that O'Toole had to walk in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and in
spite of my initial skepticism on seeing him in the role, perhaps
he was just what it needed.
PHANTOMS runs its good ideas past the viewer much too fast, but at
least they are there. It feels like a very much scaled down
version of the novel. I give it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and high
+1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler.. .
What is nicely done in the film but far better in the book is how
the theories of the nature of the enemy change in the course of the
book. It starts seeming like some sort of disease, a la THE
ANDROMEDA STRAIN. Then it appears more malevolent and seems like
some sort of shape-changer. Then the characters realize they are
in contact with, and talking to, the force of evil going back to
the beginning of time. They are essentially in conversation with
the Devil and it is affably talking to them. Think of what an
opportunity that would be. The film sort of flashes over it, but
what if you really could discuss history with the force behind all
evil. Suppose you could discuss history with a being that has been
here since the beginnings of time, marshaling the most powerful
side in the battle between good and evil. What would you ask
first? I mean this would be better than getting Saddam Hussein on
MEET THE PRESS. Finally the concept transforms again to come up
with a science fictional explanation for the Devil through the ages
and even that concept is intriguing. It is much muted in this
adaptation, but even in the film some intriguing possibilities come
through. [-mrl]
===================================================================
5. EMPIRE OF THE ANTS by Bernard Werber (translated by Margaret
Rocques) (Bantam, ISBN 0-553-09613-3, 1998 (1991), 256pp, US$23.95)
(a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Almost everyone who describes this says it's like WATERSHIP DOWN,
except with ants instead of rabbits. Yes, it starts out that way
(though with far more central and developed human characters as
well), but it goes somewhere that WATERSHIP DOWN doesn't.
In the near future, Jonathan Edwards inherits his uncle's
apartment, with the instruction, "Above all, never go down into the
cellar." It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even an
entomologist) to figure out that going down into the basement is
precisely what the human characters will do.
The book's strength is in its depiction of an alien lifeform: ants.
One can argue that Werber's ants have more consciousness and
intelligence that is possible given their brain mass, but then the
same could be said of the rabbits in WATERSHIP DOWN. If one is
willing to suspend disbelief, the mental processes and motivations
of the various ants--and there are several different varieties--are
fascinating. Werber apparently spent years researching ants, and
it has paid off in his description of ant life. He has the
external appearance (actions, etc.) of the ant colonies down pat.
His extrapolation of the motivations is, as I have said, unlikely,
but as a theory they have the advantage of fitting and explaining
all the facts.
The human characters are not as interesting or believable. Like
the characters in so many horror movies, they are all attracted by
the forbidden cellar, and head down there, with very few
precautions or even (apparently) concerns.
This was a best-seller in Europe, and while it almost definitely
won't achieve that status here, it is worth reading if you are
interested in reading works from an alien point of view. [-ecl]
===================================================================
6. DECEIVER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: A prostitute has been murdered and a
self-admitted liar is the chief suspect, in
spite of little evidence. This is a complex
story about the nature of truth in which things
are rarely what they seem. The problem is that
the clues are not conclusive and are left
contradictory. This is a USUAL SUSPECTS
wannabe but is not nearly so well-written.
Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
Jonas and Josh Pate co-wrote and co-directed this enigmatic crime
film. Two pieces that together make up one dead prostitute,
Elizabeth (played by Renee Zellweger in flashbacks), have been
found. The police investigation has turned up a most unusual
suspect, Wayland (Tim Roth). Wayland is the misfit heir to a
textile fortune. The evidence tying Wayland to the prostitute is
very weak: she simply died with his phone number in her pocket.
But Wayland acts guilty and a two-man team of policemen administer
a series of polygraph lie detector tests to Wayland. In little
flashbacks we get to know the policemen. There is Kennesaw
(Michael Rooker) and Braxton (Chris Penn). Each has complications
in his life at the moment. Kennesaw has a beautiful but wayward
wife (Rosanne Arquette) that he does not want to lose, but he has
fits of rage about the situation. Braxton is a younger man, a
security guard turned cop. We are explicitly his IQ is a lowly 101
and he certainly is not one of the more promising policemen on the
force. He also has gotten into trouble with a flamboyant bookie
(played by--are your ready for this?--Ellen Burstyn) and he
desperately needs money that he hopes to borrow from Kennesaw.
Braxton and Kennesaw work as a team to try to break down Wayland,
but it is not clear that even his answers on the polygraph are
dependable. Even on the polygraph Wayland may be playing a deadly
game of deception.
Tim Roth is, of course, second only to Steve Buscemi as the king of
bizarre roles in arthouse films. His smooth strange manner is just
about right for this film. He maintains a wall around himself
inside which he remains aloof even from the audience. Most of the
rest of the casting is prosaic. By far the most interesting choice
is to have Ellen Burstyn as the bookie and kingpin Mook, complete
with glitter eye-shadow. It is, of course, in stark contrast to
the matronly roles we expect of her, and while we see her in only
two scenes, her face is the one image of the film that sticks in my
memory. Photography by Bill Butler is dark and moody.
DECEIVER is clearly an attempt to make another puzzle crime film in
the tradition of THE USUAL SUSPECTS. It is the sort of story that
does not really begin until the film is over and the audience has
all the clues and then can start trying to piece them together.
Generally that is a very good touch, but there has to be at least
one real solution and way to get to it. It goes wrong, however, in
DECEIVER because the clues do not seem to lead in a coherent way to
a solution. It is an art in a puzzle story to leave enough clues
about what is going on so that the viewer can piece together one or
more possible satisfying explanations but at the same time make the
explanation complex enough that piecing together the clues is a
challenge. One had the feeling that on a second watching of THE
USUAL SUSPECTS the viewer could make all of the clues fit. (And in
fact it was not difficult on the second viewing.) A second viewing
of DECEIVER on the other hand seems much less promising because
there will still be too many holes to piece together the story. At
the same time what we have already seen seems contradictory. There
seem to be no explanations for what we have seen that are both
coherent and interesting.
The Pates are trying a little too hard to surprise the us at the
expense of logic in the script. Still while the illusion of the
puzzle film lasts this film is intriguing. I rate it a 5 on the 0
to 10 scale and low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper