@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 02/27/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 35
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.execpc.com/~talossa/patsilor.html.
The Micro-Nations Page--you thought only science fiction writers
thought this stuff up? [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. I was talking last time about how there a certain charisma to
Physics that you just don't find with Botany or the other science.
Physics became the dominant showy science probably with the
creation of nuclear weapons. Physicists proved themselves to be
dangerous to ignore and since then they have eaten big holes out of
other sciences, claiming them for Physics. People have the feeling
that understanding Physics is in some sense understanding the
universe. This is not an unalloyed joy for physicists, I am sure.
Physics has become trendy. You have these books like THE DANCING
WU LI MASTERS in which Gary Zukav claims that ancient mystics
really understood principles about the universe that are borne out
by modern research. This has about as much truth as saying that
Nostradamus could see the future. Both are a sort of Rorschach
test. Can you see laws of modern physics in the words of the
mystics?
There are people who think they understand physics who really
don't. People find all sorts of philosophical meanings to the
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Now, if my understanding is
correct--and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong--this says
that you cannot measure both the position and the momentum of an
electron. It really is saying that the universe puts physical
limits on measurability. But pop physics puts wholly another
interpretation on the theory. It says that you cannot observe
something without affecting it. If you see a bird flying above
you, you affect the bird just by seeing it. I claim this is
superstition, people. Yet it shows up in all sorts of arguments as
if it were physical law. Anthropologists like to cite it to say
that they cannot study peoples without affecting them. That may be
true, but don't blame Physics. It is one thing to say that
observers very often do affect the subjects they observe. But to
promote that principle to a physical law is unwarranted. Why do I
say this? Let's try a thought experiment.
In 1604 such notables of science as Johannes Kepler and Isaac
Newton observed and made records of a very bright light in the
sky--in fact a supernova. I cannot claim to know a lot about the
star that went nova. I would be willing to bet it was not at
walking distance away. It had to be at the very least dozens of
light-years away, perhaps hundreds or even thousands. That means
that it took a good long time for the light of the supernova to
reach Earth. Yet it remained bright for only a span of a few days.
This means that this particular ball of gas was out of business as
a star probably long, long before Kepler was born. So ... if the
popular interpretation of Heisenberg were correct it would seem to
indicate that Kepler was somehow able to reach into the past and
affect a star that didn't even exist in his lifetime. Sorry, I do
not buy that. I think that Mr. Kepler could have stared at
Mr. Nova until he was blue in the face and his eyes bugged out and
it would not have mattered one tiny iota to Mr. Nova. Mr. Nova was
long gone.
Now it may be that one cannot illuminate the un-illuminated object
without affecting that object, but that sounds almost like a
tautology. If objects are going to throw off photons with
information about the objects, then intercepting those photons will
allow one to observe the object without affecting it. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. SPHERE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: SPHERE starts out exciting, turns into
an intriguing puzzle, then degrades to a
haunted house horror film, and finally it is
all pulled together with an overly-familiar
idea. SPHERE is faithful to a fairly mediocre
novel that fails to grab the viewer. It is
over-powered with a more distinguished cast
than it really needs, but somehow the actors
never bring the story to life. Rating: 4 (0 to
10), 0 (-4 to +4)
New York Critics: (2 positive, 12 negative, 2
mixed)
Michael Crichton has had a long career of writing novels, many of
which are science fiction. The most profitable film adaptation of
any novel was an adaptation of a Michael Crichton science fiction
novel. So in the logic of the film industry a good way to make a
profitable film would be to make a big-budget adaptation of another
Crichton science fiction novel. CONGO failed, and I am afraid that
SPHERE is probably not going to fare a whole lot better.
It a little better than just okay novel and it makes a film that
is not even that good. The film is expensive, over one hundred
million dollars; is long, 133 minutes; has a terrific cast,
including Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson, and Sharon Stone; but
has little that is really original and less that is exciting.
Several years ago Dr. Norman Goodman (played by Dustin Hoffman) was
asked to write up a set of procedures for the government to follow
if an alien entity was actually encountered. The plan he wrote was
only semi-serious, but did explicitly define a team of experts who
should investigate the alien. Now that team has been assembled by
a mysterious team leader named Barnes (Peter Coyote) to study a
spacecraft almost a half mile in length that apparently dropped
into the Pacific Ocean in the early 1700s. Suddenly Norman's less
than serious procedure has become an action plan for dealing with a
real alien spacecraft.
Included in the team to investigate are mathematician Harry Adams
(Samuel L. Jackson), biologist Beth Halperin (Sharon Stone), and
astrophysicist Ted Fielding (Liev Schreiber). Together they travel
to the deep Pacific spaceship to understand its secrets. One major
secret is the meaning of the huge sphere of gold-toned liquid metal
at the heart of this spaceship. When alien contact
What is disappointing about this film is that it does not have
really effective performances. Director Barry Levinson is at his
best with good actors rather than good special effects. The
problem here is he is making a big-budget science fiction film. It
has some effects, but the most intriguing effect he shows only as
an outline on a radar screen. The technique is to suggest rather
than to show and let the actors and the viewer's imagination carry
the film as Robert Wise did with THE HAUNTING. That could be a
reasonable approach in a low-budget film. But that requires
creating much more atmosphere than Levinson can manage to muster.
It requires the actors to give really compelling performances and
simply put, they don't. Hoffman's acting seems muted.
Jackson seems to laid back. We do not feel for these characters
and do not get inside their heads. Levinson paid big bucks for his
actors and does not really get price performance. And why we have
Queen Latifah as a minor functionary on the expedition is anybody's
guess. A cast of unknowns could have delivered as much emotional
impact at a fraction of the price. Look how much more powerful a
film like ALIEN was with only moderate actors.
Most science fiction spectaculars these days have second-tier
actors and first-tier special effects. Levinson tries second-tier
effects, and first-tier actors, but never makes that exchange pay
off for the viewer. Perhaps sci-fi spectaculars are just not an
actor's medium. The result gets a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and 0 on
the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. THE RISE OF ENDYMION by Dan Simmons (Bantam Spectra, 1997, ISBN
0-553-10652-X, 579 pp. Hardcover Science Fiction Book Club Edition)
(a book review by Joe Karpierz):
Every three or four years a book come along that completely knocks
my socks off. A few years ago it was Vernor Vinge's A FIRE UPON
THE DEEP (and to be fair, Connie Willis' DOOMSDAY BOOK did the same
thing to me that year--I suppose that's why they split the Hugo
Award for Best Novel that year). A few years before that, it was
HYPERION by Dan Simmons. Well, Simmons has done it to me again,
this time with the completion of the Hyperion saga, THE RISE OF
ENDYMION.
This is also a very interesting time of the year in the science
fiction field, as the Hugo nominating ballots have arrived in our
mailboxes. Also showing up this time of year is the annual LOCUS
magazine Recommended Reading list issue. Every year, I open that
issue, looking to see how the sf community's opinion of the prior
year's work completely differs from my own. Well, this year was no
exception, of course, except for Simmons' latest work. I found it
commented upon glowingly by most of the columnists, and, in my
opinion, with good reason.
When last we left our protagonist, Raul Endymion, he was still in
the Schroedinger's Cat Box (picture something completely different
than was intended, and you will laugh--but I digress), writing the
story of his journeys with Aenea, daughter of Brawne Lamia and the
John Keats cybrid, and android A.Bettik. His narrative picks up on
old Earth, now located near the Magellanic Clouds (courtesy of the
Lions, Tigers, and Bears--but I won't go there--you get to read
this book to find out), where she is studying architecture under
the tutelate of a Frank Lloyd Wright cybrid. Please, stay with me
here. This is only the beginning.
Anyway, our trio leaves Earth for a galaxy-wide excursion to, as
Martin Silenus demanded in this book's predecessor, ENDYMION, to
topple the Church, destroy the Pax's iron rule, and let him see
Earth one more time. Well, there was really more than that. If
you remember, the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, who is really
Father Lenar Hoyt form the original Hyperion novels, controls the
galaxy through the promise of eternal life through the cruciform,
which allows a person to be resurrected as long as it is implanted
within the person. The Church is in league with the Technocore,
basically sentient computer life originally created back in the
20th century, now living in the Void Which Binds (I give up here on
the explanation for how the Void is related to Planck space, etc.-
-just work with me here). The Core is responsible for the
cruciform. There are some factions of the Core that want humanity
destroyed, some that want them alive, and some that don't really
care. The focal point is Aenea, who is The One Who Teaches (yes,
you may read that as "messiah"--after all, the Church is involved).
Aenea is supposed to save humanity from the Core, the Church, etc.
And how, do you ask, do the Lions, Tigers, and Bears (oh, my--
there, I said it!) have to do with this mess? And what about the
Shrike, bad guy in the first two novels, but apparently on OUR side
in these two? No fair asking--you have to read the book.
Just for snicks, do you have an interest in Buddhism? Well, you
get to meet the latest Dalai Lama on one of the planets that Aenea
visits. She is on the planet to help design and build a Temple
(Frank Lloyd Wright, remember? See, it all fits in.) During this
stop, we get a nice little dissertation on Catholicism and Buddhism
and how it relates to whats going on, right in front of both the
Dalai Lama, Aenea's friend, and several members of the Church
hierarchy, who even though they are chasing after Aenea and have
her right in front of them are powerless to do anything about it
because of our old buddy the Shrike. It's a tremendously powerful
chapter.
One of the LOCUS columnists talks about how THE RISE OF ENDYMION
turns what we thought we were reading in the first three books into
something completely different. He's right, but it all fits and is
so well done that I was spellbound. It isn't often that happens
any more, believe me. There are several passages and chapters that
explain what is REALLY going on, and they are a fascinating read.
The book is also full of great mom and apple pie philosophy, and
some pretty good science is included in some the explanations for
the motivation of Technocore and why it's view shouldn't be allowed
to continue (well, one faction of the Core, anyway).
If you couldn't tell by now, this was my favorite book of 1997 (at
least until I sit down to read those Hugo nominees that I haven't
read). I heartily recommend all four of the "Hyperion" books.
And now, I'll think I'll take a break. In a little while, I'm
going to have to start reading books that I may not like. So I'm
going to indulge myself in a novel or three by a couple of friends
of mine. You'll hear from me again when the final Hugo ballot
comes out. [-jak]
===================================================================
5. THE APOSTLE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Robert Duvall writes, directs, and
stars in this story of a preacher who is a
fugitive from the law but who overcomes
adversity and founds a new church. This is a
long film with a simple story, but everything
is rushed to leave time for Duvall's extended
sequences of preaching. These speeches are a
joy to watch only until it becomes obvious they
are eating the rest of his film alive. This is
a good film that should have been a lot better.
Rating: 6 (0 to 10), 1 (-4 to +4)
New York Critics: 13 positive, 1 negative, 5
mixed
For years I have thought that Robert Duvall is the best American
actor. And his acting in THE APOSTLE is as good as ever. But
Duvall has let his vanity run away from him in this film. He has
what could be a moving story if he had taken the time to flesh it
out. Instead he cut the story down to the bare minimum to allow
for more time for his preaching sequences. The film comes in at a
running time of 148 minutes, yet skimps on story-line for what
should be a simple story to tell. One example of his skimping:
Billy Bob Thornton goes through some emotional changes and should
be a major character, but his entire presence in the film is
reduced to two scenes, And Thornton's changes are too rushed,
because the screenplay, written by Duvall give him only the two
scenes.
Take all of the shouting and singling out of THE APOSTLE and what
is left is a rather simple and short story. Sonny Dewey (Duvall)
is a charismatic Pentecostal preacher in both the common and the
religious sense of "charismatic." He has been preaching in New
Boston, Texas for so long that religion has become an essential
part of his being. Every moment of the day if he is not preaching
he is hymn-singing. If he is not hymn-singing he is trying to
convert somebody. He seems to be incapable of speaking three
consecutive sentences without one of them mentioning Jesus. But
his dedication to preaching is not enough. Sonny's life starts to
fall apart when his wife (Farrah Fawcett) and a young minister
cheat on Sonny together and then manage to oust Sonny from his own
church. When chance brings together Sonny, the young minister, and
a baseball bat, Sonny unleashes his rage leaving the minister in a
coma. Realizing that he is now in serious trouble, Sonny flees to
Bayou Boutte, Louisiana where he cannot resist the temptation to
start a new church. Sonny takes a new name, calling himself "the
Apostle E. F." But he still preaches in the style for which he was
known in Texas.
It is redundant at this point to say that Duvall is good as Sonny.
That is really not the point. He does a terrific job that won an
Oscar nomination and will very likely win the prize. There is just
more of this performance than the film really needed. Farrah
Fawcett nicely underplays her role as Duvall's wife. It is hard to
believe looking at her worn hawk-like features that she was once a
national pinup. But it is harder to believe that this is the same
actress who seemed so untalented in LOGAN'S RUN. She deserved to
be seen more in this film. Fawcett has come a long way. Miranda
Richardson provides love interest in the new life. It would not be
accurate to say, however, that Duvall steals the film but that as
writer and director he never gives it to anyone else. He gives the
film very believable dialog and captures the feel of the more rural
sections of the deep South.
Duvall is a good director and a better actor. One can only
disagree with some of the choices he made in bringing together this
film. This could have been an expose in the tradition of ELMER
GANTRY. After national scandals of clergy people being shown to be
hypocrites, it took some courage to make the hero of this film a
preacher and a hypocrite. But Duvall does manage after a while to
make his audience feel for Sonny and want him to succeed. The
critics have mostly liked this film better than I did. I rate this
film a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and 1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
6. MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL (a film review by Mark
R. Leeper):
Capsule: A leisurely told murder mystery and
courtroom drama, but the real interest value is
in the eccentric Savannah, Georgia gentry who
form the background and texture of the story.
While not primarily a comedy, the
(intentionally) humorous elements rank this
among the funniest films of the year. This is
a film that deserved much better treatment from
the critics. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4
to +4)
New York Critics: 4 positive, 13 negative, 5
mixed
I saw this film well after most people saw it, and it still was
nothing like what I expected. I knew it was a murder story dealing
with the well-to-do in Savannah, Georgia, society. I expected it
to be dark and very serious and dealing with festering family
relationships. However, I do not remember a 1997 film that had me
laughing so much. The comedy elements of this film are delightful,
the characters I expected initially I would end up hating in this
expose turn out to be likable and some even endearing. If anything
the comic elements of this film reminded me of a more smartly
written MY COUSIN VINNY or perhaps DOC HOLLYWOOD.
Town and Country Magazine has wanted for years to cover the annual
Christmas party of society baron Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey) of
Savannah. He finally has given permission and they have sent John
Kelso (John Cusack). At least two surprises await Kelso. One is
the number of eccentrics Kelso finds in one small space of
Savannah. One man, for the best of reasons, gives a daily walk to
an empty dog collar. Another has several real pets on tethers, but
they are all horseflies. The other surprise Kelso finds is that he
is the stand-offish one, and the upper crust of society are anxious
to pull him into their circle and be friendly. The only sour note
is a bitter scene he notes between Williams and a Billy, low-class
apparent houseboy. After the party Kelso goes to bed with more
writing material than he bargained for, and is awakened in the
middle of the night to see a fleet of police cars at the Williams
mansion. Billy had returned after the party and had a run-in with
Williams that left Billy dead. Kelso quits Town and Country and
decides to write a book about the trial and Savannah in general.
He also becomes a de facto member of the Williams defense team. He
gets embroiled in more local eccentrics, mostly friendly, and tries
to unravel for himself what happened the night of the killing.
Director Clint Eastwood takes his time, and 155 minutes of ours,
unraveling the story of the hidden secrets of modern Savannah
society, many of which would have been shocking in the 1950s. Both
the type of character Williams is and his being played by the
usually sinister Kevin Spacey makes this smart, suave, affable, yet
candid man a real pleasure to see on the screen. John Cusack is
serviceable as the point-of-view character, but not the most
watchable actor on the screen. The actor who surpasses
expectations is Australian actor Jack Thompson as Williams's lawyer
Sonny Seilor. Some may remember Thompson as the supportive father
of a gay son in THE SUM OF US. Of a more comic turn is Savannah
personality The Lady Chablis whose minor secret seemed obvious to
me before the character even appeared on-screen. I strongly
suspected just hearing Chablis's voice through a door. It is
something of a false note when characters in the film are
surprised.
After I was bored by THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, I was not
expecting a lot from MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL. Now
I am sorry I was not able to see the film until after I made my top
ten list of last year. The film was a true unexpected pleasure. I
rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4
scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
Sometimes men come by the name of genius in the same
way that certain insects come by the name of centipede
-- not because they have a hundred feet, but because
most people can't count above fourteen.
-- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799),
"Reflections," 1799
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK