@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 06/15/01 -- Vol. 19, No. 50
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. I have been reading some film reviews and comment on the film
PEARL HARBOR. Probably one of the most thought-provoking was by
Ian Buruma from the Manchester Guardian entitled "Oh! What a lovely
war":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/ Article/0,4273,4193709,00.html
Buruma is a noted author with several books to his credit. He
wrote THE WAGES OF GUILT: MEMORIES OF WAR IN GERMANY AND JAPAN in
which his thesis is that Germany exhibits great guilt for its
atrocities of the 1930s and 1940s and that Japan exhibits virtually
none at all.
Buruma takes the film PEARL HARBOR to task for minimizing the
horrors of war. His complaint about PEARL HARBOR is that the film
is milking the event for the thrills when in fact it was a terrible
and painful event. Watching PEARL HARBOR Buruma is reminded of a
1942 Japanese propaganda film THE WAR AT SEA FROM HAWAII TO MALAYA.
It had, according to the Buruma, almost the identical camaraderie
among the soldiers and what was then state-of-the-art special
effects. Like PEARL HARBOR it did not dwell on the villainy of the
enemy but on the glory of war. He concludes his comment saying,
"So who needs reality? Just sit back and enjoy the show. Until
the next war. And then we die ingloriously." Buruma really wants
to avoid that next war at all costs. He feels with no little
justification taht war is a very fearsome thing.
At one time, specifically during the World War II, American films
were all very pro-war. It served a national purpose to stir people
up against the country's enemies and to give a sort of carefree
view of war. Most countries with film industries do this. The
Soviet Union had its ALEXANDER NEVSKY. When we were in India we
saw EK HI RAASTA, which had the good soldier having a great time
blasting away at the enemy gloriously. During the Second World
War, the film industry considered it only its patriotic duty to
push the government line and build enthusiasm for the war with gung
ho films.
In the 1950s with the war over the government no longer just wanted
but now demanded more, not less, from the film industry. Films had
to be pro-government or the filmmakers were in big trouble. The
industry took it for a while letting many promising careers be
ruined, but eventually revolted. This led to something of a
parting of the ways between government and the film industry. By
the time the Vietnam War became unpopular with the public, the film
industry followed its conscience, or more accurately its paying
audience, and was mostly anti-war. Not that it made films
specifically about the war. It avoided mentioning the war itself
as much as possible, but more often than not its sentiment was
anti-government. For the most part the film industry has been
anti-war and frequently anti-military in the interim.
PEARL HARBOR is something of a throwback in this regard. Buruma
complains about the fact that this is not an anti-war film. There
are at least two flaws in his argument. At the same time that he
finds the film too pro-war he claims it is also too easy on the
Japanese. They had committed multitudes of atrocities in Asia. He
complains that Affleck calls the Japanese "honorable people with a
certain point of view" instead of listing their crimes. Buruma
seems to be claiming that the Americans enthusiasm for fighting in
the film is more justified than it was portrayed while at the same
time complaining about that enthusiasm. It is true that there were
some American terrified and there were some enthusiastic. He does
not like the see the latter portrayed. They should all have looks
of somber responsibility, I suppose.
Buruma also complains that this film should come out at this time.
"The notion that it is glorious to die for the nation looks
especially odd at a time when US governments have an absolute
terror of American casualties. President Clinton was so afraid of
'bodybags' appearing on the evening news that he preferred bombing
cities from a great height to sending in troops where they were
needed. There is no evidence that Bush is any different." I gather
Buruma would like to see Americans more willing to go into real
battle, but they should hate every minute.
PEARL HARBOR is not a great film, but it is useful to start debate
on war. Is war always bad? I think Buruma would say so. I would
disagree. War is usually bad but to make the statement, "War is
bad" a moral absolute is totally wrong-headed. Many people accept
that there are no moral absolutes. From my point of view even the
Ten Commandments have to be guidelines, and not moral absolutes.
And society quite correctly does not treat them that way. Killing
for ones own profit is bad. Killing for a higher moral good is
not. A SWAT team may slay a potential killer in a hostage
situation to prevent a worse evil from happening. For any moral
wrong one can think of an extreme situation in which it should be
chosen as the lessor of two evils. Admittedly if this is a public
policy there is some danger that people may not correctly judge
which really is the lessor of the two evils. And selfish motives
may play a part. But then society has laws to correct them. Ones
conscience has to be the ultimate moral compass.
Of course even if everybody followed their moral compass, there
would still be wars. The film GETTYSBURG, based on the book THE
KILLER ANGELS by Michael Shaara, ironically makes both sides appear
noble. Each soldier is fighting to overcome a perceived greater
evil. They cannot both be right. This unfortunately is not a
formula to avoid bloodshed since both sides cannot be totally
objective, but it is the only realistic policy. I cannot look at
the history of the 20th Century and not feel that there were and
still are some causes that were worth fighting and even dying for.
Some of those causes are still around and there are new ones every
year.
Human life is the most valuable commodity, but that value is not
infinite. There are limits to life's value. We have to ask
ourselves when faced with a great cause, as Patrick Henry did, "Is
life so dear?" It may not be a popular opinion any more but there
are some causes worth dying for.
Seven astronauts died in the Challenger disaster. It seriously
derailed the space program. A hundred and forty years earlier the
loss of seven people would have been commonplace when the goal was
just to cross the prairie and find a somewhat better place for
those seven people to live. The Challenger astronauts had a much
nobler goal and one that is worthwhile even if the price includes
some lives. There were roughly 16,000 people who died in alcohol-
related traffic accidents in the year 2000. That's well over 2000
traffic deaths for every astronaut who died in the Challenger and
the astronauts died for a far more worthwhile cause. There are
also worthwhile causes to war over.
I don't think anyone likes war, but I do not as Buruma does that it
is bad to tell audiences that some people enthusiastically fought
back when the country was attacked. Not everything about PEARL
HARBOR is true to history, but that part is. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. Lakshmikanth "Lax" Madapaty is a good friend of mine and perhaps
a greater film enthusiast. My top ten list inspired him to write
one of his own.
10. THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1967):
Among film genres, the Western is entirely American, much like Jazz
and Rap in music. For a genre that is so much American and for all
the pioneering efforts of Americans in film making, there have only
been a handful of great Westerns ever made. HIGH NOON, ONCE UPON A
TIME IN THE WEST and THE WILD BUNCH come to mind with THE SEARCHERS
deserving an honorable mention. It took an Italian by the name of
Sergio Leone to make what I consider to be the greatest Western
ever. By the time he made this film, he already had the chance to
perfect him film-crafting skills with the two other films in what
is now called the "Dollar Trilogy". Right from the stylish main
titles with the legendary Morricone main theme and the intros and
outros for each of the three lead characters via freeze frame, this
film tells us that it is unlike any other Western made. The story
is about the three lead characters who are after a cache of
$200,000 in Confederate gold bullion set in the backdrop of the
American Civil War. We find out by the end that the "good" guy
isn't that good and the "ugly" guy (Eli Wallach in an outstanding
performance) is a lot of fun. Even the "bad" guy is smarter than
your average Western baddie. Leone drenches the film in atmosphere.
The lonely, dry and sun-baked landscape is the perfect setting for
our characters to dwell in and be a part of. By alternately cutting
between extreme close-ups and long range wide angle shots -
especially at the beginning and end of the film - Leone creates a
wonderfully unsettling effect on us. It not only gives us a chance
to get inside the characters' heads and experience their feelings
but also understand the backdrop in which they all dwell. The final
shootout at the cemetery is worth a mention for Leone's brilliant
use of editing. Again, alternating between rapid-fire extreme
close-ups and well-positioned long-range shots of the cemetery,
Leone creates tension in a way that would have made Eisenstein
happy. Every image is married perfectly to Morricone's brilliant
score. In fact, some of the scenes seem to have been cut to his
score, given the close relationship the director and composer
enjoyed. Cues like Ecstasy of Gold are routinely used even today
from rock songs to product commercials.
09. THE GUNS OF NAVARONE (1961):
Exactly 40 years ago to this month, a rousing action adventure film
opened in cinemas around the world to widespread critical and
commercial acclaim. That film is the one written and produced by
blacklisted writer Carl Foreman (the man behind HIGH NOON and
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI) based on an Alistair MacLean novel. When
Gregory Peck, the main lead in the film was given the choice to
pick a director (as is the wont in those days), Peck made a
surprise choice - J. Lee Thompson. His decision was based on the
man's previous work in a little known character drama TIGER BAY and
another little known action adventure film, FLAME OVER INDIA.
Peck's reasoning was that the script needed someone who is
comfortable with staging the action sequences and yet be able to
develop characters and bring out the human element that is so
critical to the writing. With a strong visual sense and a good
knack for pacing, J. Lee transformed Foreman's script into what I
consider to be the greatest action adventure film of all time.
Budgeted at $ 6 million by Columbia, the film made $ 12 million in
the US alone, was nominated for 7 Oscars and won one for Best
Special Effects. In the film, six men are dispatched by the Allied
command forces on a desperate mission to destroy two German guns on
the cliffs of the Greek island of Navarone. These are the guns that
control the approach to the island of Kheros where 1200 British
soldiers (2000 in the script) are stranded. The guns must be
destroyed in six days, before six Allied Destroyer ships pass
through those waters to rescue the stranded soldiers. What makes
the film tower above others in its genre is the attention to
character development all around, not just to the three main leads
Peck, Niven and Quinn. There are two standout scenes between Niven
and Peck that examine the moral dilemmas of killing. This is
something one will never find in the "burger and fries" action
films being made since the mid-70's. Dimitri Tiomkin embellishes
the film with a rousing score.
08. THE GODFATHER (1972): AFI 3
The 70's were the most exciting period of creative filmmaking.
Several young, promising and talented film directors like Coppola,
Leone, Spielberg, Bogdanovich, Nic Roeg, Ken Russell, Lucas,
Kubrick, Boorman and Scorcese made some of their best works during
this period. Maybe this explains why fewer Americans went to the
cinemas each week in the 70's than at any time in the preceding
three decades! Even European Cinema was taking off in exciting new
directions with young talent like Bernardo Bertolucci, Eric Rohmer,
Francois Truffaut, Louis Malle, Rainer Fassbinder and Luis Bunuel
contributing significantly. It is during this exciting period that
a 32-year old Coppola made what is widely considered to be one of
the greatest films of all time. Coppola accomplished nothing short
of a cinematic miracle with this film. Up until that point in time,
whatever reputation Coppola had was as a screenwriter, with his
films as a director having been box office failures. Paramount
offered the project to Richard Brooks, Peter Yates and then Costa-
Gavras, all of who refused to do it. The film is based on Mario
Puzo's bestseller - not a great piece of literature by any measure.
At that time, Brando's career was on a downward spiral. Even before
shooting began, the Italian-American Civil Rights League raised
money to stop making of the film. There were bomb threats and the
producer's car was fired at. What Coppola essentially did was to
edify a piece of pulp fiction with his film crafting genius and in
the process, influence a whole genre and generation of filmmakers.
The film has everything that constitutes greatness - terrific
acting by some of the most talented actors of our times (Brando,
Duvall, Pacino), superb production design, the almost-perfect
characters who just miss greatness, the themes of honor and family
values among gangsters, rock solid direction and a memorable score
by Nino Rota. Most Italian restaurants around the world must have
played this film's main theme at one time or the other!
Special Mention: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966): Mark Leeper's
article already mentions the film's plot. What makes this a great
film is the writing. It is very difficult to write convincingly
about a penetratingly intelligent man who also happens to be
morally upright with strong values. Robert's Bolt's brilliant
script accomplishes exactly this by the use of some of the best
dialogue ever written for the screen. Some of it is included here
as a tribute to the film. [Spoilers: skip ahead if you haven't
seen the movie and don't want to know the dialogue ahead of time.]
Thomas More: You threaten like a dockside bully.
Thomas Cromwell: How should I threaten?
More: Like a minister of state. With justice.
Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you're threatened with.
More: Then I am not threatened.
Thomas More: I think that when statesmen forsake their own private
conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their
country by a short route to chaos.
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is. God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
Wife: While you talk he's gone!
Sir Thomas More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself,
until he broke the law!
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through
the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil
turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all
being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to
coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down--and you're
just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright
in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of
law, for my own safety's sake!
Also worth mentioning is Paul Scofield's portrayal of Sir Thomas
More, breathing so much life into Bolt's script. Scofield belongs
to a select group of actors such as Charles Laughton, Marlon
Brando, Robert Duvall, Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins who can
express themselves well by superb phrasing of speech and modulation
in their voices. This can be at times very demanding physically
but all these actors are up to it and have proved it to us time and
again. Scofield, Bolt and director Zinnemann won well-deserved
Oscars for this film, which also won the Best Picture trophy for
that year. This one gets my vote for one of the two great
screenplays of all time. Make this film today and it will be
largely ignored.
07. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER (1968):
This heart-breaking film depicts the events in the last few weeks
of a wonderful human being's life in this world. What makes the
film so powerful is the depiction of how unspeakable cruelty can be
inflicted on people just by words alone and how failure or lack of
communication can be a crippling barrier to understanding people
and building relationships. Racism, physical disability and
generation gaps are all themes that are so powerfully examined in
this little known gem of a film. Once I was asked what constitutes
manipulative filmmaking. In a plot, when a film has scenes that
deliberately panders to the audience's emotional core without
really serving any function to further the plot (and in some cases,
not even making any sense in the overall context of the film), when
sentiment and compassion are treated as a commodity that can be
nicely packaged and sold, that is when I lose respect for that film
and filmmaker. (This is the one big problem I have with a certain
popular director with a string of commercial successes that most
people seem to enjoy and like a lot.) And then there are films such
as this one, where there is a certain honesty in the director's
approach to the material that just cannot be faked. Up until the
point in time when I saw this film, I must have seen a few thousand
films in twenty years. This is the first ever film (and one of only
3) that brought tears. More than anything else, this film teaches
the importance of treating everyone as human beings, with respect
and dignity. All we need to do to make this world a better place is
to be John Singer once in a while. Alan Arkin as John Singer and
Percy Rodriguez turn in great performances. The only thing I would
change with this film is strip away the Grusin score and commission
John Barry to do one of his lilting elegiac scores.
06. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962):
Yet another film that features in many critics' lists of top films
of all time. David Lean is a master of cinematic story telling.
With the advent of today's CGI and other modern filmmaking
techniques, his toils may seem somewhat old-fashioned but make no
mistake. THIS is the real deal. No matter how good CGI is, there
is no comparison to the real stuff. Most of Lean's films are
extremely cinematic in nature. However, what sets this film apart
is the fascinating and intimate portrayal of T. E. Lawrence's
enigmatic (such as his repressed homosexuality) and complex (such
as his sadomasochistic tendencies) character. To add to the joy are
several support roles that are equally fascinating, such as Prince
Faisal (Alec Guiness), Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) and General Allenby
(Jack Hawkins). Early on in the film, Lean generates interest and
intrigue in the viewer in the funeral scene where several people
who know and know of Lawrence make comments about him. As the film
unfolds, all these remarks start making sense to the viewer. Lean
could very well have book-ended the film with this scene. Omar
Sharif's entrance as a mirage in the desert is the greatest intro
to a screen character. A young and relatively unknown French film
composer Maurice Jarre was selected by Lean to provide the film
score. Jarre did a fine job in writing several big themes for an
orchestra and augmenting them with ethnic instruments.
[to be continued next week] [-lm]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@avaya.com
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.
-- Horace Mann