@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 1/17/01 -- Vol. 19, No. 29
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@avaya.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@avaya.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@avaya.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. Well, we have finally made it to the new millennium. I always
pictured that this would be a great futuristic world when the 21st
Century came. You know, you would be seeing see ads for people to
work in the out-world colonies, that sort of thing. Well, we do
have some of that future. We have the Internet. That is pretty
impressive. But I was hoping for more. We cannot even go to the
moon again much less have out-world colonies and ads for people to
work in the out-world colonies. At least, so I thought. Then I
was driving near my house and there was an ad for a health club in
the neighborhood. And honest-to-mushroom at the top of the
billboard it says in large letters:
Work Out World
[-mrl]
===================================================================
2. I was watching the most recent James Bond film THE WORLD IS NOT
ENOUGH. This series seems to have an embarrassingly long life.
Why embarrassing? Bond has been around for a long time and I
started wondering just how old James Bond was supposed to be. The
real James Bond, the one that Ian Fleming wrote about, was in his
mid-thirties. When I read the books that seemed considerably older
than me if not what I would have called old. That character honed
his survival and spying skills in The Second World War. Somehow
through some strange continuity we are supposedly still seeing him
on the screen. Yet we are supposed to believe he was young enough
to be leaping out of death traps and delivering karate kicks, never
mind his sexual gymnastics (and I don't). This leads us to the
ironic conclusion that James Bond is too young to have been around
to see the initial release of the film DR. NO. But that guy on the
screen in DR. NO was supposed to be the same guy who was in the
more recent film. Even someone who had all the adventures that
Fleming wrote for Bond is problematical. A non-super physical hero
like Bond can have an active career maybe from age 24 to 40. After
that he ought to think about retiring to a desk job. Sean Connery
left the role early but Roger Moore stayed in the role until you
could almost hear his spine crack. And even in the books Bond
keeps hanging on. After Fleming died Kingsley Amis wrote a Bond
novel, John Gardner wrote a bunch, now it is Raymond Benson who is
continuing to write adventures that occurred in the sixteen years
that Bond was a spry spy. And his first book took place when the
lease was running out on Hong Kong, so he is writing about a
contemporary man. In the films we saw Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny
go from being a prospective lover for Bond to being a sort of
mother figure. The late Desmond Llewelyn has been Q in every Bond
film since FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. In that time Bond went from
being about the same age to being young enough to be his son and
then almost young enough to be a grandson of Q.
Another hero that does age is Sherlock Holmes. His active career
was from about 1873 to 1914, at least as Doyle wrote him. But a
lot of what people read a Holmes story for is the setting and in
particular the time. Rarely does someone write about Sherlock
Holmes in the present. This means that as more people write Holmes
stories his career becomes not longer but denser. That at least is
possible in theory.
Much the same was true about Horatio Hornblower. Here it was just
C. S. Forester writing the stories and as he kept writing new
stories they were supposed to take place between the old ones.
Even more than with Sherlock Holmes, you are aware that Hornblower
is aging and in a given year is just about the age he should be.
And Forester is to be commended in that when Hornblower is no
longer an action figure he is still no less exciting. In fact, he
was always more a hero of brains rather than of brawn.
Unfortunately, we live in an age when most of the popular heroes
are better at kicking than at thinking. The most intellectual hero
is on the level of Rambo pulled into Eastern mysticism.
Most popular heroes somehow manage to avoid the aging the rest of
us go through. But other heroes you are willing to cut a little
more slack. With some heroes the whole aging question matters
less. Burroughs had Tarzan find an immortality potion. Superman
is from another planet so all bets are off. Batman, on the other
hand, is quite human and mortal and has all the same aging problems
that James Bond would have. With him it is even worse since he has
new adventures every month. Living like he does it is amazing he
can still move around at all. There are other perennial heroes
mostly of past times that seemed not to age. Names that come to
mind are Nick Carter, Simon Templar (The Saint), Lamont Cranston
(The Shadow), and Bulldog Drummond. These are, however, mostly
heroes of the past who nonetheless did have active careers longer
than any human could be expected to have.
But expecting logic looking at the age of the popular heroes in
films and books is probably just an exercise in futility.
Generally like the demigods in the times of the Romans we allow our
heroes to somehow be exempt from aging whether it makes logical
sense or not. There is just no point in asking how old James Bond
is in a given story. If the writers did not give it any thought,
there is no point in interpreting more than is in their writings.
As a friend used to say, what's in the script is all there is. [-
mrl]
===================================================================
3. Interesting side-note to the above would be the ages of the
actors playing James Bond. Sean Connery played Bond from age 32
through 41 (1962-1971), and again at age 53 (1983). Roger Moore
was 46 through 58 (1973-1985). Timothy Dalton was 41 through 43
(1987-1989). Pierce Brosnan was 42 through 46 (1995-1999).
By the way, this makes Bond the true son of the British Isles, with
one actor from each of Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland. [-
ecl]
===================================================================
4. THIRTEEN DAYS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Essentially a remake of THE MISSILES
OF OCTOBER, THIRTEEN DAYS tells the story of
the Cuban Missile Crisis as a political
thriller. The film is polished and engaging
but not all of the stylistic decisions make
sense. The tagline "You'll never believe how
close we came" is a good indicator of the style
and message of the film. Rating: 7 (0 to 10),
+2 (-4 to +4)
My view of THIRTEEN DAYS is heavily colored by my view of the
Kennedy administration and its Cuban policy in general and in this
incident in particular. The crisis is just about the only major
Cold War incident when I feel the Soviets were in the right. It is
not easy to get me to agree with Soviets I might add. At this
point in history the US had already put nuclear missiles just off
the borders of the Soviet. They also had complained loudly but
really only complained about a branch of the US government
sponsoring an invasion of Cuba. Had the tables been reversed we
would have labeled the Bay of Pigs invasion "an act of war," but I
suspect the Soviets were a little fearful of the implications of so
doing so and quite rightly. Acts of war really require
retaliation. They could not, however, ignore a second such
invasion, so they needed a deterrent to prevent it from ever
happening if for no other reason than to preserve the peace. It is
the Americans who say, "If you want peace, prepare for war." The
Soviets looked at the missiles just over the border in Turkey and
saw them as setting a precedent, they would fortify Cuba. That
would seem a just act. But instead of regarding it as such it led
to a head to head confrontation. If you see the film you will see
all the tangible steps to diffuse the situation are taken by the
Soviets. This we label "Going eyeball to eyeball with the enemy
and the other guy blinked." Thank goodness he did blink when we
might not have. I cannot help but feel the unsung hero of THIRTEEN
DAYS is Nikita Khrushchev. This is just my interpretation, I am no
expert, but it colors my reaction to the film.
THIRTEEN DAYS is the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis from the
point of view of Presidential advisor Kenneth O'Donnell (played by
Kevin Costner). The film is pretty much just a blow-by-blow
recounting of the incidents of the crisis beginning with a spy
plane flying over Cuba and seeing the nuclear missiles the Soviets
had provided the Cubans. The John F. Kennedy ( played here by
Bruce Greenwood) is told almost immediately. He calls in his
brother Robert (Steven Culp), his closest confidant. For the
remainder of the crisis the President seems to have two heads, the
Jack head and the Bobby head.
Anyone with a knowledge of history knows what happened next,
including the strong policy split between the military and
civilians in government. The Chiefs of Staff were anxious to take
on the Soviets in a war they assumed they could limit. Toward the
end of the crisis we realize that the Soviets also have their own
divisions in policy with hawks and doves in the Politburo. The
film is a constant battle between those who want military solutions
and those who want diplomatic ones with John Kennedy being
indecisive between them, and rightly so. Kennedy is haunted by his
reading of Barbara Tuchman's THE GUNS OF AUGUST, an account of how
both sides behaving in what at the time appeared logical ways
inexorably descended into the First World War. That could happen
again, this time with nuclear missiles.
THIRTEEN DAYS makes some bad stylistic mistakes. The film opens
with a missile firing and a nuclear explosion. Then more missile
firing and more big explosions. Then more of the same. The point
is, of course, that this sort of exchange is what they will be
trying to avoid. Frankly I started to find this frequent visual
reminder of the high stakes involved rather annoying. We all agree
that this is what we are trying to avoid. We all agree that
nuclear weapons are very, very bad. But to think clearly we have
to avoid what Kissinger called "scaring ourselves to death."
Showing the bomb so often in hellish hues of red is a patronizing
emotional argument thrown in among the logical arguments of the
film. A number of scenes toward the beginning seem for no reason
to start out in black and white and steel blue and fade into the
full color spectrum. It was not all scenes and the implication may
have been we are taking this from cold-hard records and breathing
life into it. But I was not sure. Whatever it was trying to do it
was failing. The Boston accents were a distraction particularly
because actors were not consistent in the degree of their own
accents. SPARTACUS was not made in Latin with English subtitles.
Director Roger Donaldson could have toned them down a little and we
could have lived with the inaccuracy.
On the other hand the film does produce a great feeling of
immediacy without snowing the viewer in detail he does not
understand. The build of tension is very good in spite of the fact
we all know how it will turn out. Part of the problem with this
documentary is that it has been done before and is overly familiar.
There was an excellent TV docu-drama in the mid-1970s, THE MISSILES
OF OCTOBER. There was also at least one good documentary made for
television. Each was better than THIRTEEN DAYS.
I think films like this that show us an important event in history
in minute detail are very good, but that THIRTEEN DAYS is a highly
flawed example that makes it fall short of being a really great
film. I rate it 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4
scale. And I still think it picks out the wrong people to be
heroes. [-mrl]
===================================================================
5. STATE AND MAIN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: David Mamet has written a very funny
and very telling film about the making and
unmaking of a film. Like a madcap DAY FOR
NIGHT, the story has many of the film crew and
actors work out their lives while the director
will go to any lengths, legal or illegal, to
get some film made, whether it is the original
story or not. This is probably David Mamet's
most enjoyable film to date. Alternately wacky
and endearing. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2
(-4 to +4)
David Mamet originally came to the public's attention by writing
stories of hucksters and con men and corporate crime. He wrote
stories like his mysterious play "The Water Engine," HOUSE OF
GAMES, and the Runyonesque THINGS CHANGE. The man is a writer and
a director, and he wrote about crime as a personal interest. Now
he has written a film about con men he really knows. His STATE AND
MAIN in a large part about a con man a director and a nearly honest
and innocent writer coming to conflict over an adaptation of the
writer's play. Mamet has sprinkled in a number of other characters
from film-making but he has written about things close to his own
experience. The result is a sort of madcap comedy in which Mamet
the director gets to argue with Mamet the writer in the middle of
the chaos of making a film.
Mamet gives us a view of the film-making process as being one
large, crazy circus. The film the film company has come to town to
shoot is THE OLD MILL. They had already been ready to film it in
New Hampshire and had a great mill set they actually built, but
something happened and, well, now they are filming in Waterford,
Vermont, instead. Waterford was chosen because of its classic old
mill. Unfortunately, they are not going to be able to use the mill
because, well, something else happened. Now they are madly trying
to make things fit.
At the center of the chaos, and few films make the film-making
process such a storm of chaos, is Walt Price (played by William H.
Macy) the Machiavellian director who will do absolutely whatever is
necessary to have a film all shot when the storm dies down. Part
con man, part genius he jumps from one crisis to the next in
seconds, frequently changing his personality to fit the
circumstance. The writer, Joseph Turner White (at last a starring
role for Philip Seymour Hoffman), would like to have Price's film
be at least reminiscent of the script he had written for it and the
play it was based on. Meanwhile White finds himself attracted to
Ann Black (Mamet regular Rebecca Pidgeon), a townie who had read
his play and actually seems to understand it better than he does
himself.
Meanwhile in the background the other cast and crew members are
adding to the confusion. Adding to the confusion is a lead actress
(Sarah Jessica Parker) who has found religion and refuses to shoot
her nude scene and a heartthrob lead actor (Alec Baldwin) with a
predilection for strong drink and under-age girls. Add to the mix
a totally unscrupulous producer (David Paymer) with a goal to save
money wherever he can and nearly as clever at getting what he wants
as Price is. But the film has a large cast and several stories are
working themselves out at the same time.
As is frequently the case, Mamet has carefully crafted a script
with a plethora of clever touches. The film being made is based on
a play of pretentious claptrap, yet most of the themes of that play
are exemplified, and probably better, in the film STATE AND MAIN
itself. The issues that the play is about are also the issues that
the filmmakers have to face. Several of the decisions about the
film being made seem to be mirrored in the outer film. Mamet
demonstrates a flair for one-liners that few of his previous films
have demonstrated. The film is a treasure chest of running gags
and self-referential jokes. Mamet's dialog is well-delivered if
not entirely realistic and believable.
STATE AND MAIN covers territory previously covered by films about
shooting films like DAY FOR NIGHT and LIVING IN OBLIVION and to a
lessor extent films about the industry like THE BIG PICTURE and THE
PLAYER. Still the script is one of the better ones of the pack. I
rate it 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
And trust me on this one: you want to stay through the end credits.
Now I have done it. I am going to get a bunch of people writing me
saying they walked out on the credits and asking what they missed.
Do not read the following until you have seen the film. Here are
jokes in the credits rotated 13 letters (rot13):
1. Gur pybfvat perqvgf fbat vf "Gur Byq Zvyy." Jura vg vf bire lbh
urne n ibvpr pbzr ba vasbezvat gur fvatre gurl ryvzvangrq gur zvyy
sebz gur svyz naq unir gb guebj bhg gur fbat.
2. N zrffntr fnlf "N yvfg bs gur Nffbpvngr Cebqhpref sbe guvf svyz
vf ninvynoyr ba erdhrfg."
3. Na bssvpvny ybbxvat pregvsvpngr sebz gur uhznar fbpvrgl nffherf
hf gung bayl *2* navznyf jrer unezrq va gur znxvat bs guvf cvpgher.
(N yngre fgngrzrag fnlf gung npghnyyl abar jrer unezrq.)
[-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@avaya.com
America: The only country in the world where failing to
promote yourself is regarded as being arrogant.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK