THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/20/02 -- Vol. 21, No.25
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:
Toronto International Film Festival
Alphabetic Anguish (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (film review by
Mark R. Leeper)
STAR TREK: NEMESIS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
NEVER GET OUTTA OF THE BOAT (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON, Lewis Carroll,
Philip K. Dick) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Toronto International Film Festival
While you're waiting for the rest of Mark's full-length reviews
which continue to run here, Evelyn has finally finished her much
shorter comments, along with general festival comments, and they
are available at
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/tiff2002.htm [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Alphabetic Anguish (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This country is built on a number of attitudes, beliefs, and out
and out myths. Some of these we have been completely
unsuccessful in convincing the people for whom they were
intended. Sometimes, however, it is possible sell a myth only
too well. There is at least one myth, one of the more specious,
that we have been not just completely successful and ultimately
overly successful in convincing its intended audience. Because
that audience is nearly completely naive, this myth which is
really a lie, has been fully and uncritically accepted as the
truth. This myth, which we have convinced every small child is
true, is the assertion that every adult just loves hearing any
child sing the A-B-C song. Young children are convinced that
every adult is totally astonished to the point of stunned
incredulity that the child should have memorized the entire
alphabet of the his or her own language. In fact, the song is a
mnemonic device of questionable value.
The fact (of which the child is generally well aware) that
pretty much every peer of the performing child can duplicate the
feat of singing this song is a matter of complete indifference
to the diminutive braggart. Young children seem to be convinced
that the entire adult population of this country believes that
there is a lost art to reciting the alphabet, albeit off-key and
to a perversion of Mozart's melody of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little
Star". Each child behaves as if he or she alone is keeping the
nearly lost art alive. The adult is expected to appear
enormously relieved to find that there is one child in the world
who can be the torchbearer for the cause of continuing literacy,
bringing knowledge of the twenty-six letters of the alphabet
into the brave new world of the future. Actually, the vast
majority of these young performers are probably ignorant of just
how many of these letters there actually are or for what purpose
they are used. This myth that the child is performing some
vital societal function is apparently constantly renewed as
smiling parents hover and beam with pride as children perform
this overly-familiar recitation in airplanes, restaurants, post
office lines, and other public places where the recitation is
particularly annoying. What is more, every doting parent
expects every other adult to not only welcome the experience,
lacking as it is in novelty or any entertainment value, and to
patronize their Lilliputian offspring and play along with the
joke. They are expected to pretend that little Fred or little
Matilda has performed a task of prodigious acumen.
Making matters worse, whoever initially wrote the song found
that the entire English alphabet could be spoken in a scant
twenty-eight syllables. (P.S. "w" is the letter you are trying
to think of.) This was too short to fill even four of the six
lines of the melody "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." Following
the "s" and the "w" the songwriter arbitrarily inserted the
conjunction "and" to fit the meter. This still left him with
only four lines filled to the proper number of syllables. Two
lines remained completely empty. He could not invent new
letters of the alphabet. Faced with those two empty lines he
apparently panicked and committed what many have considered an
unpardonable and certainly inconvenient act. He finished the
song with the lines "Now I know my ABCs, tell me what you think
of me." I would contend that if the child's parents are present
this is an unreasonable and onerous demand. Of course, the
proper answer would be to tell the child that he or she has
simply demonstrated a very prosaic and unexceptional talent.
But some misplaced chivalric instinct, not to mention social
convention, does not allow an adult answer the question with the
total frankness that the child deserves but would inevitably
find disheartening. Instead the adult is expected to affect an
insincere adulation. The child is given one night a year,
October 31, to come around to your house and solicit unearned
sweet things. But the child is given 365 nights and as many
days to solicit unwilling and insincere flattery.
This tyranny of the newly-barely-literate must end.
Of course, when my new niece learns her ABCs and starts reciting
them, none of this applies to her. But she is a very special
case. She is a prodigious genius and exceptions must be made
for genius. And on top of this she just wuvs her uncle all to
pieces. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The middle third of the adaptation of the great epic
fantasy comes surprisingly close to being a satisfying
adaptation. What may be just about the best fantasy film ever
made continues the story of J. R. R. Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE
RINGS. Intelligent and visually beautiful, Peter Jackson's THE
LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is an instant classic. Rating: 10 (0
to 10), +4 (-4 to +4) (Note: This is not a rating of LORD OF
THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS. Peter Jackson is making a nine-hour
film and releasing it in three parts. I am not sure that rating
the second part makes sense any more than rating the middle
third of NORTH BY NORTHWEST. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO
TOWERS is not by itself a story with a satisfying beginning,
middle, and ending. It does not stand by itself. Instead, I
will update my review of THE LORD OF THE RINGS to discuss the two
released sections.)
In a year with several sequels and series films being released,
the one for which the public has the greatest expectation is
Peter Jackson's adaptation of the middle book of the LORD OF THE
RINGS, and with good reason. One reservation on the
recommendation of the film: it is not recommended that anyone
see the second section of this film who has not first seen the
first section and is not familiar with the story. Peter Jackson
has no time to bring newcomers up to speed even in a three-hour
chapter. Instead, opportunities abound to see the first section
via cable, home video, and convention showings. All this is
perhaps a recognition that seeing the second section without
knowledge of the content of the first section is not a good
idea.
In the second section of the film as the story continues, the
Fellowship has split into three groups. Frodo (Elijah Wood) and
Sam Gamgee (Sean Astin) are continuing to Mount Doom in their
effort to destroy the ring. Frodo is troubled by dreams of the
death of Gandalf (Ian McKellen). The man Aragorn (Viggo
Mortensen), the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and the dwarf Gimli
(John Rhys-Davies) search for their captured friends, Pippin
(Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan). Pippin and Merry in
the meantime are attempting to free themselves and return to the
Shire. These quests will involve the group in a coming war
between the kingdom of Rohan, ruled by Theoden (Bernard Hill)
and the Fellowship's archenemy, the wizard Saruman (Christopher
Lee). Saruman wants to destroy all the kingdoms of men in
Middle Earth. The centerpiece of this film is the intricately
detailed dramatization of the Battle of Helm's Deep, the climax
of this section.
The story line, like the Fellowship itself, has split into three
pieces and in sort of the ultimate road picture, follows the
travels and experiences of the three groups. A major new
character has been added, though we did see him from a distance
in the previous film. This is the dangerous figure Gollum
(almost fully digital but with a voice by Andy Serkis). Gollum
is rumored to have been a hobbit once, but had acquired and then
lost the Ring. Gollum's temporary possession of the Ring has
left him shriveled, emaciated, and schizophrenic. His face now
looks like something out of a Japanese ghost story, which may
well be an intentional resemblance. But above all the
possession of the Ring has left Gollum with an unquenchable
desire to once again possess the Ring.
The script has some variations from the book that do not
completely make sense. Grima Wormtongue (Brad Dourif) seems to
have been planted in Helm's Deep to be a false adviser to
Theoden, but in the film version that seems totally redundant
since Theoden is already possessed by Saruman. If time is
moving uniformly in the multiple story lines, Pippin and Merry
spend what must be a very long time, most of the film, in a
tree. Some of the writing is just bad ideas. "The battle for
Helm's Deep is over. The battle for Middle Earth is about to
begin!" is a near-direct borrowing from Winston Churchill.
Legolas sledding down stone stairs on a shield is a bit of
unnecessary silliness. But the nice touches seem to outnumber
the bad ones.
The visualizations have some problems, but generally are quite
good. There are moments when it is obvious the viewer is seeing
CGI animation. Somehow it looks 95% natural, but there is some
nuance of natural movement that the animators are not getting.
Some scenes the animation looks a little jerky. While the
animation in scenes of battle is as breathtaking as the New
Zealand scenery, there are moments when it tips its hand. The
animation of Gollum is wonderful and one almost accepts him as a
real character. But somehow I was bothered by the voice. It
did not quite fit the lips. It felt more like foreign film
dubbing than like a live actor speaking. But there is a real
character in Gollum and I doubt people will find him as grating
as Jar-Jar Binks. Speaking of the scenery, it becomes a real
character of the film. Howard Shore's music, while it does not
strike me as creative as in the first film, still creates the
mood with little reuse of music from the first film.
The cast remains excellent, though I cannot say that Elijah Wood
does a lot for me as Frodo. Perhaps he does not convey enough
emotion. Bernard Hill is a good solid addition to the story.
He may be best remembered as the Captain in TITANIC. There is
something of a distraction having John Rhys-Davis's voice come
from two different characters, Gimli and the new Treebeard. Liv
Tyler and Cate Blanchett appear almost exclusively as wispy and
exaggerated visions the ideal of elegance and beauty. They are
made to seem too mythic while Brad Dourif (of ONE FLEW OVER THE
CUCKOO'S NEST and RAGTIME) does not seem mythic enough. Ian
McKellen, always welcome, is back in a slightly different role.
Rarely has film been used so effectively to make a fantasy live
on the screen. I will not rate the middle third of THE LORD OF
THE RINGS but I rate the first two parts of THE LORD OF THE
RINGS a full score of 10 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +4 on the -4
to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: STAR TREK: NEMESIS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: As the "Star Trek" series seems slowly to lose steam,
here is one late uncharacteristic burst of life and energy, a
science-fictional examination of the nature-nurture question.
Picard and Data each meet physically identical copies of their
former selves and each must deal with the similarities and
differences. The question faced is, what makes a person who he
is? Also there are the usual battles in space including one
showstopper of a scene. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4)
Over the last few years there has been less excitement in things
labeled "Star Trek." The series, perhaps like many of its
original fans, seems closer to the end than the beginning. The
excitement seems to have disappeared. For both the films and
the television show the danger has gone out of their universe as
the crews in each series comes out on top week after week after
week. Diverse new alien races introduced are more and more a
fashion show of rubber appliques. Major characters are killed
for dramatic effect, then brought back from the dead or replaced
with nearly identical copies. The old fun and jeopardy are just
not there any more. Bones and Scotty and Kirk and Spock used to
be as interesting for their personal interplay as for their
parts in the science fiction story. Now in the films the
personal moments are an embarrassment that the audience hopes
end quickly. It would be smart for the Trek writers to give up
on having their characters try to sing or play Shakespeare. But
as the series cools, STAR TREK: NEMESIS may be one late bright
flash.
The title STAR TREK: NEMESIS does not really fit this film. Or
rather it fits any other "Star Trek" film with a villain just
about as well as it fits this one. A much better name might
have been STAR TREK: DOPPLEGANGER since the story is really
about both Picard and Data meeting and dealing identical copies
of themselves. Picard meets a commander who was cloned from his
own cells. Data meets a prototype of his model of robot. How
does one relate to an identical equal? How does one compete?
That is what this episode is all about and the intelligence of
that science fictional question is what sets this above other
episodes of the series. Of course, more than interesting
concepts are needed for a "Star Trek" film. The ideas alone
will not carry the rest of the film. (The "Star Trek" film with
the most intelligent premise, no less than in inquiry into what
distinguishes a valid religion from a false one, was STAR TREK
V: THE FINAL FRONTIER. The ideas were really engaging, but the
rest of that film was way out of kilter, and it became the most
unpopular entry in the series.) NEMESIS does offer more. The
action has a slow start, but in the second half it takes off.
About the best the script offers for action in the first half is
a silly dune buggy chase. The second half, however, serves up a
show stopping visual image that is worth the wait.
I will not go into detail about the plot. Suffice it to say
that the twin planets of Romulus and Remus (those *must* be the
Earth names for them) are undergoing political upheavals. Their
new leader is the Reman Praetor Shinzon (Tom Hardy), literally a
clone of Picard. Shinzon offers much-desired peace to the
Federation. Unfortunately he is not played by a heart-throb,
there are harsh phonics in his name, and there are sinister
chords in the musical score when we see him, so Picard is
rightly suspicious of him. Meanwhile Data (Brent Spiner) is
fascinated with a new robot found in pieces on a desert planet
and reassembled. It is B4, a prototype of the robots that
became Data and it looks just like him (also played by Brent
Spiner, of course). The plot is one of the better ones for the
film series, and it is not immediately obvious where the story
is going except it is a good bet that it will involve space
battles.
The old crew is around and good to see. Patrick Stewart, is, of
course, a fine actor always, even if the "Star Trek" people do
not give him enough new to do. At one point he does get a
chance to wax poetic and say that like other commanders he
awaits the dawn. Ironically, the piece is edited right into a
look at the exterior of the ship which is in space and clearly
has a long wait before what one would call a dawn comes. Brent
Spiner is getting a little old to play the never-aging robot
Data. Old Data may be unreliable. Jonathan Frakes seems to
take little part in this story other than to get Will Riker
married. That is fine by most of the fans. It is not clear how
he has survived so many years of Picard giving the order to
"Fire at Will." Ron Perlman is hard to recognize under his
makeup, but I imagine he is used to that. Tom Hardy does not
look or sound enough like Picard, in spite of trying to affect
the accent (as if that part were genetic). I would bet that at
some point in production Shinzon was supposed to be played by
Patrick Stewart. They pose together in one scene as if the
viewer is supposed to be surprised seeing two copies of the same
person, but they are not enough alike to make that scene work.
Another less likely possibility is that Shinzon was supposed to
be played by Ben Kingsley. Kingsley and Stewart are reputedly
close friends who are often mistaken for one another.
Overall the special effects are done competently, though certain
scenes look cartoonish. The "Big Scene" is executed very well
with a lot of information on the screen in exquisite detail.
When the DVD comes out I am sure the fans will play the scene
over and over. Jerry Goldsmith has provided a fine score re-
using some of his familiar but welcome "Star Trek" themes. I
rate STAR TREK: NEMESIS a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale. One thing I will say that the filmmakers
got right that most sci-fi films get wrong. Data is absolutely
right that an identical clone is not another version of the same
person. Identical twins can be quite different in many ways,
particularly if they have different backgrounds. Films like THE
SIXTH DAY frequently get that concept wrong. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: NEVER GET OUTTA OF THE BOAT (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: There is a lot of loud music in the spaces between all
the loud yelling in this look into the lives of men who come
together in a drug rehabilitation house. Nick Gillie wrote and
stars in the film and Paul Quinn directs. Somehow the film
misses being deeply moving and does not pack enough cinematic
reward to compensate for the 96 minutes the viewer has to spend
with these people. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
Paul Quinn has directed one previous film, THIS IS MY FATHER.
That film had its faults, but it was in just about every way a
more enjoyable cinematic experience than NEVER GET OUTTA THE
BOAT. This film is about a halfway house for drug
rehabilitation. Several men's lives intersect in the house in
two basic kinds of stories. One story is "the guy who succeeded
at rehab." The other story is "the guy who did not succeed."
Whichever story we are watching, and the film give us little
reason to care, the guy will hear a lot of yelling along the way
and probably will generate some of his own. This sort of thing
has been done before. We see people partying, messing up their
lives, patching their lives, and doing more partying. This is a
painful film to watch with a lot of loud music and a lot of loud
shouting and screaming and people doing painful things to
themselves and to people they know. The feel is very realistic,
but this sort of film has been around since SYNANON in 1965.
There is a small education in how a sober living facility is run
and the rules enforced. There is a look into the lives of
recovering addicts and alcoholics. The realism keeps the film a
step above being a collection of cautionary tales. But the
centerpiece is a sermon artificially delivered at the end as an
expository lump that spells out the moral of all we have seen
before and was already obvious. I rate the film a 5 on the 0 to
10 scale and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. The title comes
from a piece of advice that Martin Sheen gets in APOCALYPSE NOW.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Let's see. There was FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON for the local library
book discussion group. (It's not a science fiction group, but in
fact there will be a science fiction group starting in January,
which should be interesting.) I also re-read THE TWO TOWERS
before seeing the movie Wednesday. (I didn't re-read THE
FELLOWSHIP of the RING because we watched the film--the extended
version--Sunday on DVD with some friends.)
I also read Alberto Manguel's collection of essays, INTO THE
LOOKING-GLASS WORLD. (He is the editor of the *really* excellent
anthology of magical realism, BLACK WATER.) On one of the section
title pages, he quotes Chapter V of Lewis Carroll's THROUGH THE
LOOKING-GLASS:
"There's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being
punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next
Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."
"Suppose he never commits the crime?" said Alice.
"That would be all the better, wouldn't it?" the Queen said.
Is this where Philip K. Dick got his idea for "Minority Report"?
I also started Avram Davidson's collection THE OTHER NINETEENTH
CENTURY, about which I will probably say more later. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other
people without blushing.
-- 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/