@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 01/22/99 -- Vol. 17, No. 30
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 2E-537 732-957-6330 robmitchell@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
201-447-3652 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.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/div3/pluto.shtml. The web page of
the IAU (International Astronomical Union) discussing whether
Pluto's status should change from planet to Trans-Neptunian Object.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
Last week I was discussing my impression that dogs are actually no
longer the species that occur in nature, but after living in human
society they have forced themselves to become an amalgam of human
and animal, not unlike the creatures in H. G. Wells's THE ISLAND OF
DR. MOREAU.
There are some things that make dogs have a different viewpoint
than we do. They have a different stature. They go through life
in our world looking up at things. They don't see the tops of
tables, they see the underside. They live in a world in which
their fates are controlled by creatures that tower over them the
way trees tower over us. In fact it is worse than the way trees
tower over us because the most expressive part of the towering
creatures is at the very top. And it gets even worse. A dog's
anatomy is just not very good for looking up. Oh, they can do it,
but their necks are really designed for them to look straight ahead
or down. Imagine what a literal pain in the neck it would be if a
lot of you information input was coming from about nine feet up.
Whatever else human society offers dogs, it does not offer very
good ergonomics.
The other thing making even domesticated dogs very different is the
very different sensory balance and the fact that dogs are probably
not even aware that they have a different balance. I wonder if
bloodhounds ever get frustrated that we don't just sniff out things
for ourselves. But the fact is that a dog's sense of smell is so
much more acute than ours is that it almost is a different sense.
The difference is analogous to the difference of living in a world
of black and white or super-saturated Technicolor, multiplied by
1000. It is even more than that difference because being able to
perceive color because we get very little useful information from
our color perception. A color-blind man can pretty much pass for
having normal sight under most circumstances. But a dog's mind is
flooded with information about the world that we cannot detect. A
dog just automatically knows things like what part of the house you
have been in, what you ate at your last meal, and whether you have
a cut on your hand. And one very strong smell does not deaden
their ability to detect subtle aromas.
Dogs' eyes are somewhat weaker, though Elizabeth Marshall Thompson
in her THE HIDDEN LIFE OF DOGS says they are much better at picking
up on body language than humans are. They know your mood by your
bearing. But a dog's eyes must be weaker than ours are if for no
other reason than they cannot get corrective lenses. There is odd
information about a dog's color perception. Dogs do not have the
rods and cones in their eyes that would allow color perception.
When I was growing up the word was that dogs definitely do not see
colors. Then somebody actually tested it. I suppose you could
have an experiment where dogs are rewarded for finding green
objects but not red ones. What was discovered was that dogs had
weak color-perception. Why a dog has any color perception at all
could not be explained.
But in spite of these differences I have always wondered a little
why canine intelligence has seemed so similar to human
intelligence. One gets the intuitive belief that dogs think very
much like us. A dog's mind seems not all that different from that
of a human or at least what a human would have if he also had a
dog's anatomy. Why I find that strange is that I most definitely
do not feel that all humans are that similar to us. We humans, it
seemed to me, have a tendency to overrate the difference between
humans and dogs and tend to underrate the degree of variation in
humans. The Disney idea that it is a small world after all and we
are all really alike is far more the product of wishful thinking
from an armchair philosopher than one based on actual observation.
In fact I think the aborigine of Australia LIVING IN HIS OWN
SOCIETY has a very different mind from my own. Yet I get just the
opposite feeling for a dog living in our society. I had a hard
time resolving those two opinions. But I am coming to accept both.
First, the dog is much more similar than the expectation is that he
would be. The aborigine is much less similar than the expectation
says he would be. But of course they are two very different
expectations.
But that does not account for the entire phenomenon. The key is
that dogs raised in human society in China understand tonal
language and I do not. Dogs raised in China will have similarity
to Chinese people. Dogs raised in America are not wolves and wild
dogs in different surroundings. They pick up our culture and
really are like Moreau's creation an amalgam of the animal and the
human. Having been raised in our society they may actually have
minds closer to ours than have the aborigines who were raised and
adapted to a very different culture. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. THE THIN RED LINE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Heavy on mood and texture, light on
plot, this is sort of an APOCALYPSE NOW for
World War II. It combines frightening
realistic battle sequences with a sort of
post-war literary style. The narrative is
blunted by having far too many characters to
keep straight. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4
to +4). A non-spoiler section at the end of
the review places the events of this film in an
historical context.
New York Critics: 12 positive, 1 negative, 6
mixed
"There's only a thin red line between the sane and the mad." That
is supposedly an old Midwestern saying. From it James Jones took
the title of his semi-autobiographical novel based on his
experiences in the Infantry Company C on Guadalcanal. That book
was adapted into a movie by Andrew Marton in 1964. Now Terrence
Malick, who has not made a film for two decades but who made the
moody BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN, has filmed it a second time.
The story follows Company C and their experiences on Guadalcanal.
There is very little real plot for a film of this length, about
three hours. Basically the film simply has a company of soldiers
comes to the island, has a hard fight against the Japanese, and
finally leaves. We get to know the characters through their
interaction and hearing their thoughts on the soundtrack. Their
thoughts may well be accurate to the novel, but they are a little
too poetic to be believed.
Commanding the action in Lt. Col. Gordon Tall (played by Nick
Nolte). Tall is a bitter man past the age when most men retire
from command but wanting to have command in a battle to prove
himself. "The closer you are to Caesar the greater the fear," Tall
thinks to himself. It is not entirely clear what he means by that,
but it is the sort of think most of the soldiers seem to think to
themselves. One soldier Bell (Ben Chaplin) thinks endlessly about
his wife and we have inter-cut dreamlike scenes of her and of the
two of them together. He has turned her into sort of the idealized
woman. He remembers her over and over, her and his memories of
telling her that if anything will happen to him, "I will wait for
you on the other side of the dark waters." It is hard to believe
GIs talked or thought like this.
The film goes from one character to the next as we hear their
thoughts and see how they react to the experience. There are plot
developments, like a conflict between Tall and commanding Captain
Staros (Elias Koteas), but the point of the film is mood, not to
tell a story. One of the problems with THE THIN RED LINE is that
it is hard to keep so many characters straight on a single viewing.
The names are new and so are most of the important faces. And it
does not help that the viewer that he is seeing them in army
helmets that cover up the top part of the head. There are some
major stars in this film, but frequently they will appear in what
amount to cameo roles. John Travolta and George Clooney appear in
one scene each. Sean Penn is recognizable and has a larger role as
a nasty sergeant who tells an idealistic soldier, "We are living in
a world where man is trying to blow himself up as fast as he can
arrange it. Just shut your eyes and take it." Frequently we are
shut out of what is really happening. In one case we see one of
the soldiers on the transport yelling for a door to be opened, but
are given no explanation what that is all about.
The film is an uneasy balance of style and realism. While the
scenes of battle are very realistic, much of the credibility is
sacrificed by having the characters think in the free verse we hear
in the voice-overs. Somehow it is not believable that when a
soldier is in great danger, tracking through the high grass,
constantly on the lookout for an enemy who could appear at any
time, that he thinks in poetry. Far more than the novel, the film
takes advantage of its location in the Melanesia tropical forest.
Some of the nature photography is top notch. The film opens with
an extended image of a crocodile submerging into water, giving the
nature a sinister side. It is inviting but deadly. One
interviewed veteran I have heard soldier says that he does not
remember there being as much high grass but the sound editor uses
it to create a lush feel to the film. Hans Zimmer, who has scored
several films with African themes over the past several years, has
provided a score that sounds as African as anything he has written.
Whether this sound is authentic to the Solomon Islands is
questionable.
The film is a powerful experience, one that undoubtedly captures
much of the feel of battle in a new hyper-realistic style. But
much of the film does not work or at least requires multiple
viewings to take in. I rate the film 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a
low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The stories in THE THIN RED LINE are from the point of view of
soldier who did not see "the big picture." This film had little of
the actual history surrounding this battle. Here is what was
missing from the film. In 1942 Japanese military spearheaded south
and captured the Solomon Islands, bringing the war almost to
Australia's doorstep. Queensland, Australia, was just 1000 miles
to the southwest. It was vitally important to the Japanese that
they disrupt Allied Forces in the area or they would be pushed
easily back out. To avoid this they needed a base from which to
launch air attacks against Allied supply lines. They built their
air base on Guadalcanal Island. New Evidence suggests that as
early as five years previously, and before the war started, they
had planned for what they saw was the coming war and were stocking
Guadalcanal to hold the island.
On August 7, 1942, the day the United States had been in the war
only eight months, the United States sent in 6000 Marines to
capture the island, never expecting it would be a major battle.
Repeatedly each side brought in reinforcements as the battle grew,
first one side and then the other. The fighting spread from the
island to a navy battle in the surrounding sea. The Japanese were
well-entrenched and very difficult to dislodge. The natural
protections of the Japanese and the malarial jungles took a heavy
toll on the Allies. The Allied forces here were 90% American. The
fighting extended from August 1942 to January 1943. Naval
superiority eventually decided the battle for the Americans.
The effect upon the Pacific War was profound. There were 1600
Americans killed and another 4200 wounded. There were 7100
casualties in total. But the Japanese losses were more terrible.
There were 14,000 Japanese killed or wounded. Another 9000 died of
disease or starvation. About a thousand were captured.
Guadalcanal together with Midway were really the turning of the
tide of the Pacific War. At Guadalcanal the Americans proved the
Japanese could make mistakes and could be beaten. Victory is
usually the result of a combination of skill and luck. And at
Guadalcanal the American forces could feel they had defeated the
Japanese through genuine military skill unlike at Midway where the
Japanese were beaten not as much by the Allies and much more by an
incredible run of really bad luck. But these two great Japanese
losses really sealed the fate of the Japanese in the Pacific War.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
3. HILARY AND JACKIE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Melodrama and beautiful music mix in a
story loosely based on the relationship of
Jacqueline and Hilary Du Pre, two sister
musicians of very different degrees of success.
Well-worn themes of sibling jealousy, the high
price of fame and success, the comparative
rewards of the simple life out of the public
eye, and family tragedy combine in Frank
Cottrell Boyce's screenplay, based on a novel
by Hilary and her brother Piers. The film is
entertaining and well-produced but falls short
of its high reputation. Rating: 6 (0 to 10),
high +1 (-4 to +4)
New York Critics: 9 positive, 0 negative, 4
mixed
From those who would make great music the gods extract a heavy
toll. How many times have we seen this in film? We have seen this
in films from A SONG TO REMEMBER to AMADEUS, SHINE, and this
season's HILARY AND JACKIE. But the latter actually may be closer
to a RICH AND FAMOUS or a BEACHES in plotting. It give us the
lives of two women, lifelong friends (in this case sisters) and
follows one through fame and fortune and the other through the
simple life, concluding at the end that celebrity is not worth its
price. And it tells this story, as SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS would say,
"with a little bit of sex." If this was the first film we had ever
seen on these themes it would get full marks. But there have been
surprisingly many similar stories. The film is supposed to be the
true story of Hilary and cello master Jacqueline Du Pre, but a
heavy set of disclaimers in the closing credits suggest that it may
not be even that.
The film opens with the two as children with a mother (Celia Imrie)
who endows both with love and a sense of wonder for music. We see
her transcribing and leaving them by their beds overnight new
melodies for them to discover and excitedly play in the morning.
Hilary is older and more accomplished on the flute. Jacqueline can
barely get a decent melody out of her cello. Hilary gets attention
for her flute skills, little Jackie feels left out and determines
to catch up with her sister. So her abilities have to develop at a
faster rate and they continue to do so. Soon the two are
recognized as award-winning musical prodigies, though now it is
Hilary who is jealous of the attention paid to Jacqueline. Both
girls learned from their mother the supposed bad habit of putting
too much body expression into their playing. To them playing is
almost a little bit of dance. Jacqueline gets a good teacher who
is tolerant of the body language. Hilary's teacher is an ogre who
is intolerant of her having so much fun with her playing. The
teacher ruins the joy of her playing. The film splits in two
paths. First it tells the story of Hilary, the quiet young woman
with a famous sister. While Jacqueline travels the world with
apparent disdain for her family, Hilary wistfully follows her
sister's career. She meets a man, falls in love, and then has her
sister re-enters her life, a different and disturbed person. The
film then returns to the splitting and tells the story of
Jacqueline Du Pre and why she is so unhappy with her fame and
remains envious of Hilary.
It has been suggested that this film puts the Du Pre parents and
Jacqueline's husband, Daniel Barenboim, in a bad light. It is true
that there is something unfavorable about each of them at some
point in the film. The Du Pre parents are not shown to be perfect,
but then what parents are? Certainly Mrs. Du Pre is the source of
the genius of her daughters. Her husband is a bit obtuse at times,
but not destructively. A little more of the film's criticism is
reserved for Barenboim as Jacqueline's husband, but on balance he
seems to be a more devoted and more reasonable spouse than
Jacqueline was. There is little that Daniel does to Jacqueline
that Jacqueline has not done to Daniel first.
Jacqueline Du Pre is played by Emily Watson of BREAKING THE WAVES,
whose two big films have been about sexually disturbed women. Both
films have allowed her to play women who are confused and a little
opaque. It is hard to say if this is really good acting or not
since the women she plays are so unusual. There are far more ways
to be something out of the ordinary than to be commonplace. Rachel
Griffiths as Hilary may have had the more difficult role, having to
seem normal but playing off her strange sister.
HILARY AND JACKIE is more melodrama than serious drama. It is not
exactly what would have been expected from the positive reaction
this film has been getting. But even melodrama can be done well
and as such films go, this is one of the better ones. Some of the
music is superlative. I rate it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a
high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing
opinion we hold of ourselves with the appalling things
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK