THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/22/02 -- Vol. 21, No. 21
Big Cheese: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Little Cheese: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
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:
Alchemy and Fantasy (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
THE QUIET AMERICAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE EMPEROR'S CLUB (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (ALTERNATE GENERALS II, YEAR OF THE
HANGMAN, THE GREAT GATSBY, STORIES OF YOUR LIFE
AND OTHERS, and SOLARIS) (book comments by
Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Alchemy and Fantasy (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have commented in previous writings that I am a little bemused
and a little bothered that for American audiences the title
HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSPHER'S STONE was changed and dumbed
down to HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCEROR'S STONE. The reason for
this transformation is that somebody decided that Americans
would not know what the Philosopher's Stone was. It would sound
a little abstract for Yanks. The powers-that-were decided we
are ignorant of the existence of alchemy and can just as well
remain so. I think that concepts of alchemy show up much more
in European literature than in American literature. Not all
European fantastical ideas get this treatment. Ideas like the
existence of vampires have been mined ad nauseum in American
literature and film, but somehow alchemy is too complex and
abstract to have ever caught the public's imagination here. The
New World is a world of science and materialsm. The mysticism
of alchemy is apt to be looked upon, even by those who know of
it, as hokey.
Americans are not well grounded in the mystical, especially if
it is non-religious. I am not saying there is any basis in fact
for the mystical, but one should be able to recognize the basic
concepts of mysticism. There probably is no better example of
American materialism than the way films have handled the concept
of the Frankenstein monster. With the exception of the short
1910 version made by the Edison studios, the film versions have
all placed the creation of the monster outside of the realm of
mysticism and squarely in the realm of the scientific.
This scientific or pseudo-scientific approach is not actually
true of the original book by Mary Shelley. In particular,
everybody in American films generally assumes that Frankenstein
sewed together dead bodies and animated them with electricity in
some generalization of galvanism. Checking the novel, there is
one quick mention of electricity in the novel and it is not in
any connection with the creation. Mary Shelley is extremely coy
in her explanations of how Victor Frankenstein performed his
ill-considered feat. We are told that Victor went off to
college and studied science. He also became interested at the
same time in the works of the mystics of alchemy. He realized
one day he had what he needed to know to create a man and he
simply went ahead and made one. Though Shelley is quite verbose
in other places, in the method of creation she was extremely
terse. And with good reason. She had no idea how to make a
human and that was not what she intended to be the point of her
novel in any case. Writing at the time I think she said that
she had gotten the idea for the story from discussions about
science, but elsewhere she said it was also inspired by folk
tales. But the only reliable source on the manner of creating
life would have to be the book and it does not say.
From the novel one rather gets the impression that the monster
was made in a manner related to the way that alchemists created
homunculi with a little science thrown in to help Victor
Frankenstein past the hard spots. The classic 1931 film
adaptation has Colin Clive taking bodies, piecing parts
together, and with the strangest pieces of electrical equipment
that could be assembled, the body is infused with electricity
and somehow brought to life. All traces of mysticism and
alchemy from the book have been eliminated. All film versions
of the story since (that come to mind) have followed in the same
path. Only with the mention of Dr. Pretorius in THE BRIDE OF
FRANKENSTEIN is there much of a nod to the alchemist's art.
One rarely sees mentions of alchemy in American fantasy. Like
the original Frankenstein monster it bridges the gap between
mysticism and materialism, though unlike the monster it has a
very real place in history. Its place is as a belief system to
which some people devoted their lives. The mysticism provided
more emotional values than practical ones. Its results were
unreliable and much more open to interpretation. Eventually the
objective pushed out the subjective and alchemy mutated into
chemistry.
In fact, alchemy should probably be thought of as an early stage
of chemistry even more than astrology is thought of as an early
stage of astronomy. The goals of alchemy are more similar to
the goals of modern chemistry than the goals of astrology are to
astronomy.
Next week I will look at what the study of alchemy actually was
in history. As for the alchemist goal of creating life in a
laboratory, they probably never accomplished that, but neither
has science. That is about to change, however. It looks like the
creation of life in a laboratory is now only weeks away. The BBC
() and the
Washington Post
()
and the report that life is about to be created in the laboratory
in the form of a very basic bacteria. The idea is that this will
give rise to cheap energy sources. That is a connection that
outwardly sounds as tenuous as any in a bad sci-fi film. To make
cheap energy scientists will create life in a laboratory. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (film review by
Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts School for his sophomore
year and finds a new mystery involving a missing secret room at
the school and a struggle between purebred wizards and those who
are interbred. There are a lot of new things to see in this world
to make up what gets reused from the first film. This is not a
perfect film, and it does drag in spots, but it is consistently
inventive and rewarding. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4)
Harry Potter film is out and the question is, is there enough new
and exciting to make up for the fact that a lot of this strange
world already will be familiar to most of the audience from the
first film? For me that question may be too close to call. But
Harry Potter remains a children's film made so well that all ages
can appreciate it. Compare that to LORD OF THE RINGS, the other
current popular annual franchise, which is a film for all ages
that children can appreciate.
The continued format of the boy wizard opens many possibilities
for story-telling. But the same as last year--and probably same
as always with Rowling--the story is really an English Public
School story, with its standard coming of age and overcoming
bullies theme, crossed with a boy-detective mystery. Harry's
powers of wizardry are really secondary his powers of logical
deduction. That is probably a good thing because powers of logic
are understood by the viewer while powers of magic are much less
so.
As the film opens Harry is a little morose. He is back at home
with his aunt and uncle who treat him as an awkward and unwanted
stepchild, which is basically what he is in this world. To make
matters worse, none of his friends have written to him all summer
long. But buck up, Harry. Summer is over and it is time to take
the train (from the invisible platform, of course) and head back
to Hogwarts for another year of exciting education, learning
useful skills like turning rats into crystal goblets. It turns
out there was more than meets the eye in last year's choosing to
what house at the college each wizard is assigned. Slithern was
all purebred witches and wizards and they feel racially superior
to Harry and his friends. And there is a new mystery--something
about a room that was sealed up back when the original Wizard
Slithern helped found the school. Old Hogwarts seems more
sinister this year than it did last year. If like in the old Jim
Stafford song you "don't like spiders and snakes" this could be a
bad year for you at Hogwarts. Even the usual friendly (?) game of
quiddich takes on a dangerous and nasty feel almost as bad as
English Rugby. And of course we have Harry getting into trouble
with the teachers who seem a tad ungrateful to the boy who saved
Hogwarts and perhaps the world last year. But then Hogwarts is a
bit darker this year. The sun seems to rise only to allow the
occasional game of quiddich.
There are some new characters this year. Kenneth Branagh plays
Gilderoy Lockhart, a sensationalist celebrity wizard who is coming
to teach at Hogwarts when he finishes promoting his new book.
Then there is Dobby the House Elf. For this new character the
filmmakers seem to have managed what George Lucas could not do.
They have created a fully digital character that does not set the
viewers' teeth on edge. It is Dobby who direly warns Harry
against returning to Hogwarts. Somehow the script mentions only
one freshman entering Hogwarts for the first time, oddly enough.
She does not get nearly the fuss that the freshmen got last year,
sad to say.
Daniel Radcliffe does a decent job of portraying Potter, aged just
about the right amount since last year thanks not to digital
effects but to plain old-fashioned nature. Radcliffe just happens
to be a year older as is Potter. The teaching staff is played by
much the same set of substantial but underused actors. These are
one-time major lead actors cast in small supporting roles well
beneath their talents. Little more than scenery are Maggie Smith
and Alan Rickman. Only a little more important is the late
Richard Harris in his final screen role. He has already replaced
for the next film as the annual release schedule does not leave
much time for delay. Most dispensable of the repeated roles is
John Cleese as a nearly headless ghost. The time spent reminding
the audience just who he is seems wasted since he still does not
participate in the story and is only a piece of scenery. One
problem with a series that releases for the holiday season each
year is that there is a little too much that is Father-Christmassy
in this world each year.
HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS sadly fails to expand much
on the world created by the first film. It is a well-crafted
mystery film set in a little too precisely the same world as the
first film. I would have liked it to deliver more that was new
and intriguing, but it is not substantially worse than the
previous film and I am willing to be happy with that. I rate
HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale
and a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. Two notes: It is nice to have the
same title in America and in Britain. Also, be aware that if you
sit quietly to the end of the credits the filmmakers give you a
little reward. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE QUIET AMERICAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Michael Caine gives one of his best performances as
Thomas Fowler, a worldly English journalist, and his
relationship to a naive American who has strong ideas how to
shape Vietnam. Graham Greene wrote the novel set in 1952
Vietnam. The story is powerful and only became more so as the
United States became more involved in Southeast Asia. A
riveting film. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), low +3 (-4 to +4)
I saw Graham Greene's novel THE QUIET AMERICAN sold on street
corners of Vietnam when I visited in March of 2002. I thought
that the reason was just that it was currently being filmed in
the country at that time. In Hoi An, in fact it was being
filmed in town at the same time I was there. The film was being
directed by Michael Caine we were told. I had never heard of
Caine directing and he wasn't this time either. He was
starring, but the film was directed by Australian Philip Noyce
who has helmed good films like DEAD CALM and CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER. In the interim I read the novel (well, part of it) and
had seen the earlier version of the film which had Audie Murphy
in the title role. Noyce was both more faithful to the novel
and made a far better film. In fact, the earlier version
totally perverted the story.
My biggest problem with Noyce's version is probably with me.
Brendan Fraser has played a lot of exaggerated comic roles and
very few roles that are as serious as his part in SCHOOL TIES.
He always looks a little wacky these days even in serious roles.
And this is a film that relies on an undercurrent of danger that
goes well with some sudden and startling plot turns.
Fraser plays Alden Pyle, an American scholar in Saigon. Pyle
is devoted to making a difference in the country, not for the
French or the Communists, the two sides then fighting for
control. Instead he idealistically championed a "third force"
who could represent the interests of what he sees as a single
Vietnamese people.
We see this idealist through the eyes of a decadent English
correspondent. In fact, we see him only in flashback after all
his good intentions have gotten him murdered and his body thrown
into the river. In the flashback Thomas Fowler (Caine), a
worldly and quietly decadent correspondent for a London paper,
meets Pyle. Fowler is skeptical of Pyle's ideals. Then Pyle
meets Phoung, Fowler's attractive mistress. He becomes fixated
on her and Fowler is amused by this chink in his idealistic
armor. Pyle decides to take Phoung from Fowler.
Noyce has recreated an earlier era. This is a Saigon with
foreigners in white suits sitting in cafes to avoid the noonday
sun, watching and admiring young Vietnamese women in their Ao
Dai pants dresses. It is a Vietnam of steamy but beautiful
landscapes and sudden death from explosions or staccato gunfire.
THE QUIET AMERICAN was filmed entirely in Vietnam as an
Australian production. A nice musical score is provided by
Craig Armstrong. I rate THE QUIET AMERICAN an 8 on the 0 to 10
scale and a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. It is one of the high
points of the year. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE EMPEROR'S CLUB (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Kevin Kline takes on a Mr. Chips sort of role as a
teacher who champions traditional values and integrity at a posh
boys' school. This leads him to a piece of unfinished business
many years later when some of his students have grown up. This
is a film that like some of Kline's students, does not live up
to its potential. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)
Currently there is an epidemic of cheating in academia. An old
officemate of mine, newly out of school, once told me in all
sincerity that as hard as schools have gotten, students really
HAVE to cheat these days. I later heard that he ended up a
lawyer in the financial industry, which is probably just the
career for his attitudes. Are virtue and character really
important to success or is life just a scramble for acquisition
without principle? That is the subject of Michael Hoffman's THE
EMPEROR'S CLUB. I am tempted to say that it is a theme that is
particularly timely in the days of the Enron and Worldcom
scandals, but in fact it is no more timely now than it would
have been at any other point in history.
Kevin Kline stars as Mr. Arthur Hundert, the classics teacher at
an exclusive private prep school outside of Washington DC.
Think of GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, but with a teacher who really does
get the respect of his students. At St. Benedict School he has
taught generations of students the classics and more. He has
taught the integrity that really makes life meaningful. As the
film opens in the present, Mr. Hundert is being honored in some
way that is not exactly clear. He thinks back over his years of
teaching to the year 1972. We see the year start as normal with
Hundert doing his standard thing of teaching students and giving
them little life lessons ("a man's character is his fate,"
"success is not remembered, contribution is remembered") while
he instills a love of Classics. Into his class comes Sedgewick
Bell (played by Emile Hirsch). Bell does not play by the usual
prep school rules. He does not study. He convinces other
students to go out on little adventures rather than studying.
He blissfully gets bad grades. Most galling he mocks the
traditions the other students follow and the values that Hundert
is trying to encourage. Hundert goes to talk to Sedgewick's
father, a United States Senator. Rather than find an ally in
his struggle to correct Sedgewick he finds the father is the
source of Sedgewick's questionable values. Hundert sets out to
mold the boy's character in spite of his father. The mere fact
of the visit, however, straightens out Sedgewick sufficiently so
that he becomes one of the best students in the school.
However, Sedgewick's philosophy and Hundert's remain in stark
contrast and this conflict of values will become even more clear
at Hundert's annual "Mr. Julius Caesar" contest.
Part of what is irritating about this film is that Hundert is a
bit of a hypocrite. We see him frequently breaking his own
rules. In a library incident he is willing to endorse
Sedgewick's request for special treatment over a library book.
Perhaps he feels he is helping Sedgewick become a better
scholar, but the same rules that apply to the other students
should apply to Sedgewick and Hundert seems to be willing to
overlook that principle. Later and more prominently in the
plot, Hundert will cheat even worse for Sedgewick's benefit.
But those are unselfish infractions. In another sequence
Hundert plays an impromptu game of baseball. He hits the ball
right through the car window of the Head Master of the school.
Rather than own up to his part in the damage he boyishly runs
away. This is supposed to be cute, but it undermines his
character and the whole point of the film. It is a very serious
script flaw. In addition, the script and Hundert seem to hold
Julius Caesar as some sort of a moral paragon "of profound
character." Suetonius certainly would have disagreed.
Neil Tolkin wrote the screenplay based on the story "The Palace
Thief" by Ethan Canin. Michael Hoffman, who directed the fine
film RESTORATION, directs here. The story has echoes of THE
DEAD POETS SOCIETY, even in the title, though here it acts in
just the reverse and the individualists are the ones who have
the wrong values. With the exception of Sedgewick, all the
students seem to blend together and come out looking a lot
alike, which is part of the goal of the school. This makes it a
school for teaching the upper crust to be the upper crust and
much less sympathetic than intended.
I wanted to like this film better than I did, particularly with
its love of ancient history. Somehow, there were too many
points made by the film that I had reservations about. I rate
THE EMPEROR'S CLUB a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4
to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
This is the first of what I hope will be a weekly column on
books. I never seem to get around to writing full reviews, and
trying to catch up after a few months doesn't work either, so I
figure I'll start small with a paragraph or two a week.
I'm doing "catch-up" on alternate history. I'm currently most of
the way through ALTERNATE GENERALS II (edited by Harry
Turtledove). I'm not sure what the original requirements for a
"large-print" book are, but this comes awfully close, with only
five lines to the vertical inch. As far as content, most of the
stories are (predictably enough) based on the idea that some
famous person in our world ended up differently in another. The
most extreme, "A Southern Strategy" by Michael F. Flynn, seems to
have *everyone* famous in our world end up differently. As a
result, what might have been one of the best stories ends up
merely annoying.
Gary Blackwood's YEAR OF THE HANGMAN, on the other hand, is a
very well-done alternate history about a failed American
Revolution. In fact, though it is a young adult book, it is
still one of the best alternate histories I've read this year,
in part because it deals with society and isn't just a sequence
of alternate battle maneuvers.
I also read F. Scott Fotzgerald's THE GREAT GATSBY for our
library's book discussion group. I can't say it did much for me,
even though it's supposedly a classic.
I'm working my way through Ted Chiang's STORIES OF YOUR LIFE AND
OTHERS, re-savoring all of them. I'm also reading Stanislaw
Lem's SOLARIS in preparation for the movie next week, so expect
comments from me as well as a review of the film from Mark.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I may as well confess myself the author of
several books against the world in general.
--Robert Frost
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Shop for Posters and Prints @ Art.com with state-of-the-art Custom Framing!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lAE0qB/adBFAA/_ZuFAA/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/