@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 03/10/00 -- Vol. 18, No. 37
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
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 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. Question: What was the shortest century in world history? It
was the 20th century. And why is that? Well, that is a really
good question. It is because it ended up being a year short. And
how did it end up being a year short? Pretty much a degradation in
the general intelligence of the population. Just about everywhere
I look there seems to be general acceptance that the new century is
already upon us. People keep referring to this and that being the
first of its kind in the new century or the new millennium. It has
come into common belief that the old century died the night of
December 31, 1999. After all at midnight the digits of the year
all went to zero except for the high order one, and it went from 1
to 2. All the TV shows have already run as to who were the most
influential people of the 20th century, what were the big events of
the 20th century, etc., ad nauseam.
First of all, are all the people perhaps right about when the
century changes? The answer to that question is a decided no.
There was no year zero in history. There is a 1 B.C.E. or B.C.,
followed by a 1 C.E. or 1 A.D. When a mathematician makes a list,
frequently he will start numbering with 0. That means that the one
digit numbers are all in the first decade. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9. Most of the rest of the world starts with 1. That is what
historians did numbering years. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. One
of these numbers is very different looking from the others. It is
a two-digit number. Its low order digit is a zero. But just
because it looks different is no guarantee that it really is not
part of the first decade. Try telling a clergyman that you are not
bound by the tenth commandment. Hey, I am allowed to covet
anything I want because ten is a two-digit number so the Ten
Commandments must end with the Ninth. But tell people that
centuries and millennia being only in years that start with 1 and
they will think you are nuts. "Any argument that you have to go
back to ancient history to prove probably has something wrong with
it. Besides, what difference does it make?" That is the way
people seem to think today.
In may interest you to know that there was some of the same thing
happening in 1899. There were people who thought that the new
century would start with 1900. And they were tittered at, not
unlike if they had spelling errors or they had left their flies
unfastened. And then someone would explain to them why the century
was not ending for another year. In general the public was well
aware that new centuries begin in years that end in 1s. But those
were days of different belief systems and perhaps even different
academic standards. There was a lot less discussion of personal
relationships in schools. There was a lot less of the philosophy
that there are many competing realities. People felt a little more
confident saying that something was so by definition and there is
no arguing to get around it. This is an age when we do not feel so
confident of firm statements. We tend to accept that ours is just
one reality and there are others. In some realities the century
ends with 2000 and in some it begins with that year. The belief is
that is the sort of issue about which there is some question.
Similarly there is the belief that the kindergarten class should
have been able to vote whether the class gerbil was a male or a
female, if you know that story. I am not saying that everything
was better in those days, but some things certainly were. And one
of the things seems to have been the public's general reasoning
power. People perhaps were not so great on questions of tolerance,
but at least they knew considerably better how to separate
questions of tolerance and those of solid truth.
Today, the common belief has gone in just the opposite direction.
There are a few people who still stick to the belief that the old
century still has most of a year to run. They are considered to
be--well--strange. The rest of the country has already had its new
century arrive. So if you follow public opinion, the last century
started with 1901 and ended with 1999, making it just 99 years
long. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. WONDER BOYS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: A "great novelist" and writing teacher
who has hit an unproductive streak comes to
terms with the aimlessness of his existence
when he finds a young student with a genuine
talent. Michael Douglas is cast counter to
type and Tobey McGuire plays the student. A
bittersweet look at life in the academic
community. Enjoyable, but not nearly up to
Curtis Hanson's L. A. CONFIDENTIAL. Rating: 6
(0 to 10), high +1 (-4 to +4)
Highly reminiscent of NOBODY'S FOOL, WONDER BOYS is another look at
a life unable to move forward--as if stuck in the snow of the cold
snowy town where the character lives. Both the town and the
character seem to have seen better days. But while Paul Newman's
character never achieved any greatness in NOBODY'S FOOL, Grady
Tripp (Michael Douglas) at least superficially appears to be living
a constructive life that only now is falling apart at the seams.
Tripp was at one time a great novelist. People were inspired by
the novel he wrote years ago. But his next novel, now about 2600
typed single-spaced pages, gets further and further from having its
plots tied up. Like the novel, Grady just wanders. And things are
falling apart. His wife has just left him and returned to live
with her parents.
In the meantime he still is teaching Creative Writing at a
Pittsburgh university. But Grady knows that he can teach no more
than the mechanics of writing. He is a man who for a living gives
useless advice to others while leaving no advice to himself
unignored. He is powerless to turn students into great writers,
but at least he can still recognize when one of his students is a
great writer. In this case he recognizes that divine spark in
James Leer (Tobey McGuire), an innocent young writer who seems to
have the spark of greatness. Grady will discover that James
perhaps is not so innocent as he appears.
WONDER BOYS is directed by Curtis Hanson from a screenplay by Steve
Kloves, based on the novel by Michael Chabon. Hanson's last film
was the beautifully textured L. A. CONFIDENTIAL. That film
marvelously captured the post-war feel of Los Angeles. Perhaps
WONDER BOYS does as good a job of capturing the academic community
in Pittsburgh, but even if he does, who cares? His academic world
is populated with strange characters and Grady himself is an
anachronism of the 1960s. He smokes pot and leads a Bohemian
life-style in a large ugly old house such as one frequently finds
on Eastern campuses. Grady carries on an affair with Sara (Francis
McDormand) the university chancellor and wife of the head of the
English Department and Grady's boss (Richard Thomas, who seems
typecast after THE WALTONS to play literary types).
This weekend is Wordfest, an annual event at the university when
one-time good writers and their fans get together to admire the
sound of their own words. It seems at first as if we are to take
it seriously, but it takes one sharp giggle form Leer to make us
realize that we are really seeing a convocation of emperors without
clothes. The head of the English department has revenge against
Leer, misreading the title of Leer's novel to make it sound banal.
Through most of the film the very randomness and unpredictability
of the plot gives it a realistic tone. Unfortunately unlike
Grady's novel, clearly someone realized that the ends had to be
tied up and a fairly contrived incident toward the end of the film
shakes Grady from his status quo. But until then Grady is really
afraid to let his life move on. He is a coward. While he has an
obvious paternal side, caring very warming for Leer, he is afraid
of parenthood. Having proved himself once he exaggerates the
effort necessary for the next step in order to avoid taking it. It
is better to look like he is attempting a huge feat than to
actually proceed and risk failure. In this way he can have failure
imposed on him by others. The is a very different character for
Michael Douglas than those he has played before.
In spite of the disappointing contrived-seeming ending, WONDER BOYS
does ring true as a picture of the academic literary community. I
rate it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4
scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. THE CUP (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: The first film from Bhutan will win no
prizes for inventive plotting. In a Tibetan
monastery in exile in India the mischievous
young monks want to break with centuries of
tradition and to see the World Cup
Championship. The plot is new packaging for
old plot elements. Not all of the messages of
this film were necessarily intended. Rating: 6
(0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)
Typically the first film from a filmmaker or from a country is a
simple one. One starts with baby steps and learns to walk before
one can run. Directed and written by Khyentse Norbu, THE CUP is a
simple little story of a tiny piece of the outside world coming to
a Tibetan monastery in exile in Northern India.
The film opens showing the daily life in a Tibetan monastery. It
may not be intended but the primary message of these scenes is that
the life of a monk is one of monotony that would drive the rest of
us crazy. At least there are interesting characters to flesh out
the tedium like a monastery soothsayer who gets little respect from
anyone. In the daily routine there is cooking and prayer and
occasional exercise. Nothing drives home the monotony better than a
scene in which visitors have arrived. The abbot and some high
monks talk to them. The monks are in the traditional yellow and
maroon robes. The curtains are in the same yellow as the robes,
the luggage is in the same maroon. One's eye searches in vain for
a break in the color scheme.
The young monks like to play football with anything available. The
quality of life would seem to be stultifyingly dull if it were not
for the young monks' interest in football. In the case we see it
is a Coke can. The monks paste on their walls pictures of their
football heroes. Four of the young monks even sneak into town to
watch the semi-finals on TV. This is all done under the stern but
loving eye of Geko (Orgyen Tobgyal), sort of the vice-principal or
house-father of the monastery. One of the new arrivals gets an
idea that perhaps they can rent a TV and an antenna and see the
World Cup Finals from the monastery. The question is taken to the
old abbot who does not seem to quite understand the concept of a
game. (He must indeed be and old man to have forgotten games. The
young monks play them all the time.)
When the abbot agrees there are but ten hours until the game will
be on. In that time there are several obstacles to be overcome.
First of all there is the question of how to pay for the rental.
The must figure how to move the dish. Once they have it they must
set it up with no technical experience. There are come
complications as the greed of the TV dealer almost ruins the night
for the young monk who planned it. He scalps what money he can
from the young monks and misdirects them. Norbu seems less than
respectful toward Indians.
The plot of kids sneaking out of boarding school and getting into
trouble has been a staple of films going back at least to silent
film. So have head masters who seemed gruff disciplinarians but at
heart love their charges and are old softies. Certainly the
revelation that holy people can be interested in something as
mundane as sports is not original either. In a film from any other
origins with this plot would seem cliched. Norbu does not give us
any new slant beyond the setting. This is a film that is
moderately entertaining but not very original at all.
It is, however, the very first feature film from Bhutan. It might
be fairer to say that it is a Bhutan-Australia co-production. To
paraphrase Dr. Johnson, it is not Norbu has made a great film, it
is just interesting that Bhutan has made a film at all. Here Norbu
has given us enough of a look into the daily life of a Tibetan monk
to convince us that that life is not for most of us. And he has
told us a small, simple, likable story. The story is based on a
real incident we are told, though the copyright notice at the end
denies it. Still as a film from Bhutan, it is a good start.
Welcome to the majors. I rate it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1
on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. SWEET AND LOWDOWN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Take a 95-minute movie. Deduct time
for several musical numbers. Film three
endings for a sub-story (none of them very
good). What you have left is just not enough
time to tell anything more than a superficial
morality plot. Surprisingly popular with the
critics, this is a shallow tale of a fictional
legendary jazz guitarist who ruins his life
being totally selfish and self-obsessed. Allen
short-changes us on character development by
taking long timeouts for musical sequences in
an already short film. The jokes are often
weak, the characters mostly one-dimensional,
and only the jazz is up to snuff. Rating: 4 (0
to 10), low 0 (-4 to +4)
Woody Allen seems to be as popular as ever with the public and with
the critics, but I have to say that these days he and I seem to be
on very different wavelengths. His last few films seem to me to be
superficially written without any real characters. His humor is
contrived and weak, and his ideas lack ginger. Allen could have
phoned in the script for SWEET AND LOWDOWN. It is little more than
an excuse to tie together the musical interludes. In a film
already short at 95 minutes, he puts several musical sequences.
Then he takes what could have been one of his patented silly
situations and works it out three different ways, not one of them
amusing. After he wastes that much time he has less plot and
character development than a typical hour of television. And what
is his theme? If you are not a nice person you might end up
cheating yourself. Where is the filmmaker who made LOVE AND DEATH
and the intelligent CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
Emmet Ray (Sean Penn), as the film opens, is a pimp and a totally
selfish personality. Favorite hobbies are watching trains and
shooting rats. He happens to be the second best jazz guitarist in
the world, second to the great Django Reinhardt. His fictional
story is told, in the style REDS, by a combination of
dramatizations and by witness interviews by experts on jazz, one of
whom is Allen himself.
As if having been given a monstrous talent was not enough Ray is
given a perfect girlfriend, Hattie (Samantha Morton). She just
sort of falls into his lap as he meets her on the Atlantic City
boardwalk. Hattie is a mute laundress and she is beautiful.
Hattie is utterly in love with him and transformed by his music.
Ray is too selfish and stupid to bring himself to treat her at all
well, cheating on her when the opportunity arises and worse
insulting her to her face. After living with her about a year he
walks out on her in what should be a key scene, but one that Allen
seemingly did not bother to film. Instead we learn about it from
the witnesses. He has left her for Blanche (Uma Thurman), a writer
with a majestic look and an affected mode of speaking. But
eventually there is a reckoning.
Allen has cameos for a number of celebrities, some as jazz experts
playing themselves, or as with the case of John Waters, just as a
character. Penn seems to do Emmet Ray as effortlessly as Ray does
jazz guitar. His guitar picking somehow looks right, though he is
not credited with any of the music. Much more notable is Samantha
Morton as Blanche. Her acting keeps ones eyes focussed on the
screen. Screen actors convey most of the plot through their
voices. In the vast majority of films, audiences get most of the
plot listening to the soundtrack. If one is given the choice of
hearing but not seeing or seeing but not hearing a familiar film,
one quickly finds that for most films, the former is the more
satisfying experience. Silent acting has a different sort of
dynamic and really grabs the audience's attention. The result is
that Hattie is by orders of magnitude the most compelling character
in the film. Morton brings to the role virtues that might have
been mundane in the silent era, but which seem memorable in a sound
film.
As Allen gets older he seems more and more to be writing about
flawed people who have really ruined their personal lives. It
would be easy to interpret his characters as any given time as
being a commentary on his own behavior. Clint Eastwood does the
same sort of thing, but at least his film plots seem to be better
developed. SWEET AND LOWDOWN is a superficial morality play that
needed considerably more work. I rate it a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale
and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
The nice thing about being a celebrity is that
when you bore people, they think it's their
fault.
-- Henry Kissinger
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK