THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/31/03 -- Vol. 21, No. 31
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:
Discrimination (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Hugo for Fannish CD???? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Courts Decides Mutant Super-Heroes Are Not Human
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
LA DERNIERE LETTRE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LOST IN LA MANCHA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
DIRTY DEEDS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (HOW THEY SAID IT, WHEN THE FAT LADY
SINGS, Plutarch, THE TIPPING POINT, "Waiting for
Godot") (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
And did you notice...? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Discrimination (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
People don't believe me that I am discriminated against. I find
cashiers tend to have it in for me. I don't understand why. Last
week I was buying three items and two of them needed price checks.
I had to stand there ten minutes while some clerk went back to
check the prices. I think they had it in for me personally.
That's the last time I shop at EVERYTHING-4-A-DOLLAR. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Hugo for Fannish CD???? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have been listening to A WALK ON THE WINDY SIDE, a fannish audio
production on a CD that Windycon put in their goody bag with
little fanfare. It is sort of a guide to what goes on at a
convention including filk songs and Fred Pohl reading his "Let the
Ants Try." (I remember writing about why that story was good when
I was in 6th grade.) It turns out the CD is really quite good.
I think it should at least be eligible for a Hugo. Technically it
would probably go in Short Dramatic Form along with episodes of
"Buffy, the Vampire Slayer." Bill Roper, one of the main voices,
is decent-looking, but he cannot compete with Sarah Michelle
Geller, if you know what I mean. (Gretchen Roper may disagree.)
And you don't even see him on a CD. Also the Windycon Goody Bag
just does not have the penetration of a TV network. I'll nominate
this thing for a Hugo, but it seems almost like a waste of a
nomination. I hope they put it up online someplace where at least
people with Internet access can get it. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Courts Decide Mutant Super-Heroes Are Not Human (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Welcome to the 21st Century. Welcome to the future. I think
things have rather crept up on me. Things are happening that used
to be confined to science fiction stories and to comic books. Are
you aware that the government is now making decisions as to
whether mutants with super-powers are human or not? Seriously.
It's the truth. In fact, the decision has been made at the United
States Court of International Trade that mutants like Wolverine
are not human.
For those who don't know whom or what Wolverine is, think of him
as the Wolf Man with Freddy-Kruger-style claws. Yeah. He's a
good guy. Well, as good as good guys go these days. He isn't
exactly a role model. No, he isn't someone you want your
daughter to bring home as a prospective family member. But he
tries to be good. Or as good as he can be with steel claws.
They sort of rule out use of cell phones and PC keyboards I
would think. But I am digressing. Yes, the United States Court
of International Trade has just ruled that Wolverine and his
buddies are actually not human.
So why does the United States Court of International Trade care?
Well, it is really over money. (Big surprise!) Marvel
Enterprises, Inc. is in a tariff battle with the United States
Customs Service. The Wall Street Journal reports all this at
, and another report from the Delaware
News Journal is at . It seems that
Marvel, in addition to publishing the popular comic books, also
makes lots of toys and dolls of their figures. Okay, I am not
supposed to use the word "dolls." These are "action figures."
It is like we know that what they publish is comic books, but
they prefer the more dignified name "graphic novels." Well,
they think that is more dignified than comic books. Actually
the term "graphic novel" in me conjures up the image of lurid
books from authors you never heard of and with titles like
CENTERFOLD MODELS BEHAVING BADLY. But I guess I am digressing
again and should get to the point. (Pity, I almost hate to lose
that digression.) Anyway, the question really is whether these
"action figures" (I guess that conjures up its own images.
Behave, Mark.) are dolls or toys.
Does it matter if they are dolls or toys? Oh, it surely does.
You see dolls are considered to be a fine item of quality, while
you give fuzzy animal toys to infants to drool on. The government
blithely said that if a toy is a figure of a human, that makes it
a doll and it has a tariff at one rate. If it represents
something non-human, it is merely a toy and it has a tariff at a
significantly lower rate. That was how the tariff was defined.
But like many laws, the people who framed it thought the rule was
clear and easy to apply, but it really is not. In specific, are
Marvel Comics mutants human or not? Well, they kind of are and
they kind of are not. They are in many ways superhuman. You
would think that there is more dignity in being human. But, it
is a dollars-and-cents issue to Marvel. They want the lower
tariff and to have refunded a large amount of tariff that that
has already been paid at the higher doll rate. They don't care
if infants drool on Wolverine if there is a buck to be made from
it. Marvel, through their subsidiary Toy Biz Inc., does not want
their mutants considered human. They want the money they can get
by having their super-heroes labeled non-humans and to heck with
the dignity of the characters. Part of what makes all this
interesting is their readers have more respect for Wolverine than
the publishers do. The readers want Wolverine to be classed as a
human. It makes comic books more respectable. Besides, do you
think Marvel would pass the tariff savings to the
reader/drooler/toy-fan? Dream on. Marvel is willing and happy
to insult its readers by denying humanity to their wolfman with
steel claws for the sake of profits. It is rare that an issue
separates the publishers and readers of comic books, but this one
apparently does.
There is, I suppose, the deeper issue (Peter Singer take note)
that we consider that there is a dividing line between human and
non-human and everything that breathes is on one side of the
line or the other. Non-human can mean superhuman. Though to
the best of my knowledge, Marvel's definition of superhuman is
always measured in how well-equipped a creature is to clout
his/her enemies. I mean, I don't think that any of their heroes
is irradiated by a glowing blue meteor and suddenly has an itch
to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. (Now that is a comic book I
would buy!) Marvel's idea of superhuman seems always to involve
suddenly having the ability to clout someone better.
When Marvel's readers protest that their super-heroes deserve
the dignity of being human, it is because our society and the
first two Star Trek series have repeated so often that being
human is the bestest thing to be in the whole darn universe.
"Star Trek" tells us it is far better to be human than an
emotionless logical entity like a Vulcan or a mechanical thing
like an android. Religions have gotten into the act by
introducing an undefined term called a "soul."
My opinion on this decision is that Marvel and the United States
Court of International Trade are asking the wrong questions.
Are Marvel mutants human or not? Neither. There is no sharp
line of definition. You cannot say that humans have souls, non-
humans do not, and Marvel heroes do or Marvel heroes don't. The
issue should be sentience, not human-ness and in either case,
there are no boundaries. Some heroes are more human than
others. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: LA DERNIERE LETTRE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The performance in French by Catherine Samie adds a
great deal to this one-person film. It is one woman's letter to
her son from Russia telling of the coming of the Nazis to her
town. LA DERNIERE LETTRE (THE LAST LETTER) demonstrates how
riveting one actor can be on a stage. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), low
+3 (-4 to +4)
Frederick Wiseman's film is a dramatic recitation of a letter
from a novel. It is the last letter from a Jewish woman to her
son after the Nazis have moved into a Russian or Ukrainian town
and forced all the Jews into a ghetto preparatory to murdering
them all. It looks at the cooperation of the locals with the
Nazis. The woman, an eye doctor, describes among other things
the anti-Semitism of the townspeople released by the fall of the
town to the Nazis.
In the film Vassili Grossman (played by Catherine Samie, grand
dame and star of the Comedie-Francaise) describes the changes to
her town. She is thrown out of her room and her neighbors divide
up her furniture and argue in front of her over who gets what.
Some doctors she worked with give her pity. Others make
pointedly anti-Semitic comments. She describes being forced to
move to the ghetto. There they fight for the tiny amount of
food. The only food they are allowed to buy is potatoes. She
describes hints of Jews in the woods, groups of men drafted "to
dig potatoes," but it is really mass graves they are digging. I
could go on, but not without robbing much of the impact of the
film. The letter ends with a poignant and painful final
farewell to her son.
This is a short film, only sixty-one minutes in length, a one-
person performance on a stage. It is more theater than film.
It is hard to measure this production by the same standards as a
feature film. It might be considered a short. Even the use of
light and shadow on the stage is powerful. I rate LA DERNIERE
LETTRE an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +3 on the -4 to +4
scale. [-mrl]
[This film is playing for two weeks at the Film Forum in New York,
starting January 29.]
===================================================================
TOPIC: LOST IN LA MANCHA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Terry Gilliam is the center of attention in this
documentary about the making of another film. The film being
made, or rather failing to be made, was THE MAN WHO KILLED DON
QUIXOTE. The film was never made and this film documents why
not. It is a primer in the frustrations of the filmmaking
business and how to mismanage the making of a film. This is a
film that shows why someone would not want to work for Terry
Gilliam, and why they would. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1 (-4
to +4)
This is a documentary made for the Independent Film Channel that
was originally intended to be THE MAKING OF THE MAN WHO KILLED
DON QUIXOTE. It was to be shown at the same time Terry Gilliam
released the film THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE. If the title
is not familiar, it is because the film never got made. That
film died a lingering death after two weeks of disastrous
shooting that included shots ruined by the Spanish Air Force, an
incredible flash flood that washed away the entire set, the
leading man being hospitalized with injuries that precluded him
riding a horse again, and other fiascos too numerous to be
mentioned. Gilliam continues to labor on in his own quixotic
manner.
Gilliam's mind is the real star of the documentary. It is
constantly active coming up with new creative ideas. Normally a
virtue, this turns out to be very trying on his co-workers. At
one telling point, one of his staff trying to create the things
Gilliam describes testily tells Gilliam to cut off the ideas.
Sometimes the ideas become too much for the quality of the
story. This film will have a modern man going back in time and
meeting Quixote. I personally prefer my Quixote with no time
travelers unless Cervantes mentioned them. And he didn't.
In my opinion, Don Quixote is the wrong subject for Terry
Gilliam. The novel has one well-known half-way visual scene.
Most of the sequences are humorous talking head pieces.
Gilliam's forte is very visual stories. He would have to do a
lot of inventing of things not in the novel. Using a time
travel frame and add a character not in the original subverts
the purpose of the work. He may have been adding several
sequences around Quixote, but they would be newly re-imagined
and written. Perhaps it would work, but it would be surprising.
The Baron Munchausen stories are more visual and even so they
did not really work when Gilliam adapted them.
With Jeff Bridges's narration and to the accompaniment of
Gilliam-style animation at times, the documentary follows the
production as it little by little comes together. The problem
is that it is too little by too little. Gilliam keeps having
new ideas but does not have the budget to create them.
Schedules are set assuming everybody will be available just at
the right time and resources will be completed and ready when
needed. Gilliam leaves himself highly dependent on good luck.
Gilliam himself looks at this like it is insane, but in his
world that is a compliment. Then when he shoots he runs into a
string of bad planning and bad luck. The whole production is
washed out. In part literally. Then we see what happens after
the failure.
The most amazing thing about the whole experience was Gilliam's
attitude when they brought him out afterward. We had just seen
a documentary in which everything that could go wrong did. I
expected that Gilliam would be a little bitter or at least
depressed. As far as he is concerned the project is still alive
and--oh boy--he is going to go out and make his Quixote project.
He now is more enthusiastic than he appeared at any time in the
documentary. Gilliam loves making films only love it a little
less when the project goes agonizingly wrong. I was a lot more
impressed with him after seeing his errors and his attitude than
I was before I had seen either. This is a man who should be
making films. I rate this view of the man a 6 on the 0 to 10 a
high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: DIRTY DEEDS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A nice, ironic crime comedy from Australia has its
rewards for those who can cut through the thick accents. David
Caesar wrote and directed this tale of an Australian gambling
machine lord who must protect his turf when the American mob
starts muscling in on his territory. The results are amusing if
not all that new or memorable. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1 (-4
to +4)
>From Australia comes a crime comedy-drama written and directed
by David Caesar.
The year is 1969. Barry Ryan (played by Bryan Brown) is the
slot machine emperor of Sidney, Australia. But how long can he
hold that position? The American mob wants to buy him out.
They sent a likable old hood (John Goodman) to do the
negotiation and in case he needs some muscle he has Sal (Felix
Williamson), a violent young traveling companion. There is some
overstated poking fun at Americans being provincial and ignorant
of Australian culture.
Barry Ryan's young protege, Barry's nephew Darcy (Sam
Worthington) is just back from Vietnam. He finds he has two new
interests in life, Barry Ryan's young girl friend and this
strange dish the Yanks ate in Vietnam with the equally strange
name "pizza." Barry Ryan has three conflicts on his hands. A
rival gang is trying to muscle in on his slot business. The
Americans are trying to force him to sell the business. And his
wife (Toni Collette) is less than happy about sharing her
husband with a woman ten years her junior.
The story mixes comedy and sudden bloody violence. DIRTY DEEDS
comes with a tense car chase, but builds to a hunting trip in
the outback that is played like a game of chess. Caesar's
script is generally enjoyable, though the American hood makes a
stupid tactical blunder that reminds the viewer that this is a
contrived script.
Browne is his usual stern Australian self. Goodman is rather
nice as a likable old hood with some deep regrets. Under-used
is Sam Neill as a corrupt cop. I rate DIRTY DEEDS a 6 on the 0
to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. Americans may
have some problems with thick Australian accents and with
Australian slang. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I've been reading HOW THEY SAID IT: WISE AND WITTY LETTERS FROM
THE FAMOUS AND INFAMOUS, collected and edited by Rosalie Maggio.
Two samples:
Edna St. Vincent Millay to Arthur Davison Ficke: "Please don't
think me negligent or rude. I am both, in effect, of course,
but please don't think me either...."
Agnes de Mille to Anna George de Mille: "Tomorrow at dawn, or
literally very early, we motor north. The address will be
BRYNHFRYD
PONTFADOG
WREXHAM
DENBIGHSHIRE
This is not a cable code. It is a Welsh address recognized
by the Royal Automobile Club and the post office...."
I also read a humorous (but basically accurate) history of opera,
WHEN THE FAT LADY SINGS by David W. Barber. For example, when he
writes, "Rossini wrote his last opera, 'Guillaume Tell' ('William
Tell'), in 1829," he footnotes it with, "You know: it's the one
about The Lone Ranger."
Plutarch, on the other hand, is not chock-a-block with humor. I'm
currently reading the Penguin edition subtitled "The Rise and Fall
of Athens," but have gotten only as far as Theseus, Solon, and
Themistocles. The first two seem to be based more on legend than
on history, but the last moves more into history. Themistocles
also has the distinction of being quoted in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA:
"I cannot fiddle but I can make a great state of a small city."
Bartlett renders the quote as "Tuning the lyre and handling the
harp are no accomplishments of mine, but rather taking in hand a
city that was small and making it glorious and great." This seems
closer to what Plutrach paraphrases, but not as "snappy."
There's also THE TIPPING POINT by Malcolm Gladwell, read for our
library's book discussion group. His premise is that one can
achieve large results with small efforts strategically placed
(shades of another Greek, Archimedes!) and one of the things he
examines is the decline in crime in New York City as (possibly)
brought about by a concentrated effort to wipe out graffiti. For
the original article from "The New Yorker", go to
.
And finally, we watched the Irish television production of Samuel
Beckett's "Waiting for Godot." This is part of the series "Becket
on Film", which will do all nineteen of Beckett's plays, and is
running intermittently on PBS in the United States. I think that
"Waiting for Godot" is a bi-model play--you will either love it or
hate it. I loved it, maybe because it sounded so much like
conversations that Mark and I have. :-) (I'm not sure which of us
is which, though.) If you like Tom Stoppard (especially
"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead"), you'll probably like
this. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: And did you notice...? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
It is one thing for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Life to
find an unusual signal, but how to you tell if it is artificial
enough that it represents intelligence? A series of articles is
starting on the subject of how you do decide just what it is
that your fishing through the cosmos has found. You can find
the first article on this subject at space.com at
.
Apparently there really are people working on the concepts of
matter teleportation. You know the stuff of THE FLY and of STAR
TREK. I am not sure I would want to be teleported in the way
they describe, but it is interesting that that the ideas are
having some basis in technology. If you want to read about it
take a look at .
At a school in Britain they wanted to take care of the problem
of poorer children getting razzed for getting their lunches
given to them free. Now nobody will tender cash for his lunch.
Every student getting lunch will pay for it by identifying
himself with a retinal scan. The richer students will be
charged for their food by electronic funds transfer; the
students who have been approved will simply not have their
accounts charged. See for the
article, originally from "The Star" in South Africa.
[Hey, why is everything at tinyurl.com? TinyURL is a service to
index long and complex URLs and give you short simple ones in
their place. It makes it a lot easier to pass readers URLs.]
[-mrl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Our passions are like convulsion fits, which, though
they make us stronger for a time, leave us the weaker
ever after.
-- Alexander Pope
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/