THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
10/19/01 -- Vol. 20, No. 16
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:
Contributions
Parallel Footprints (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
IRON MONKEY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
More Films from the Toronto International Film Festival
(film reviews of WAKING LIFE, WHO IS CLETIS TOUT?,
and LAST ORDERS)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Contributions
When we (Mark and Evelyn) left Avaya/Lucent, we had to find new
homes for the books in the science fiction club library. The
fiction books (about a thousand) were donated to the Holmdel
Public Library and the Monmouth County library system. The
reference books were donated to the Science Fiction & Fantasy
Writers of America (SFWA) Medical Fund Auction. At Worldcon,
the Contento index to anthologies brought $65. The two-volume
Tuck encyclopedia was held over for a future auction.
The fund is used to help pay medical expenses for authors who
have no medical insurance. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Parallel Footprints (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I want to talk today about footprints. In specific I want to talk
about dinosaur footprints. When it comes to fossils of dinosaurs,
footprints definitely have in most people's minds a secondary
status. What people like to see is fossilized bone. That at
least looks like it was a part of the dinosaur (even if it really
was not). They want to see some piece of the dinosaur itself to
spark their imagination. Just knowing a dinosaur walked here and
the shape of its foot seems less exciting than finding some big
bone that will allow us to marvel at the size.
The fact remains that some very interesting information can be
gleaned from dinosaur footprints. You can judge how fast a
dinosaur ran by looking at the length of his stride. Once you
know that you can also judge how much energy the beast had. Once
you have that knowledge you have a much better idea whether is was
a slow-moving, cold-blooded creature or a fast-moving, warm-
blooded animal. But the single most amazing thing I remember ever
hearing about dinosaurs has recently come from dinosaur
footprints.
The following is quoted from the article "Social Behavior in
Dinosaurs" by Lynne M. Clos. "The Triassic rocks on Mt. Tom, near
Holyoke, Massachusetts preserve 28 parallel trackways made by
tridactyl bipeds. The likelihood of this many parallel trails
occurring randomly is minuscule, and the rare trails which do not
follow the trend preclude the possibility of a restricted
corridor."
Think about what that is saying. They found 28 sets of parallel
tracks. That seems to mean the tracks were all made at the same
time by 28 of a species walking in a line, shoulder to shoulder.
At a panel at the recent World Science Fiction Convention a
paleontologist said they even wheeled around a turn. The ones
toward the outside walking further and faster to maintain the
line. One place one of them missed his footing and fell out of
line knocking two others out of line. They got back in line.
This is pretty amazing behavior.
Why would they do that? Why would dinosaurs walk abreast? Well
they probably were something like hadrosaurs. Those were
duckbilled dinosaurs. Individually they did not have a whole lot
of defense mechanisms. They did not have sharp horns or sharp
teeth or spikes. They could probably scratch a little, but that
was about all. One hadrosaur was pretty much meat on the hoof for
any passing predator.
On the other hand a predator would have to think twice about
attacking a line of 28 hadrosaurs. It is a really good defensive
strategy. They could put the weak and the young toward the center
where they were the best protected. There are some really good
reasons why they would walk abreast. There is only one reason why
they would not. To walk abreast like that requires organization
and intelligence. We are talking about a bunch of reptiles here.
When do humans walk 28 abreast? Prehistoric man did not do that
that we know of. The ancient Egyptians may have walked 28 abreast
under certain circumstances. The adjective that comes to mind is
"military." Humans did it only when they thought about it and
realized it had tactical advantages. Perhaps that is over-
anthropomorphizing them. But it is a posture that demonstrates
organization and intelligence. Clos calls it herding, but it
sounds to me to be too organized for simple herding. Cows herd
but they don't do it in formation. Birds, the descendants of
dinosaurs, may fly in formation but for each bird it is only to
take advantage of the air currents that the bird ahead is making.
There is nothing like that in the case of walking dinosaur. No
contemporary animal I know (except humans) walks in formation.
The finding of parallel footprints raises the intelligence level
of prehistoric reptile above the level of any current animals and,
in fact, above prehistoric man. If they had the reasoning power
to walk in formation for defensive purposes, or for whatever
purposes occurred to them, what other pieces of reasoning were
they capable of that did not make it into the fossil record?
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: IRON MONKEY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: IRON MONKEY is a movie that is easier to like than to
respect. It has a plot that could easily have been a Zorro
episode but is reframed as Chinese martial arts. There is lots of
action but if you are old enough to read the subtitles, you have
probably seen much of the plot before. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4
to +4)
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON was the most successful foreign-
language film ever released in the United States. It combined a
story of some sophistication with some historical spectacle and
more than a little martial arts action including some incredibly
graceful wirework. While the market for martial arts films is
still hot other distributors want to cash in. Action films like
THE MUSKETEER are throwing in wirework in places where it does not
belong. One previously released film featuring martial arts on
and off a wire has gotten a new lease on life. The film is IRON
MONKEY. It is a nice polished production from Tsui Hark, who
produced the CHINESE GHOST STORY films and WICKED CITY.
Superficially it looks like it is in the same class as CROUCHING
TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. It has the acrobatics and the elegant
photography. But it lacks the plot subtlety. In fact, the
plotting bears no small resemblance to an episode from the
adventures of that American hero from old California, El Zorro.
In IRON MONKEY, a corrupt governor rules a village and oppresses
the innocent peasants forcing high taxes on them. The governor
needs to tax the peasants mercilessly to support his expensive and
selfish life style including gourmet food for himself and his nine
beautiful wives. The one thorn in the governor's side, beside his
comically inept captain of the guards, is a masked bandit who, in
classic tradition, steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
Wherever there is injustice, Iron Monkey seems to know it and is
there to flip into action and clobber evildoers with ultra-perfect
kung fu style. Nobody knows that Iron Monkey is in reality the
timid-seeming village doctor and the Monkey's sidekick is the
doctor's beautiful assistant. Iron Monkey is put into danger when
another medical man comes to the village with a son. In addition
to the healing arts, they are also secretly expert in the martial
arts. They can cure or clobber. They seem to be good, but their
loyalties give the impression of being with the evil governor.
The screenplay, a product of four credited writers, has more than
a few plot holes and contrivances. A character only has to claim
to be oppressed, truthfully or not, and immediately the Iron
Monkey comes to her aid. In one case a woman only utters the
words and the Monkey is there. To give the film a one-up on other
martial arts films even the Shao-Lin monks whose heroic virtue is
lauded in so many martial arts films have been turned to the dark
side by this evil governor.
Visually the film has a few problems. The virtuosity of the
martial artists is clearly excellent, but too often they rely
rather obviously on wires to create an impressive appearance.
Another frequent but too obvious effect is to run the film
backwards. Both of these effects are extremely detectable.
Wooden poles and pillars when struck like with a karate kick seem
to break in perfectly smooth saw cuts. One more visual problem in
a different vein: Orchid, the Iron Monkey's assistant, can dress
as a man and even wear a fake mustache, but it still is hard to
believe the evil governor is fooled.
Director Woo-ping Yuen loses no opportunity to show off Chinese
dishes. The governor is fond of shark fin soup. The guards like
Dim Sum. (Is this an anachronism?) And Orchid likes to make
piquant meat dishes. They seem to have people as adept in the
kitchen arts as others are in the martial arts.
If distributors are looking for a way to capture the fire of
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, they will probably have to make
new film. IRON MONKEY just is not in the same class. It is,
however, just about right for a Saturday matinee. I rate it a 6
on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. FYI: A
credit at the end says "Remembering Kevin Bartnof." Who is that?
Kevin Bartnof died June 30, 2001, at the age of 43. He had been a
foley artist (meaning he provided basic sound effects like
footsteps, doors closing, etc.) on major films like THE ABYSS,
SCHINDLER'S LIST, THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, and THE PERFECT STORM.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: More Films from the Toronto International Film Festival
As you may have noticed from previous weeks the films I am writing
about are all on a single theme. I have broken the films I saw at
the TIFF into categories. After I grouped films into categories
there were three films left over and I could not find a whole lot
to group them. So I just had a grab-bag sort of collection. I am
trying to publish the reviews before any of the films in that
category is released. The first of the collection of three
miscellaneous films to be released is WAKING LIFE. I think that
is being released this weekend. So, here then are the films that
did not fit in with any other group. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: WAKING LIFE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The first digital video animated film is an account of a
man going through his dreams listening to people talk about
dreams, dream states, and the nature of time and reality. Some of
the speakers are philosophical, some highly speculative, and some
incoherent. The undulating animation is at times irritating,
worse than hand-held cameras, but few films so revel in ideas.
Rating: 7 (0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4)
Not only is it rare to find a feature film like WAKING LIFE
itself, it is rare to find a feature film that is even plays in
stylistic fields this far from the norm. First what is the film
about? An unnamed character played by Wiley Wiggins talks to
people about the relationship and duality of dreams and waking
life. Richard Linklater filmed with a hand-held camera Wiggins
and some people who talked to him and gave their views of reality.
The visual images were transferred to computer where animators
superimposed animation over Linklater's filmed images in a
technique like rotoscoping. So we just have animated films of
Wiggins talking to many and various people about the nature of
dreams. The film is little more than that. Wiggins does little
of the talking. He just listens with a "Wow! Cosmic, Man!"
expression on his animated face.
The film is a symphony of ideas the viewer may not be able to hum
later. The point is not assimilating all the ideas on one
viewing; it is to immerse the viewer in the flood of ideas. I do
not believe that any of the people shown in the film are in any
way considered expert, but each has philosophy of sorts. The
ideas are concepts of life, death, and time. They are views of
dream and reality. The ideas just interplay as we as an audience
in Wiggins's dream go from one person to the next. We hear some
old chestnuts like that time is an illusion. And probably no
matter who you are you hear some ideas that are new to you.
At some point one must discuss the artistic decision to animate
this film and to use the style of animation that was used. I
think that the style that is used is near right, but on some level
it sabotages the effort. It certainly gives the film the right
dreamlike quality. Linklater himself says that he is going for
the feeling of being on drugs and made the film for people on
drugs. If so I think he is also showing us a little of the
downside. The images give motion where it is not needed. At time
the scenery seems to undulate on dry land as if it were on an
ocean. There it distracts rather than enhances. Other places the
animation comments on the discussion, illustrating an idea here or
there or playfully turning the speakers into billows of clouds.
Linklater had the animation assignments broken down by character
and not by scene, an approach the better animation studios use
now. That way stylistic differences become part of the character
rather than errors and inconsistencies. It eliminates the need
for the director to police the style to maintain consistency.
Rather than the new very realistic animation styles this film
falls back on an easier impressionist approach. But the people
are still recognizably the same people with the essence of their
expression still there in simplified form.
To tell too much of the ideas discussed would be a little like
revealing the jokes in a comedy. One moment the person speaking
will be talking about the philosophy of Kierkegaard, the next the
subject will have gone to out of body experiences. One person
will be talking about different concepts of life and the physical
universe; the next will be as concrete as giving ways to recognize
dreams.
The film was written as well as directed by Linklater though it
would be interesting to find how much of what he wrote was
transcription of conversation and how much was contributed by the
speakers. One would be tempted to believe these are all
interviews with real people presented verbatim but for a scene of
actors Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, possibly playing their
characters from Linklater's BEFORE SUNRISE, also entering into the
discussion. It is not at all obvious what it means to say the
screenplay is by Richard Linklater. I would rate the film a 7 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: WHO IS CLETIS TOUT? (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is (intended to be) a romantic comedy of an escaped
convict mistaken for a man wanted dead by gangsters. Chris Ver
Wiel has several good ideas, but overall the film is very slight
and never really involves the viewer. The characters are thin and
the writing is generally weak. A few chuckles do not make WHO IS
CLETUS TOUT? worth seeing. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), high 0 (-4 to +4)
This is the second film by Chris Ver Wiel and the fourth he has
written. It seems to have gotten a quality production including
actors like Christian Slater, Richard Dreyfus, and Tim Allen, but
it still feels like a student production. The opening credits
make this look like they expect it to be a madcap comedy, but
somehow the timing is off. Instead of being offbeat it might
better be described as out of kilter.
A mob kill named Critical Jim (played by a miscast Tim Allen) is
holding the man he thinks is Cletis Tout. He does not know that
Tout is actually dead and the man he is holding is actually Trevor
Finch (Christian Slater). Finch is an escaped convict and a
forger who has taken the name of a dead man in the hope it would
keep him out of trouble. It did not work. Critical Jim likes old
movies (excessively) so Finch tells his story to Jim as if it were
an old movie. I will not go into detail into the plot, but it
involves a botched robbery, an escape from a chain gang, a chase
after stolen diamonds, and a plan to break into prison.
Chris Ver Wiel wrote and directed and while the Toronto Film
Festival program book calls him a first time director, this is
actually the second film he has directed. The film has the feel
of being pieces of ideas fitted together. There is a little too
much violence for a light comedy. You have actors each doing his
own thing and their performances not really working together.
Richard Dreyfus is mellow playing an older con with an interest in
stage magic, but when his magic comes into the plot it is in
unbelievable ways. Portia de Rossi plays a sort of hardened woman
and love interest, but she has no chemistry with Slater. The
characters are thin and not well developed. RuPaul is thrown in
as a drag queen, but then not really used. People do things that
they never would do in real life and the film does nothing to help
us suspend our disbelief. The whole film seems more like an
exercise in seeing if the writer has enough ideas tumbled together
to total to a feature length film. They fall just a bit short.
The music by Randy Edelman is sufficiently bouncy. But Slater does
not carry the film and Portia de Rossi is not very interesting as
either a crook or a love interest. This film aimed at being a
FOUL PLAY sort of film, but it never finds its pacing. I give it
a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: LAST ORDERS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Four close friends travel a day-long odyssey to scatter
the ashes of a recently deceased fifth friend. As they travel
they think about the past and their relationship to the their
friend. An excellent cast bring Graham Swift's novel to the
screen written and directed by Fred Schepisi. This is a moving
look at the meaning of death. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to
+4)
In some ways film is more real than reality. After seeing an
imaginary person on the screen for two hours one frequently can
have more of a feeling for that person than someone you met in
real life two hours before. Perhaps it is because a good director
can show you more sides of a person and more of that person's
personality that you could see in that person's presence in a much
longer interval.
Early in LAST ORDERS you meet Ray, Vic, and Lenny (played by Bob
Hoskins, Tom Courtney, and David Hemmings). They are three old
blokes hanging around a pub and drinking and remembering their
recently dead friend Jack (played by Michael Caine and J. J. Field
depending on how far back is the flashback). As we soon find out
Jack has been cremated and his ashes are in the container the
three are toasting. Jack's last trip will be that day. He will
go to Margate, the resort area where he and his wife Amy
honeymooned. There his friends will scatter his ashes into the
sea.
The three men and Jacks son set out in a car for Margate, each
talking about and thinking about the past. Amy is not joining
them because she is visiting her mentally retarded daughter whom
Jack had rejected and who is in a home. Amy is played by Helen
Mirren who previously has played so many glamorous roles. This is
a remarkably unglamorous role for her. So the men drive, talk,
and argue. Through flashbacks we see their memories. Some are
about the recent past and Jack's financial worries with a failing
butcher shop. More often they go back to World War II. Younger
actors are used for those much earlier times and do reasonable
impressions of the older versions of themselves. These are people
who remember well because they have not much to show for those
times but memories. This is a film about relationships and
endings. The writing by Schepisi, based on the novel by Graham
Swift, is both delicate and sad. Underscoring it is Paul
Grabowsky's melancholy score.
I rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4
scale. [A personal note: As we were sitting at the Toronto
International Film Festival waiting for this film to start at 9:30
AM someone in the row ahead of us told us that a plane had crashed
into the World Trade Center. I remembered that it had happened
during World War II with the Empire State Building, I thought
trying to picture the WTC with a hole in its side. It was a
disaster, but it seemed also a bit of a novelty. I would be
curious to see the films. It did not enter my mind that the
incident could have been intentional. When the film was over it
was announced that Schepisi would had canceled the question and
answer session due to "the events of the morning." This must have
been a serious plane crash. As I exited I heard that a second
plane had also hit the WTC. That was when I knew the world had
changed. I suspect each person in that audience that day will
think of the incidents of that day whenever they think of this
film.] [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Democracy is a process by which the people are free
to choose the man who will get the blame.
-- Laurence J. Peter
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Pv4pGD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/