@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 9/29/00 -- Vol. 19, No. 12
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. I sometimes wonder about romance in the cinema. So many films
are about boy meets girl. Film after film has a major plot or
sub-plot about romance. And then I look at romance in the real
world around me and I wonder what's the big deal. I see great
romantic films like CASABLANCA and I ask myself there is so much
fascination with the subject and what is it really all about? Not
to be unromantic, but is it really as important as we make it out
to be? And is it so important really whose socks Ingrid Bergman
will wash and who will she have to fix her toaster? Okay, there is
more to it than that. There is sex, but why does that make so much
difference?
It really makes you wonder why do so many of our stories and films
have love stories. Murder mysteries, comedies, horror films, and
Westerns have boy-meets-girl plots, even if that is not the main
thrust of the story. Our literature is full of love poetry, our
dramas are full of love stories, and our popular music is all about
love relationships. What is it that makes us care so much about
the mating of people who are strangers?
And let me take these issues a step further. This fascination with
the mating of others apparently extends beyond humans. Elizabeth
Marshall Thomas relates in her THE HIDDEN LIFE OF DOGS a peculiar
piece of canine behavior. She had a very close-knit group of dogs
as pets. She mated her alpha female to a male dog from another
family of whom the female was very fond. After the mating Thomas
was surprised not just to find the two dogs most concerned very
happy, the whole pack of dogs was radiant. They had not taken part
in the actual action, but they knew it had taken place and that
seemed to have really pleased them. Perhaps their reaction was not
so different from human reaction after seeing a romantic film. Why
do they care?
Longtime readers of this column know that I am a fan of the theory
Richard Dawkins put forward in THE SELFISH GENE. At least that is
the origin of the theory I believe. (Okay, let me be honest. I
have not read his book, but I believe in a theory that I believe
has been ascribed to his book.) The theory is that we have a
number of motives on the surface for our behavior, but they seem to
contradictory. There is a single unifying explanation for a lot of
human behavior. We all want the genes in our body to survive. We
all want them to reproduce and to have a good field of genes in
which to survive. And this admittedly subliminal desire manifests
itself in many of our attitudes.
Not that any of this works on a conscious level. It is just what
is really happening to form our conscious mind-sets. It is like
the real reason we have an urge for a good breakfast is not the
same as the apparent reason. When you wake up in the morning you
do not say to yourself, now I have to get some carbohydrates so
that my body will have energy and some protein for building cells.
You do not think in that detail. You just think that you are
hungry and it is time for breakfast. And that attitude on the
conscious level provides the proteins and carbohydrates your body
needs without you ever thinking much about the real reason behind
the behavior.
Over the years attitudes that pass genes on to the next generation
have survived as their own reward. The genes may even carry these
attitudes much as retriever dogs all get the idea that retrieving
thrown items is a good idea. Terriers get the idea that digging is
nifty. These attitudes are genetically inbred. Genes that give
humans attitudes that are good for reproduction of genes are likely
to be passed on to later generations.
Let's see how genetic advantage fits into familiar behaviors. Take
the old story of Don Juan, Dona Ana, and her father. Don Juan has
made love to many women. Why? His survival technique for his
genes is to reproduce with as many women as possible, particularly
if they appear to be healthy. He believes that his behavior is
just that pretty women are enjoyable to have sex with, but his
genes want to reproduce themselves and give him the attitudes that
will help them accomplish that. His attitude makes many copies of
his genes survive. Dona Ana is at a time in her life when she
wants to make sure her genes survive. She is looking for a strong
set of genes to pair them with. It will bother her if he continues
to pair his genes with competitive genes not her own, but for the
time being she just wants to get her own genes paired to genes
likely to be survivors. Dona Ana's father enters the scene. He
knows that half of his genes survive in Dona Ana and has hoped that
Dona Ana's genes would be paired with good breeding stock to carry
them on. Don Juan is not what he considers to be a good set of
genes since he is a social outlaw. He wants more of a voice over
whose genes his daughter mingles with his. He draws his sword.
Now Don Juan's genes are in trouble. This might be his last
pairing. Don Juan jumps to defend his genes' future. Well, you
get the idea.
So, getting back to romance, is there a genetic advantage to this
obsession we have with boy-meets-girl? I think there is. First of
all seeing romance leaves us in the mood for romance. It puts the
idea in our minds and that has to increase the likelihood we will
pass on the genes. But it does more than that. We like to see
attractive people getting together and putting their genes into the
gene pool because it increases the probability in later generations
that our genes will be mated with healthy and attractive genes.
I suspect we like to see attractive people mating because it
preserves the best of the genes in the gene pool and give our own
genes a better chance to be paired with those good genes in later
generations. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. THE CONTENDER (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R.
Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: This is a behind the scenes story of a
vice-presidential confirmation proceedings that
gets into many serious issues. It is hard to
imagine THE CONTENDER not being the best film
of the year. This political drama says a lot
of things that need to be said with terrific
dialog. This is an adult film in the very best
sense of the word. Rating: high +3
- Released by Dreamworks, usually a good sign
- Governor Hathaway risks life attempting to save drowning woman
- Choice of Vice President
- Hathaway rejected for failing rescue
- Flawed people, Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) having sex in
office
- Hanson chosen by President (Jeff Bridges) but attached to sex
scandal from college
- President decides to stand by Hanson through confirmation
fight
- Shelley Runyon (unrecognizable Gary Oldman doing WONDERFUL
acting job) leads opposition
- Very sharp satire
- Reminiscent of The West Wing
- Textbook in practical politics
- Intelligent writing
- Reflection of recent politics, Clinton, etc.
- Terrific writing
- Far better than WAG THE DOG
- Very powerful writing
- Some things predictable
- Speeches really powerful
- Jeff Bridges as President seems young but has the dignity
- Joan Allen as Laine Hanson may finally get recognition.
Formerly of NIXON and ICE STORM
- Sam Elliot as chief of staff looks a little silly without his
usual moustache, otherwise fine
- Saul Rubinek, William Peterson, Christian Slater, Larry King
- Gary Oldman is wonderful and almost unrecognizable; I
literally did not remember until the closing credits that he
was in the film in spite of his having a major role
[-mrl]
===================================================================
3. BEAUTIFUL (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R. Leeper
from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: A ruthless woman so wants to win a
beauty pageant. She messes up the lives of
people around her. This script was nowhere near
ready to be filmed. It leaves so many loose
ends and immoral messages, intended and
unintended. In spite of my liking for Sally
Field, she did not show a lot of discretion in
script choice. BEAUTIFUL is a very ugly film.
Rating: -2 SPOILER: some of the problems are
told in an afterword after a spoiler warning
- A lot of people are going to like this film, much of my
audience did, but I really detested it and its unintended
messages.
- Old pageant footage under credits
- Young Mona desperately wants to win Junior Miss Beauty Pageant
- Young girl from Illinois needs to be chosen in a beauty
contest
- Buys into lookism
- Best friend Ruby does all she can to support Mona
- Mona (now Minnie Driver) cheats to win
- When her baton act is stolen by another contestant Mona
superglues another the cheater's hand to a flaming baton
- When Mona and Ruby they grow up they live together but still
have same relationship
- Mona is a pain
- People make tremendous sacrifices for her dream
- Side plot: Nurse Ruby accused of killing a patient
- We see Ruby being incompetent in ways health care
professionals are specifically trained not to be
- Cynical beauty pageant scenes invite comparison to Michael
Ritchie's 1975 film SMILE which was far superior.
- Script needed much more consideration, sends all sorts of bad
messages
- Predictable
- Dialog cute, not realistic. When her daughter is awakened
daughter asks "Have you completely lost it?"
- Daughter played by Hallie Kate Eisenberg (who plays young
director Kristy in Independent Film Channel ads)
- Syrupy acting
- No beauty pageant is run this way
- Moments at end moving
- Implication of child sexual abuse turned into joke and quickly
dismissed. It is serious subject and if brought up it should
be dealt with.
- Ruby was incompetent to let pill trick happen even once,
hospital is incompetent if it happened so many times
- Mona's cheating never punished and actually rewarded in end
- Mona's stunt caused a person to be scarred for life, also
never punished
- What about Ruby's emotional investment in Vanessa? The film
should deal with this.
- Ruby noble for years mothering Vanessa and supporting Ruby and
is not rewarded. She is not even present when Vanessa tells
the truth
- Mona going away at end so will be separated from her daughter
for another year
- Tacit approval of beauty pageant sexism and lookism, a few
words in the script to the contrary
[-mrl]
===================================================================
4. BEST IN SHOW (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R.
Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: Christopher Guest produces another
documentary satire showing the foibles of
American society. This time he takes on the
before, during, and after of a national level
dog show. It combines good biting satire and
some broad comedy that sabotages the effect.
Rating: high +1. On principle I will not reveal
humor from the film.
- Director Christopher Guest
- Written by Eugene Levy and Guest
- Better than WAITING FOR GUFFMAN.
- Several of Guest's stock actors from Guffman
- Begins by interviewing people involved before show
- Great humorous characterizations from different parts of
Eastern US
- Realistic dog show scenes mixed in
- Owners ignoring consideration for dogs
- People reduced to stereotypes and charicatures
- Gay couple with shiatsu
- Middle class Americans with terrier
- Red neck with blood hound
- Fred Willard as vulgar announcer would be removed very
quickly, ruins the verisimilitude
- Important not to destroy suspension of disbelief. GUFFMAN did
several places. BEST IN SHOW was better. -- Much of humor has
nothing to do with show
- Hard to tell how much is improvisation?
- How much from real dog show?
- Some well-observed, just not believable
- Running gags
- Parker Posey as nasty fault-finding yuppie
- Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara as couple with marriage
problems
- Still not as good as SMILE, but getting closer. (1975's SMILE
is wonderful behind the scenes look at a beauty pageant.
Hilarious, serious, bitter and intelligent. Directed by
Michael Ritchie and written by David Belson.)
[-mrl]
===================================================================
5. BLESS THE CHILD (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R.
Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: Basically silly, 70s-style horror film
in the mold of ROSEMARY'S BABY crossed with THE
OMEN. Satanists want to get hands on newly-
born female Christ, this time born as
illegitimate, autistic girl named Cody.
Rating: 0
- Seen at (but not in) Toronto International Film Festival.
- Maggie O'Connor (Kim Bassinger) is visited by addict sister
Genna who has new baby but is not sure who is father. Runs
away leaving baby Cody with Maggie.
- Child is autistic, Maggie finds boyfriends will not commit to
woman with autistic child.
- Child murders in which killer seems to be looking for specific
child
- New Age Cult, led by mysterious man (Rufus Sewell)
- Story is really custody fight turned into supernatural
thriller
- Many scenes under-lit, black around the border of screen,
important figures in shadow.
- Images of gargoyles around city
- Digital rat effects are not very convincing
- Set in New York. Filmed in Toronto and looks it.
- Scene with UN as background (allegorical meaning or just to
make it look more New York-like)
- A few nice fantasy images
- Christopher Young music score prosaic
- Violence may be a little strong for some
- Error: Christ did not die on Easter
- Kim Bassinger not great at holding film as main star
- Jimmy Smits plays John Travis, policeman is ex-priest, how
convenient
- Rufus Sewell, has funny eyes that don't match. Gives odd
effect
- Ian Holm as religious scholar, only one scene
- Problem: Sister does not resemble Bassinger but characters
recognize as sister
[-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the cost becomes prohibitive.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK