@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 7/7/00 -- Vol. 19, No. 1
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. Universal Studios has been bringing out on videocassette all of
major horror films of the 1930s and 1940s. This is the studio that
gave us Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein monster and Bela Lugosi
as Dracula. Later they added Lon Chaney, Jr., as the Wolf Man.
And of course they had dozens of other horror films less memorable.
The problem is that most of these films have become familiar to
film audiences. After the initial sales, the cassettes were no
longer bringing in much money. They started re-releasing the
cassettes with the original trailers and poster art. I cannot
imagine doing this did much to boost flagging sales. It also
alienated some of their buyers. Why did they not use the original
poster art in the first place? They certainly had the rights to
it.
As part of this sales effort they released two novelty cassettes.
The first was the Spanish-language DRACULA. What exactly this film
is takes some explanation. Silent films had an international
market. Just edit in new dialog cards and the same film that
played in New York could play in New Guinea. One of the expenses
of introducing sound film was that the foreign language market in
large part went away. One early answer to this problem was to film
two different versions of a film, one in English and one in
Spanish. When Tod Browning's original DRACULA was being filmed
during the day, a Spanish-language crew would come in during the
night and use the same sets but a different cast for a Spanish-
language version of much the same film. Most of the production was
the same but it was a different director and a different set of
actors. Several critics, with some justification, have expressed
the opinion that the Spanish-language version DRACULA really was
the better of the two versions. Certainly the Spanish version is a
piece of film history many fans were curious to see.
The second novelty release is less of an artifact. Tod Browning
directed DRACULA with almost no music. That was a stylistic
choice. It has been suggested that no film made in 1930 had much
music. That is simply not true. But for mood purposes Browning
simply did not score the film. World-famous composer Philip Glass
saw the film and decided that it would be interesting to go back
today and score the original version of DRACULA. He would write a
score and have it played by the Kronos Quartet and then his music
could be mixed with the film. The result is very revealing about
the process of scoring a film and about what a score does for a
film.
I might have a different opinion if this was the only version of
the film I had ever seen but my first reaction is that this is very
nearly the worst scored film I have ever experienced. The film
LIVING IN OBLIVION made the interesting point that a film
director's responsibilities include restraining actors from
stealing scenes to the detriment of the overall quality of the
film. The Glass DRACULA makes the point that with a director dead
and unable to leave his coffin--even at night--there is nobody to
restrain the film composer from running away with the film.
And running away with the film is certainly what Glass seems to
have done. Glass's style is repetitive and almost mechanical. His
music might have worked better with MODERN TIMES with its emphasis
on machines and mechanical lifestyles. Nobody could have hoped
that his modern style could have possibly meshed with DRACULA. The
feeling is always that the music is continuing independently or
almost oblivious of the action on the screen. Minor dramatic
moments seem ignored by the score. If the entire scene is at a
higher tension than the music in that scene will all be at the same
higher level. But this is not how the scoring should work.
On the positive side the repetitiveness of Glass's score has an
almost hypnotic effect. It tends to draw one in and at the same
time dull the senses. Because Dracula has this same sort of power,
while failing to work on the most obvious levels, in some ways it
does work on a deeper level. The film itself was never intended to
put the viewer in a trance. Just the opposite it was in its time
supposed to be a tense and gruesome experience. The effect now is
almost hypnotic. So this is not the feel intended, but in a sense
it does delve into the state of Dracula's victims.
One distraction is that the film must have had a constant hiss on
the soundtrack due to its recording techniques and perhaps that age
of the film. The hiss has been cleaned up on stretches where
nobody is speaking, but it starts again whenever there is sound
from the original film on the soundtrack. This film borrows much
from silent film and there are some long silent sequences. But the
coming and going of the hiss is more an annoyance than if it had
been left on the track.
I really did try to get some enjoyment from what Philip Glass tried
to do with this film, but it always felt Glass wanted the film to
be an illustration of his music, like a music video, rather than a
mood enhancement for the film. At one point in the story Van
Helsing uses a mirror to prove who is the vampire and concludes
"Dracula has no reflection in the glass." A little harsh, but I
would agree DRACULA has little or no reflection in the Glass. [-
mrl]
===================================================================
2. THE PATRIOT (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: THE PATRIOT is a big movie with some
big virtues and big faults. It is a long film
with handsome production values and some subtle
script touches, but too many of the episodes
seem borrowed from children's TV adventures.
Still it is nice to see someone making the
Revolutionary War exciting. THE PATRIOT is at
the very least entertaining with a very nice
look and some valuable history. Rating: 7 (0
to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4)
The story begins in 1776. While certain of the American colonists
are engaged in declaring their independence from Britain, the
British are finding it almost impossible to engage the colonists'
army on the battlefield. The Americans know almost nothing about
fighting and if it could be brought to a European style battle, the
British are almost certain they could bring the rebellion to a
quick end. (As one of the British in the film puts it, "These
rustics are so inept it nearly takes the honor out of winning.")
The British have to try a new approach. Their ace in the hole is
the unpopularity of the rebellion in the southern colonies like the
Carolinas. If they can sweep from the south, pick up southern
support and sweep north with it, they can probably capture the
Continental Army. To do this they take Charleston and, reinforced
by locals, are ready for the northward sweep. Locally the
operation is led by General Cornwallis.
Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson) is a South Carolina farmer.
He fought Indians and French in the Indian wars and came out a war
hero, but at the same time he is a man hating what the wars had
done to him. Now he is a widower with seven children who wants no
part of war. He watches in fear as the British and the Americans
fight. He refuses to give his support to the rebellion even though
his eldest child Gabriel (Australian Heath Ledger) is anxious to
fight the British. Colonel Harry Burwell (Chris Cooper), a war
buddy of Benjamin's, leads the locals. Finally Benjamin lets
Gabriel join up. As the months pass the war gets closer and closer
to the Martin Farm. But it takes Gabriel's return, wounded and
with army dispatches, to bring his father into the war. The
merciless Col. William Tavington (Jason Isaacs) finds Gabriel at
the farm and against the rules of war sentences him to hang. In a
feeble attempt to resist, a brother is killed and Tavington orders
the house razed to the ground. Benjamin knows less feeble ways to
resist and is at long last drawn into the seemingly impossible
conflict. Soon he is a rebel leader hiding in the swamps and known
by the nickname "the Ghost" and putting some of the honor back into
the winning.
If all this sounds like the beginnings of a children's movie,
perhaps a reframing of adventures of Robin Hood, the facts will
certainly bear that interpretation. There are many good things
about THE PATRIOT, but the core of the plot is not one of them.
There are episodes in this film one would expect from a children's
TV show. While there are some nice battlefield scenes, when
Benjamin fights the British hand-to-hand, they are far too easy to
beat. One shot and they are dead. It is almost like knocking down
nine-pins. People are a lot harder to kill than that. Benjamin
Martin is in part based on Francis Marion, nicknamed "the Swamp
Fox." A part of preparation I did to see this film was to watch
Walt Disney's THE SWAMP FOX, starring Leslie Nielson. This is by
far the nicer production but at heart I would put the two stories
on a par with each other. The film is directed by Roland Emmerich
and produced by him and Dean Devlin. This is the team responsible
for STARGATE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and GODZILLA. They consciously aim
films at a level of young teenagers, and THE PATRIOT is no
exception, though the historical recreation, the costumes, the look
of the film, all should make this a film of interest to a wider
audience than the basic plot would alone.
While the plot is on a childish level, the script as a whole is
somewhat better. Written by Robert Rodat, author of SAVING PRIVATE
RYAN, the film contains some rather noteworthy discussions of the
ethics of war. Tavington, the blood enemy of Martin, sort of this
films Sheriff of Nottingham, is totally ruthless with his enemy and
is happy to slaughter any of the enemy who get in his way.
Cornwallis (played by Tom Wilkinson) and several others of the
British do not buy into his concept of total war and are shocked at
his brutality. This sympathy to particular British, even while
making the British the enemy may seem like a small thing, but
notice that in films like GANDHI there are almost no sympathetic
British characters. It is nice to see someone saying that as a
colonial power Britain had some scruples.
With the exception of its treatment of the British colonialists the
script tries a little hard to be politically correct. Most of the
Americans we meet are against slavery and live in friendly
neighborliness with a colony of blacks. There have been some
protests that Benjamin Martin is based on Francis Marion and Marion
is currently interpreted as being what we would call a racist. In
fact he seems to be based only in part on parts of him. Martin
should probably be considered a wholly fictional character. While
I am on the subject of discussions of the philosophy of war, there
is a marvelous exchange between Cornwallis and Martin in which
Cornwallis complains that it is wrong for Martin to target British
officers. If you kill off the officers and leave just the men you
will have chaos on the battlefield, he complains. In one sentence
he douses us with culture shock and sums up the differences of 18th
century warfare and the more modern brand that was coming. That
may well be the best written line in any film I have seen this
year.
Culture shock is just why one wants to see historical films. How
many Americans have had an opportunity to look out their front
window and see two armies fighting? How many have seen the battle
wash like a wave over their homes? Luckily almost nobody since the
Civil War. It is rare that we see any film about the Revolutionary
War and far rarer that we see that war from the eyes of the
southern colonies. Still some of what we see is a little hard to
believe. Several of the scenes created for this film seem to have
been digitally enhanced so they seem less like real photographic
scenes and more like nicely composed paintings. But nicely created
is what we see of the day-to-day life in the southern colonies.
This part was overseen by experts from the Smithsonian Institute
and what we see does have an air of authenticity. Some of the
battle scenes are also authentic in a brutal sort of way. The
destruction done by swords and cannonballs and even musket balls
obviously could be fairly brutal compared to the relatively clean
wounds made by bullets. If anything this film underplays how much
gore there really was in a battle, though seeing Gibson go at
someone with an Indian hatchet (mercifully behind foliage) and
seeing pieces of person flying is something that parent should be
warned against before bringing young children. The costume work
with this film is excellent. Some of the scenes with Mel Gibson
riding with the banner of the American flag are a bit over-ripe in
the same way as scene that people complained about in THE POSTMAN.
John Williams has written a decent score, though at times it is
reminiscent of Hans Zimmer.
Mel Gibson is a good actor, probably better than most with his
popularity, but some of what was needed for this role he just did
not have. He does not express sadness well. When Clint Eastwood
loses his home and family in THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES you do feel his
loss. Gibson does not convey the same sort of loss well. Chris
Cooper has been an actor I have looked for since MATEWAN. He is
becoming a lot easier to find. AMERICAN BEAUTY seems to have made
his name, but recently I have seen him in OCTOBER SKY, and two days
before THE PATRIOT he was in ME, MYSELF & IRENE. Other notables in
this film include Rene Auberjonois, Tcheky Karyo, and Tom
Wilkinson.
On a plot level THE PATRIOT is a disappointment, but most
everything else is done well. That earns the film a 7 on the 0 to
10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. ME, MYSELF & IRENE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: The Farrelly Brothers, more tasteless
and less manic than the Zucker Brothers, give
us Jim Carrey as a Rhode Island State Trooper
with a split personality. His primary
personality is a non-assertive nebbish, his
other side is an aggressive action-man who is
also a boorish jerk. There is little time for
a good story with all the puerile scatological
jokes. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), 0 (-4 to +4)
The American public was introduced to the subject of split
personality with the 1957 film THE THREE FACES OF EVE. Two years
later Hitchcock used the concept for horror impact in PSYCHO.
Since then the concept has frequently been used in comedy, but
rarely well. Steve Martin may have come the closest to a good
comedy about multiple personality in ALL OF ME (though technically
speaking that was more about spirit possession). With that
possible exception the concept has never been used effectively in
comedy. ME, MYSELF, & IRENE is not an exception.
Charlie Bailygates (played by Jim Carrey) is a gentle soul who
happens to be a Rhode Island State Trooper. How he manages is
unclear because people just laugh at him and figuratively walk all
over him. The whole town knows he is a soft touch and a nice guy.
And they rudely take advantage of his good nature. Even after his
wife runs off with another man leaving him with three children he
still cannot express his sorrow and anger. When it finally does
come out it is as a fully formed second personality, Hank. But
when Charlie is asked to escort Irene (Renee Zellweger) to New York
and they runs afoul of some corrupt police, the extra personality
comes in handy.
This film spreads itself thinly among three goals. It wants to be
a chase film about police corruption, it wants to be a comedy about
split personality, and it wants to mix in as many crude jokes as it
can--the cruder the better. The three tasks are really more than
it can handle well. We find out various people who are involved
with the police corruption, but it is never explained what it all
about. The schizophrenia plot is not very creative in its ideas
and certainly leaves room for a sequel with all new jokes (Heaven
help us). The scatological humor could work well with sufficient
shock value, but even that is wearing thin. It can spice up a film
that has enough else going for it, but by itself it does not make
the film worth seeing. Less might very well be a little more here.
Basically they need a plot that stands without the shock jokes.
This one does not.
Jim Carrey will never be in the Dustin Hoffman range of actors in
anything but paycheck, but here he has returned to the shock humor
that gave him his start. He manages well as a physical comedian
but the gags are stale. Renee Zellweger plays his bewildered foil
in the kind of role Terri Garr used to take so well. She has
already done better and more challenging work. We have the super-
mellow Robert Forster who does not have a lot to do as Jim Carrey's
superior in the state troopers. Almost directly opposite is Chris
Cooper, who is getting a lot of roles these days. Where Forster
seem so imperturbable, Cooper always looks like he is holding back
a storm of emotion. He is probably wishing he could get more roles
like OCTOBER SKY. I know I am.
This is standard summer fluff and probably not a film that will win
any new fans for the Farrelly brothers comedies. I give it 4 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. (If you see it,
stay through the credits.) [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
The world is made up for the most part of morons and natural tyrants, sure of themselves, strong in their
own opinions, never doubting anything.
-- Clarence Darrow
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK