@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 03/27/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 39
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.xvt.com/users/kevink/silo/. Take an
abandoned missile base VR tour. [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. Many years ago I used to see ads from the sugar industry that
said that of the four basic flavors--sweet, sour, bitter, and
salty--we are born liking sweet the best. I have given those ads a
lot of thought. At first brush that predilection seems like a very
good thing. Back over the long millennia that humans were evolving
we needed fast energy to escape predators. And we got fast energy
from sugars that tasted sweet. The flavor that gave us the most
pleasure happened to have a survival value. Now is that a chance
coincidence? Or have we bred a species that likes sweet because
most of the ancestors who did not like the flavor sweet had less of
a chance to survive their predators?
The question becomes whether other animals taste things the same as
we do. Does what tastes bitter to us taste bitter to a sheep?
Sheep like to eat grass. To you and me grass tastes bitter. And
bitter is an unpleasant flavor for us. Sheep like the flavor of
grass. Now, does that mean that they really get some pleasure from
things that taste bitter to them or that perhaps grass tastes sweet
to sheep? It could well be that whatever flavor is most beneficial
to a species over millions of years will eventually come through
the process of natural selection to stimulate the pleasure centers
of the brain and to taste sweet. And for that species that flavor
of grass will be sweet while it tastes bitter to us. Sweet will be
for each species the flavor that stimulates the pleasure centers.
So to a sheep, grass may actually taste sweet, but maple syrup may
taste bland or even bitter. For humans, I have heard, the
molecules that taste sweet are those that have a C-shape. When
looking for new artificial sweeteners one looks for the ones with
C-shaped molecules. These fool the human tongue into thinking they
are high-energy sugars.
Where in nature can we find some evidence? I noticed long ago at
company picnics that non-diet sodas tend to attract bees. Our
company picnics tended to be at a local bee-infested park. People
would drink from cans only to discover that a bee has flown into
the can and now has decided to fight for its life rather than
getting sucked down. The result was the occasional swollen lips.
On the other hand the diet sodas were a lot safer. Bees were not
attracted to them. The bee could tell that was not the same as
sugar in the drink. So while a diet soda may seem to be sweet to
us, it apparently does not taste the same to a bee.
If you want to keep squirrels out of a bird feeder there is a
commercial product you can add to the bird seed that repels
squirrels but is not repellent to birds. It turns out it is spicy
red pepper seed. Squirrels are used to bland foods and do not like
spicy Szechwan bird seed. Birds don't seem to care. Perhaps they
do not have the pain receptors. It is also possible that a bird is
so stupid that it does not realize the pain it is feeling is a
result of what it is eating. So this is inconclusive.
In the wild, baboons will eat cakes of salt like candy. In fact,
that is how you find water. Baboons will try to keep secret their
supply of water. If you need to find water you leave salt cakes
out where the baboons will find them. They eat the salt like candy
and then get very thirsty. They will forget all about keeping
their water source secret and will head straight for it to get a
drink. You just have to follow one and you will find water. The
person who told me said that the salt tastes to the baboon like
candy. I wonder if he was more correct than he thought. The salt
may taste sweet to the baboon or the baboon may just like a salty
taste.
This is one of those philosophical questions we may never know. I
cannot know if things taste the same to you as they do to me. In
an Orwellian sense, even our language sabotages our investigating
that question. If I like a food and you do not, does it really
taste different or is it all just a matter of taste? We maybe will
never know. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. LOVE AND DEATH ON LONG ISLAND (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: A prominent British author becomes
infatuated with young American heartthrob
actor. He travels to Long Island to find the
actor. John Hurt gives a good performance, but
the film is too leaden to work as a comedy and
but is not serious enough to work as good
drama. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
New York Critics: 14 positive, 1 negative, 2
mixed
Thomas Mann's short intense psychological novel DEATH IN VENICE is
unlikely material for a contemporary comedy-drama. And while
nothing in the credits or publicity acknowledges the connection,
that would seem that that is the basis for this updated story
taking place in London and Long Island.
Giles De'Ath (played by John Hurt) is one of the great living
English authors, his ivory tower insulating him from anything
modern, just the way he likes it. An unlikely series of events
puts him in a movie theater showing a cinematic trifle called HOT
PANTS COLLEGE II. Giles is about to turn away from the film in
disgust when he notices Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley). Bostock
is an attractive young actor who simply put infatuates Giles.
Now Giles has a reason to get interested in the technology of the
20th Century. He wants to see all of Bostock's films. Like a fish
out of water he wades in to try to understand the intricacies of
renting films and of understanding the home video revolution. He
wants to see every film ever made by Bostock. And an unpromising
assortment it is. But Giles is unsatisfied by worshipping from
afar. Instead De'Ath takes a holiday and hops a plane for the
United States to find the actor and then to insinuate himself into
Bostock's life. First he has to find where Bostock lives. Then he
approaches first Bostock's live-in girlfriend, Audrey (Fiona
Loewi). And finally he will move in on Bostock himself. None of
this is easy for the man in both an unfamiliar place and time.
Audrey is impressed by the stature of this famous writer so
fascinated by her boyfriend, but she little guesses the trouble it
can cause.
The major attraction of the film is John Hurt's performance, which
manages to combine sinister and pitiable aspects. He is a stalker
bedeviled by his ignorance of the modern world. The film is an
uneasy mix of the resulting comic situations with the tragedy of
the Thomas Mann novel. It is not clear how much comic potential
this story could have had, but Richard Kwietniowski's screenplay
and direction seem leaden. The humor is just a bit off somehow.
Jason Priestley plays a callow but empty actor whose questionable
career echoes his Priestley's own. Fiona Loewi has a little more
depth to her part, but it clearly is Hurt's film for whatever he
can salvage from it.
The film is shot by Oliver Curtis who manages to give three
distinct visual styles to the film, one for London, one for Long
Island, and a third one for the excerpts we see of Bostock's crude
filmography.
What we have is a bleak and downbeat comedy that never really gets
off the ground. I rate it a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +1 on
the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. MR. NICE GUY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: As usual there is more stunt than
story to Chan's latest adventure. That
approach plays to Jackie Chan's strength:
having the greatest attention lavished on the
stunts while the plot is more an afterthought.
The characters are thin, the story is stale and
familiar, but the audience is entertained.
However, once again Chan injured himself in the
making of the film and he uses machinery rather
than his own skill in the final battle.
Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)
It is difficult to evaluate a Jackie Chan film like one evaluates
other films. Was the plot any good? Well no, it was pretty lame
actually. Was the acting any good? Well, no, that was not so hot
either. Chan has a lot of personality--more so than just about any
of the martial artists who regularly star in films--but that is not
the same thing as acting. Acting has to do with giving the viewer
insights deep into a type of personality or it can be just playing
a certain type of person very authentically. However, there is
nothing very deep about the personalities Chan plays. And since I
doubt there is anyone really like a Chan character, the whole
question of whether he is doing a good job of acting is moot. Does
a Chan film have good cinematography? Well, it probably is no easy
task to keep in the frame of the camera a moving target like Chan.
And there is some okay location scenery of (in this case)
Melbourne, Australia. But it hardly is what anyone would consider
good camerawork. All of what one thinks of as the usual virtues of
a movie do not apply to a Jackie Chan film besides the general fact
that it is entertaining.
The virtues of a Jackie Chan film are not those of a film, they are
the virtues of a circus performance. Are there fabulous stunts in
the film? Is it impressive that a human being can do what his
character does? Are the movements smooth and graceful and well
staged? There are the virtues one expects of more from Ringling
Brothers than from Warner Brothers. I am sure when a new Chan film
is being considered choosing the stunts is the first order of
business. Then a minimal story is written to tie the stunts
together.
In this outing Chan plays a chef on Melbourne television. The
irony of having a martial artist in such a delicate profession as
cooking is already familiar from the UNDER SIEGE films. In any
case Jackie seem equally adept at delivering a well-done karate
chop and a well-done lamb chop. After a cooking show broadcast one
day Jackie is returning to his car when he sees a damsel in
distress being chased by thugs. He jumps in and saves the woman
and quicker than a three-minute egg he finds himself in the middle
of a three-way war between two rival gangs and the police. There
is a plot with a missing incriminating videotape and some
unexplained detective work by the baddies who have an uncanny
ability to find Chan and the people under his protection wherever
they hide. After several confrontations Chan gets angry enough and
brings his enemies to a crushing defeat.
The story is pretty basic stuff, but does anyone REALLY care about
the plot? Chan fans probably want to know what kinds of action
scenes there are and what kinds of props does Chan use. The
centerpiece is probably a sequence with a horse carriage. There
are some sequences with power tools including that old standard of
villainous menace, the buzz saw. And at one point Jackie takes on
a giant earth-moving machine. There is a comic bit in a building
under construction that has only walls and doors.
Some people were disappointed with the conclusion of Chan's RUMBLE
IN THE BRONX. Instead of having a climactic martial arts battle,
Chan let a hovercraft do the fighting for him. That history
repeats itself for MR. NICE GUY. Reportedly Chan suffered a neck
injury in the shooting. Again the audience does not get the final
fight between Chan and villain and a convenient vehicle does the
real fighting for Chan. Perhaps Jackie Chan is nearing the end of
his run and is discovering he can no longer take the risks he has
in the past. Time is catching up with him.
A film like this deserves multiple ratings. The stunts are
enjoyable to watch and little else really matters to someone who
would come to see a Jackie Chan film. The film is pretty much
interchangeable with any other Jackie Chan film. For those who
like this sort of thing, go for it. I give MR. NICE GUY a 6 on the
0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
Love is only a dirty trick played on us
to achieve the continuation of the species.
-- W. Somerset Maugham