THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
07/20/01 -- Vol. 20, No. 3
Big Cheese: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Little Cheese: Evelyn Leeper, evelyn.leeper@excite.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Science and Science Fiction (URL)
The Tyranny of Books (comments)
FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN (a film review)
JURASSIC PARK III (a film review)
THE SCORE (a film review)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Science and Science Fiction (URL)
If you are interested in an article about how science mimics
science fiction, the June 30th issue of Science News discusses the
possibilities of power suits with nods to Heinlein's STARSHIP
TROOPERS, the film ALIENS, and the comic book character IRON MAN.
If you don't subscribe you can get a copy at
http://www.sciencenews.org/20010630/bob8.asp. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Tyranny of Books (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
I think we have to take a look at how technology is spoiling our
very existence. Technology and time seem to destroy all of the
great arts. And I can tell you when it started to happen. I
think it was the printing press that did us all in. There was a
time when we could appreciate great works of art like the Iliad.
Nowadays who really listens to the Iliad any more? Nobody. And
I’ll tell you why. It’s that damn printing press.
When the Iliad was first told, that was really something. People
used to wait for weeks, looking forward to hearing it presented.
And what a show it was. The poet would sing it and play the lyre.
You never got tired of it because it was different every time.
Different singers would tell it differently, stressing this aspect
or that. You could really feel you were taking a voyage on that
wine-dark sea. The story really lived for you. Then what
happened? That German guy found a way to take a press and squash
this living thing onto a piece of paper like a bug. Now anybody
can get it smashed onto paper and read it any time. But what have
they got? Is there lyre music to go along with the story? No!
Can the teller read his audience and tailor the telling to the
audience? NO! Are there even any differences from one telling to
the repeat? No way, Jose!
But it just takes one printing press to make hundreds, or
thousands of copies. The power of big money just lets the presses
roll. And there are always chuckleheads who are willing to shell
out good money for this printed abomination. And they get what
they deserve, a lifeless thing on paper.
Look what books are doing to family values. When the poet came to
retell the story of the Iliad, whole families got together to hear
it. It was something the family could do together, to enjoy
together. Now as soon as dinner is over you have the kids going
off to read some book by themselves. They are in their own little
world, cut off from everybody else. Parents these days are lucky
if they even remember what their children look like. And who
knows what they are reading? Who knows what ideas are being put
in their heads? Oh, we all know that parents should monitor what
books their children are reading, but how many really do? Let me
tell you, some of the things written in these books shouldn’t be
shown to a dog, much less an impressionable child.
Now I want you to try a little experiment. Take your favorite
book, if you have one. Take a funny passage and cut out an "r".
Take a sad passage and cut out an "r". Don’t worry about damaging
the book. You cannot damage so worthless a thing; you can only
make it harder to read. Now mix up those two letters "r". Which
was which? You can’t tell can you? Your book was printed with
movable type. On the printing press it may even be the same piece
of metal that printed those two letters "r". I can tell you if a
singer sang you the story he would not pronounce those two letters
exactly alike. But the two letters were put on the paper by a
dead piece of metal. Probably it was a piece of lead. The stupid
senseless piece of metal does not know that one of these portions
is so sad and the other is joyously happy. It just knows how to
stamp one letter "r" just like every other letter it has ever
stamped it its whole, long, senseless life.
And what about plays? It is just such a small part of a play that
is what the actors say. There are a hundred different ways to say
a line, but they all write the same way on paper. Try saying
"Hello" as if to your lover. Try saying "Hello" as if to your
worst enemy. Try saying "Hello" as if to your boss. They are
almost three different words. I say almost because once they are
applied to paper they are all identical. "Hello" is "Hello" is
"Hello." That is how the printing press treats them. But you and
I know they are almost entirely different.
The venerated Plato did not trust his great arguments to be put on
paper. What if someone reading them had a question? What if they
wanted to counter argue? They have not a chance. Try arguing
with a piece of paper. Try arguing with a book. And these
pitiful readers think they are in contact with the great Plato by
reading these dead skins, these books.
And still these printing presses roll on and on and on. As long
as there is money to be made promising to sell wisdom and instead
giving people these dead paper things. And the people who profit
from them do not care a bit about how they are affecting the
world. It is all merely a question of profit. The people who
spend their time not seeing the real world but engrossed in these
lifeless paper things, reading these books, they are almost
degenerates. They have lost their humanity and what a poor thing
they are selling out for! I guess we have to get used to
technology taking everything of value from our lives, sucking it
dry for profit, and spitting it out in these lifeless things, this
printed form. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no way
to stop it now. But we don’t have to like it.
"Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the
body." - Ecclesiastes 12:12
===================================================================
TOPIC: FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN (a film review by Mark
R. Leeper):
CAPSULE: This very dark sci-fi fantasy is magnificent visually
but it has a nearly incoherent plot. FINAL FANTASY is a
Japanese-American co-production entirely animated but with a
very real three-dimensional look and with very real-looking
characters. In the year 2065 aliens that appear to us as
translucent images, but still very deadly creatures, have
invaded Earth. Saving the Earth requires resorting to
semi-mystical means to understand and halt the enemy. If this
film had been done in live-action the scenes more spectacular
than those of BLADERUNNER would have been hailed as a triumph.
Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1 (-4 to +4)
The art of the animated film continues to evolve before our eyes
at an incredible rate. It seems that one animated film after
another is released and advances the art of animation. I
personally was very impressed with the visual images created in
TITAN A.E. But there are images in FINAL FANTASY that go well
beyond the power of that film’s animation. The one problem is
that if I applaud this film it will have to be mostly on the
imagination of the concepts and on the visuals. I don’t think the
story was a very good one. And the uncertain terms in which I say
that are intentional. The telling of the story and the
explanation of what is going on lies somewhere in the range
between terse and incoherent. I frequently had no idea what was
happening in the plot, thought FINAL FANTASY was never failed to
be an enjoyable film to watch.
The greatest part of what was remarkable about the film was the
animation work. The entire film is done in a three-dimensional
technique. Every single image is as three-dimensional as a live
action film. Of course, I am afraid one could always distinguish
the images from real live action. And that is (intentionally)
praising the animation with faint criticism. The computer-
generated images were almost photographic. And what images they
were! There were planet-scapes and futuristic battlefields.
There were alien monsters of towering height. There were things
that cannot be described; they have to be seen.
The story opens in 2065, with the Earth already mostly destroyed
and conquered by a diaphanous life form from space. Well, not
just one diaphanous life form, but a whole class of gossamer life
forms. There are things that are insect-like and things that look
like floating dragons. It is like a whole planet of creatures are
cooperating and taking part in the invasion. Why? Dr. Sid
(voiced by Donald Sutherland) and his protege Dr. Aki Ross (Ming-
Na) want to find out. The creatures seem to burrow into the
ground then attack with deadly potency. Humans have reacted by
retreating to force-field protected cities. A guard of power-
suited soldiers protects these cities and what is left of the
human race. Dr. Sid believes in the Gaia theory that planets are
like a living organism with self-protection mechanisms. Perhaps
they can be triggered to protect the planet. But Sid and Aki have
to act fast. Aki’s body has been invaded by one form of the
aliens’ essence. AIDS-like it will prove deadly if the nature of
the aliens is not better understood soon. Hironobu Sakaguchi, who
is connected with the Final Fantasy video games wrote the story
for this film as well as directed and acted as executive producer.
Jeff Vintar and Al Reinert wrote the screenplay.
Generally in an animated film of this sort, I complain that any
starving actor could have gotten a good job doing the voice of an
animated character. It usually seems wasteful and useless to give
these voice roles to established and successful actors. In this
film it really did serve a purpose. The animation technique makes
the characters realistic and even gives them some marvelous facial
expression, but it leaves them seeming cold and without much
personality. That makes it hard to keep straight who is who. One
thing that helped was that I found it easy to track four of the
characters because they spoke with voices I immediately
recognized. Those were Alec Baldwin, Steve Buscemi, Donald
Sutherland, and James Woods. I probably should have recognized
the voice of Ving Rhames, but did not. The main character is
played by Ming-Na best known for her roles in THE JOY LUCK CLUB
and in the various Disney productions in which she plays the
Chinese historic figure Mulan. What is a little disconcerting is
not that the voices are familiar, but that the faces do not
resemble those of the actors. Dr. Sid may have unmistakably
sounded like Donald Sutherland, but he looked very different. I
kept expecting to see Dr. Sid with the Sutherland face.
This film from Square Pictures (whose logo is a rectangle) is
animated to be just one step from live action. The viewer may
come away not understanding the story or the future Earth on which
is it set, but he will have seen some marvelous images set to the
tune of some really terrible music. I rate the film a 6 on the 0
to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: JURASSIC PARK III (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
CAPSULE: A short punchy action sequel to the two dinosaur
films made by Steven Spielberg. Joe Johnston directs a
straightforward story of an excursion back to the island of the
dinosaurs. It lets us see some new dinosaurs (is that an
oxymoron?) and gives us a nice and generally reasonably
written adventure. The film is neither ambitious nor
pretentious. I had a good time. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2
(-4 to +4)
Here goes my credibility. This is a film on which I expect to be
in a minority. I liked the third JURASSIC PARK film. I even
liked the second JURASSIC PARK film. In a lot of ways JURASSIC
PARK: THE LOST WORLD was a creative three-way braiding together of
Michael Crichton's novel THE LOST WORLD, Arthur Conan Doyle's
novel THE LOST WORLD, and the classic silent film version of the
Doyle. JP2 was an adventure, as Doyle said, "for the boy who's
half man or the man who's half boy." That is what all the
JURASSIC PARK films are. Expecting them to give the viewer
insights into the human condition is like expecting your car to
vacuum your house. The classic adventure films like GUNGA DIN or
KING SOLOMON'S MINES had under-written characters also.
JURASSIC PARK III is an all out adventure on an island inhabited
by dinosaurs. The characters are a little more complex than they
at first appear to be, and even that is a little more complex than
I was expecting. Some of the characters who start out looking
stupid and useless prove to be neither as the film proceeds. That
degree of complexity combined with those very realistic looking
dinosaur effects is just about as much as I require. I feel I got
my money's worth.
The story opens with Eric (played by Trevor Morgan) and friend
parasailing near the forbidden island of Isla Sorna off Costa
Rica. This was the research island where the dinosaurs were
created for the now defunct Jurassic Park. They hope, no doubt,
to get a look at the island's dinosaurs from a safe height. The
height is safe, but driving the boat in the water is not. The two
soon find themselves in trouble and have to ditch their parasail
onto the island where they do indeed get a better look at the
dinosaurs than they had intended.
Flash to the United States and someone is offering to fund
paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) in his research if he will
go and fly over Isla Sorna and act as a guide. He has said that
no force on earth or heaven could get him back near real
dinosaurs. But again money convinces him to drop what he is doing
and go. Doing the convincing is a wealthy and eccentric couple
(William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) who has been just about everywhere
else in the world and wants the adventure of seeing real
dinosaurs. They too plan to see the island from a safe height
Grant is relieved to learn. He will fly over this island at a
safe altitude just this once. Right. Guess what happens next?
JP3 probably functions better as a sequel than JP2. First it has
Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) back rather than the
much less appealing Ian Malcolm. Sattler has a much smaller part
in JP3, but is still present to tie this story to the first.
Curiously each film seems to arrange to have a signature scene
with characters holding on to some large metal object that is
about to fall some great distance.
One thing that does not quite fit with the earlier films is just
as Grant discovers that raptors may be able to talk to each other,
suddenly they seem to be doing it all the time. They did not
appear to be conversing in the previous films. Of course, these
raptors look a little different also, so perhaps they are a
different related species. Not only are they more intelligent
than in the past films, they are also more sympathetic. In this
story they are not just killing machines, they have reasonable
motives for what they do beyond nutrition. This time around they
may be a little too anthropomorphized.
Each new film in the series introduces us to some new dinosaurs,
of course. In this film a major threat is from a spinosaurus, not
as common or as popularly known as a Tyrannosaurus, but larger and
presumably more nasty. It has a crocodile's head and the body
that looks like a dimetrodon walking upright.
Perhaps as an economy measure or just to create a mood the visual
effects team frequently obscures our view of the dinosaurs.
Sometimes they just move too fast to see. Occasionally darkness
or fog obscures our vision. A few times we get unconvincing matte
shot, particularly of the laboratory. But there is less money on
the screen in terms of dinosaur effects than in the two previous
films. The musical score by Don Davis borrows heavily from John
Williams's score for the first film. Joe Johnston, who directs,
already has to his credit two very good films I recommend THE
ROCKETEER and OCTOBER SKY. A team including Alexander Payne and
Jim Taylor known for ELECTION writes the screenplay. The film
they have made is a long way from great cinema, but it still is
fun. If you get a thrill from seeing what look very much like
live dinosaurs alive today, the film is for you. I rate it a 7 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE SCORE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
CAPSULE: This is a 1950s or 1960s style heist film, set in the
present. Robert DeNiro stars as a risk-adverse safecracker
who wants to retire form crime but takes one last job at the
request of a personal friend (played by Marlon Brando). Edward
Norton plays a hotshot young sharpster who is also in on the
crime. The plot is mostly straightforward suspense with little
nonsense. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4)
I am sure I must have seen almost the identical plot before. This
is a heist film made for an adult audience who probably wanted a
crime film like they had seen in theaters when they were teens.
There are no superhuman acrobats taking nosedives off of buildings
like in ENTRAPMENT. There is no rock score. There are no ballet-
like martial arts. This is just a basic heist film with a decent
and distinctly credible and un-flashy script.
Nick (played by Robert DeNiro) is a safecracker who has managed to
be successful by never taking risks. If a job is not a safe bet
(pun intended), he backs out. Sometimes even the safe bets turn
out not to be so safe. When one job very nearly goes wrong Nick
is unnerved enough to decide that it is Nature telling him that it
is time to get out of the game. He returns to his home in
Montreal where he owns a jazz club, and decides to manage it full
time. He proposes to his girl friend Diane (Angela Bassett). She
has one condition. He must stay retired from crime. But before
the deal can be cemented, Max, a Montreal kingpin and personal
friend, has one last supposedly easy job for Nick. Nick wants no
part particularly because the heist will be right in his hometown
of Montreal. More and more details seem to complicate the job.
Nick’s partner in the crime is to be a smart, but uncontrollable
young crook, Jack (Edward Norton). Jack treats a locked front
door like a welcome mat, even at his associates’ homes. The young
crook is a know-it-all who seems good at everything he does but at
avoiding rubbing people the wrong way. Together they plan to
steal a priceless historic artifact from the Montreal Customs
House.
The script by Kario Salem, Lem Dobbs, and Scott Marshall Smith
works like an episode of the old "Mission Impossible" television
series. We see pieces of the heist being put together, last
minute changes, and things that go wrong, much like a good episode
of "Mission Impossible." This team might not be bad choices to
write scripts for the Tom Cruise "Mission Impossible" films. The
complications are, however no more and no fewer than are needed to
make the story believable. The telling is cold and noirish, which
is just what it is supposed to be. Director Frank Oz, the voices
of Yoda and Miss Piggy proves surprisingly good at directing a
serious crime film.
THE SCORE has a more than adequate cast with little flashy or
scene-stealing acting. Edward Norton probably has the flashiest
role and even that is low-key by today’s standards. He plays what
is nearly a double role. Jack pretends to be a brain damage
victim to be hired for a job in the Customs House. One nice (?)
character I have not mentioned is Stephen (Jamie Harrold).
Stephen is a master hacker who lives in his mother’s basement in a
house with a lot of screaming in both directions. He seems like
the last person the risk adverse Nick would want to depend upon.
The film itself remains low-key up until the time of the climactic
heist. Then the pace really picks up. Before that the plot even
stops twice for jazz interludes. Though Oz never lets the music
steal time from the story the way Woody Allen does in SWEET AND
LOWDOWN. On the subject of music, the score of THE SCORE is by
Howard Shore. It adds tension to the suspense scenes, but never
seems to have much of a melody.
Angela Bassett is the one misused celebrity in a totally minor
role that should have been played by a less famous actress who
needed a break. She has nothing to do in the film but demand that
Nick give up crime and to look like an attractive reward if he
does. Speaking of being attractive THE SCORE seems to be
attracting an older audience who learned to appreciate much the
same sort of film in the 1950s and 1960s. It does the job. I
rate it a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.
-- George Bernard Shaw
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/