THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
08/01/03 -- Vol. 22, No. 5
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:
Noxious Gases (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Matt Jefferies's Enterprise (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
SEABISCUIT (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
SWIMMING POOL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN (film review by
Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
This Week's Reading (SHAKESPEARE IN THE MOVIES,
AS A DRIVEN LEAF, "Pirke Aboth", Kafka's DIARIES,
RAISED BY PUPPETS, PECKED TO DEATH BY DUCKS)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Noxious Gases (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Learning Channel had a documentary called "The Extreme
Universe." They were talking about superheated planets that are
very large and very near their stars, with distances like four
million miles. They said, and I'm not making this up, the
atmosphere has noxious gasses at 1000 degrees centigrade. What
does that mean, noxious gasses? Are they saying they'd prefer to
breathe oxygen at 1000 degrees to 1000-degree ammonia? If you get
the atmosphere to 1000 degrees C, it's all noxious. If you
breathe gasses that hot, the chemical makeup is going to be just a
minor detail. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Matt Jefferies's Enterprise (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
It may have escaped most people's attention, but the creator of
one of the great icons of science fiction died last week. The
man's name was Walter Jefferies, though he went by the nickname
Matt. It is not a name that is particularly familiar, but his
prop design has become instantly recognizable all over the world.
He worked for Desilu Productions in the 1960s and designed the
NCC-1701. That is the Starship Enterprise. Though other
designers in the television and film series have given us
successor craft, the basic design that Jefferies created in the
1960s is always there.
Jefferies had previously been a flight test engineer and a
successful aviation illustrator prior to working for Desilu and he
got along well with Gene Roddenberry. His flying experience and
his love of aircraft made him an obvious choice to design an
interstellar craft. At least that was what Roddenberry thought.
Jefferies was not so sure. Roddenberry described to him the ship
that he wanted: "Fantastic speed beyond our galaxy, shirt sleeve
environment, mixed crew, probably a five year voyage, not to worry
about gravity," he said. "Make it look like it's got power."
Jefferies admits to having been a little bewildered by this
assignment. "In my approach to 'Star Trek' I wanted to be as
practical as possible. I could tell Gene was serious enough, but
I really didn't know where to start. I knew the Enterprise was
going to be on the cutting edge of the future, but essentially he
gave me the job of finding a shape, and I didn't know what the
shape looked like." Roddenberry did not know what he wanted, but
knew what he didn't want. "No fins, no wings, no smoke trails,
no flames, no rocket." Some very different ideas for what the
Enterprise might look like are at
.
Eventually Jefferies decided on a spherical passenger compartment
and engines kept a good distance away in case of radiation leaks.
If there was trouble with the engines they could be jettisoned and
replaced. Ultimately the spherical passenger compartment became
more saucer-shaped to look a little fancier, though Jefferies was
leery of making the craft look like a flying saucer. The general
understanding is that the original design was an upside-down
version of what we now know as the Enterprise. Jefferies in a
BBC interview said that that was not true. He said that he wanted
the Enterprise one way and Roddenberry wanted it inverted, but
that he (Jefferies) eventually won out and it was the way he
designed it.
Even the number NCC-1701 was engineered. The 1701 made of digits
easily recognizable from a distance. Unites States aircraft have
designations beginning NC, Soviet craft have designations starting
CC. To reaffirm that this was an international mission Jefferies
combined the two. So from the beginning Soviet participation was
assumed. Nonetheless, during the first season Radio Moscow
complained that there were no Russians aboard the Enterprise.
Since the designation was a little obscure, a Russian crew member,
Ensign Pavel Chekov, was added.
Jefferies also designed the bridge to be circular, though this
made it somewhat harder to film. There was no obvious place to
put the camera. Episode directors all wanted to pan around to
show 360 degrees of the bridge which took a lot of effort and no
such pan ever made it to the broadcast episode. Jefferies even
made the suggestion for the title sequence. Since the Enterprise
was immensely powerful you would see it at a distance as just a
point of light and in an instant it would fly past the viewer.
Jefferies himself was not a fan of the Star Trek series. He did
not watch the subsequently made series, finding it confusing. He
also thought that subsequent bridges were a little to fancy for
his taste. He was invited to the screening of the first movie and
he fell asleep on it, but his interest was in flying, not in
science fiction.
There have been references in TV scripts to a Captain Jefferies
and the ducts of the Enterprise are called "Jefferies Tubes."
According to the technical manual Jefferies Tubes are "a system of
access tunnels and utilities corridors that carry much of the
various utilities conduits and waveguides." Both are uses of the
name Jefferies are tributes to the designer of the Enterprise.
Jefferies was also a production designer on the television shows
"Dallas" and "Love, American Style," and an art director on
"Little House on the Prairie." Walter "Matt" Jefferies is dead at
age 82, probably of cancer, though that has not been confirmed.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: SEABISCUIT (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Five different stories of redemption are intertwined in
the history of the champion racehorse Seabiscuit. The story is
something of a cliche, but the film is beautifully mounted and has
fine actors. It is hard to see the film and not be rooting for
the horse to win and the characters to succeed. Rating: 6 (0 to
10), high +1 (-4 to +4)
As a confirmed non-sports-fan, I find enjoyable only a few sports
films and only one, THE NATURAL, that I actually consider good.
The few sports films I do enjoy are all really about something
quite different from sports. And while I enjoy researching the
events surrounding most historical films I review, I will beg off
this time as I am sure there are many on the Web who would enjoy
digging into the racing history more than I would.
As I say, the sports films I respect and enjoy are really about
something very different from sports, and SEABISCUIT is no
exception. Writer-director Gary Ross's film is about a country
that is on its feet, is knocked to its knees (or perhaps more
accurately on its face) when the stock market crash leads to the
Great Depression, but then struggles back to its feet. The story
is stocked with characters whom the fates have knocked down but
who fight their way back.
Charles Howard is played by Jeff Bridges almost as a reprise of
his character from TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAM. Howard built
his bicycle repair business into a fortune in the automobile
industry. He was one of the wealthiest men in America and one of
the most happy until tragedy tore apart his marriage. Red Pollard
(Tobey Maguire) was torn from his family by the Depression and is
going through life with a chip on his shoulder. Tom Smith (Chris
Cooper) was an open range cowboy when he ran out of open range and
became a drifter. Then there is Seabiscuit himself, parented by
two champions, but born small, mis-trained, and mis-used.
The redemption of this owner, jockey, trainer, and horse parallel
the redemption of a country from some of its worst years. The New
Deal put some money in the people's pockets and restored their
self-confidence. At the same time the champion racehorse
Seabiscuit gave them something to divert them and to hope for and
to dream about. The small horse with a crooked leg who won all
those races became a sensation, even a national hero. The horse
was the long shot that paid off. The three humans and the horse
make a team and compensate for each other's shortcomings. None
could have recovered without the help of the other three.
SEABISCUIT was written and directed by Gary Ross based on the
popular book by Laura Hillenbrand. The score was by Randy Newman
with much of the same spirit that he gave THE NATURAL, a quality
of American rustic nobility. The film is narrated by David
McCulloch, lending the film the feel of a PBS documentary, which
then fades into the drama. How faithful the film is to the facts
is difficult to judge, but the use of McCulloch feels almost a
testimonial of authenticity. Pulling in the other direction is
the comic sports reporter Tick Tock McGlaughlin played by William
H. Macy. For all I know his daffiness may be typical of sports
writers of the time, but it feels exaggerated. Special note
should be made of Chris Cooper's performance. He is an actor I
have liked since MATEWAN and he seems to have hit his stride and
is finally getting the attention he deserves. He is one of the
most interesting character actors in films.
If SEABISCUIT has a problem, it is that it has little profundity.
It seems to be saying little that is more profound or
controversial than its rather flat message of perseverance through
hard times. Nevertheless, some people are bothered by its
reminders that in the Great Depression progressive government
programs made life bearable for many of the destitute. Some have
contrasted these policies with that of the current administration.
In any case, SEABISCUIT is something of a stereotyped and familiar
story done with a good deal of style. I rate SEABISCUIT a 6 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: SWIMMING POOL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: An Agatha-Christie-like mystery writer accepts an
invitation to spend time at her publisher's villa in France. She
did not expect that she is to meet the publisher's sensual and
over-sexed daughter and she is to be plunged into a psychological
battle of wits. This is a tricky story that will leave viewers
with a lot to talk about. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1 (-4 to +4)
Sarah Morton (played by Charlotte Rampling) writes books about the
exciting life of a Scotland Yard detective, but her own life is
anything but exciting. She lives a quiet life taking care of her
father. She shuns the praise of her fans, preferring a drab
existence. When her publisher, John Bosload (Charles Dance),
offers her the loan of his French villa she agrees, expecting to
use it as a quiet place to work. She begins her stay living on a
pallid diet featuring yogurt and diet Coke. Her quiet self-denial
is interrupted by the arrival at the villa of Julie (Ludivine
Sagnier), John's daughter. At first Sarah is not happy about the
unexpected disturbance and distraction, and it only gets worse.
Julie lives a free and sensual lifestyle that initially, by
example, tempts Sarah to give in to a little self-indulgence. But
Sarah lets it go no further than eating a sinful dessert or two
and enjoying herself by the pool a bit. But Julie does not stop
with sinful desserts. She suns herself barebreasted and brings
home a different man each night. Sarah looks on with a mixture of
fascination and abhorrence and she even gives in to covert spying
on Julie. This contrast of personality puts the two women in a
collision course.
There are images in the film that Ozon seems to return repeatedly
to. Repeatedly we see someone sleeping by the pool and in the
background are the two legs of somebody standing over the sleeping
body. Perhaps this is an image of two personality types, one
relaxed and one very rigid. Sarah certainly seems to be a person
who is wound very tightly. She is an insular woman who knows her
responsibilities and woodenly goes through life making sure they
are covered. She has little tolerance for the humanity of others
and will snub her fans simply to avoid dealing with them. Julie
is self-absorbed and gives in entirely to hedonism. One lives a
life of responsibility and self-denial, the other irresponsible
self-indulgence. Ozon keeps us wondering if Sarah is physically
attracted to Julie or if she only wants the release of living
vicariously through Julie's unrestrained and amoral life style.
SWIMMING POOL is something of a puzzle film directed and co-
authored by tricky film director Francois Ozon. Some of its
twists are easily predictable, some really startle, and some seem
to make no sense. Much of what happens late in the film is open
to interpretation. Even at the end the story leaves some
questions and in fact no single explanation seems to fit all the
facts. Certainly this is a film that will have people arguing
about what the end really means and what has happened.
Rampling is a good choice for Sarah. She has intelligent eyes
that are at the same time inscrutable. This is a film that will
have the viewer wondering just what really was going on behind
those eyes. I rate SWIMMING POOL a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a
high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN (film review by Dale
L. Skran, Jr.)
League of Idiotic Critics
Based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore, THE LEAGUE OF
EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN is taking a trashing from most critics.
There seem to be several schools of thought:
- The movie is a poor adaptation of the graphic novel, and hence
trash
- The move has too many gee-whiz special effects and too much
action
- The move has bad special effects
- The movie is too complex and the characters too unfamiliar for a
modern audience
- The move is not complex enough and has departed too far from its
literary roots
- Some particular character is terrible, but the nominated person
varies greatly.
It is unusual that I pay this much attention to critical thought,
but here the criticism seems to be a big part of the story.
Unfortunately, critics often fail to appreciate or understand fine
genre films like ROCKETEER or THE SHADOW. I fear THE LEAGUE OF
EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN falls into this category. I also suspect
that some professional film critics are unhappy with the popularity
of super-hero and SF films in general, and take a sadistic delight
in tearing into small errors and difficulties, while completely
forgetting that the film is much better than dozens of historically
well regarded action pictures of the 1950s and 1960s.
First let’s take the matter of the quality of the adaptation. To
some extent THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN is suffering from
Lord-the-Rings-itus. THE LORD OF THE RINGS is probably the best-
ever fantasy/SF adaptation from book to film and has really raised
the bar a lot. SPIDERMAN is also much better than past comic book
adaptations, with a similar bar-raising effect. Thus, in a big
twist, many critics have actually read Moore’s graphic novel, and
launch into detailed comparisons, all putting the movie in a
negative light. Although normally I lead the pack complaining
about trashing comic characters in movies (e.g., DAREDEVIL) here I
side with the writer/directors of THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY
GENTLEMEN. The graphic novel, if tightly adapted, would have
produced a dismal swamp of a movie that was minimally rated R or
more probably NC-17. Although I have read the graphic novel, and
enjoyed it, I simply don’t think that a straight adaptation made a
lot of sense, any more than BLADE RUNNER was a mistake in its
large deviations from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Do
we really want to see Quatermain as an opium addict, the invisible
man as a sexual sadist, or Mina Harker as a smoking suffragette?
How popular would the villainous "Fu Manchu" be in this day and
age, given that Moore made him a flimsy oriental stereotype? So
good riddance to Moore’s eccentric vision found in the graphic
novel! The movie has all the really good ideas from the graphic
novel, and, frankly, a much better plot.
Now we come to the special effects. Indeed, some scenes seem not
so great, especially where snowfall is involved. I’ve seen
complaints about the invisible man effects but whatever problems
exist are not that visible. Some complain about Mina Harker being
surrounded by bats during various parts of the film. These
critics apparently are unaware that (a) vampires can control and
use bats, and (b) transform into bat-like creatures. They may
also be unaware that not all writers use the same vampire mythos--
I’d suggest sentencing them to watching all seven seasons of
Buffy, followed by a lot of Hammer films. Other critics complain
that the Nautilus does not resemble that in the comic--it doesn’t,
but the squid-like Nautilus in the comic was silly and
impractical. I liked THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN’s
Nautilus just fine. Some critics seemed to expect a literary
feast, and were quite upset that they walked into a kind of boy’s
adventure novel--these objections seem petty.
Another set of critics feel that the characters (the Invisible
man, Mr. Hyde, Alan Quatermain, Mina Harker, Dorian Gray, Nemo,
and Tom Sawyer) are too unfamiliar to the modern audience. Others
complain that the scriptwriters’ attempts to introduce the
characters are leaden and oversimplified. Some critics complain
that Dorian Gray is not witty enough, apparently confusing him
with Oscar Wilde. The screen-writer patiently and perhaps in an
oversimplified fashion introduces the characters, leading other
critics to complain of a leaden script. Although not a perfect
script, it is probably better than that of the first X-man movie,
for example.
Finally, we come to the "character we love to hate" syndrome, with
Tom Sawyer played by Shane West as the main nominee. This is
apparently comprised of dislike for the introduction of an
American character not in the comic added to a dislike for Mr.
West. I just don’t see it--West does a professional job--far
better than people like Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan. Sean
Connery’s Alan Quatermain is great--it is hard to imagine better
casting here. Connery projects a man of 40 leaping out of his 72-
year-old body--quite a feat. The other actors work well also,
with Mina Harker especially fun to watch, and the "new" invisible
man being pretty believable.
In conclusion, THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN is not a great
film, but it is a fine summer adventure film (I’ve seen it twice
now!), with a number of interesting bits, and a great fundamental
idea. I rate it a high +1, or maybe even a low +2 (on the -4 to +4
scale). There is intense action, and some sexual innuendo but this
is not the blood feast I feared it might be coming from the
director of BLADE. Definitely not for little kids, but less nasty
than, say, DAREDEVIL, and comparable to SPIDERMAN from a violence
viewpoint. Rated PG-13, and I think correctly rated, unlike
DAREDEVIL, which deserved an R.
Post Script: On the second viewing, it was more obvious to me that
the screen writer attempted to insert many witty lines from the
original texts, but this should not be confused with a literate
script. I found the Mina Harker action sequences to be oddly
directed; it is unclear why she held back in the initial fight in
the library, or why Dorian Gray would ever think stabbing her with
a sword would kill her. Also, the action in Venice strains
credulity, but I continue to like what was done with the villain
and overall plot. My guess is there won’t be a sequel, but if
there is one, I’ll buy a ticket! [-dls]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Douglas Brode's SHAKESPEARE IN THE MOVIES is worth reading, even
if I disagree with him on just about every movie I was familiar
with. For example, Brode thinks Laurence Olivier's RICHARD III is
better than Richard Loncraine's (Ian McKellen's). Not only that,
but he attributes this in part to the idea that Olivier has more
sex appeal than McKellen. I find this such a bizarre notion that
I'm hard-pressed to accept it as serious: Olivier is totally
unappealing, while McKellen has a dangerous edginess that is
strangely attractive. Brode also dislikes Julie Taymor's TITUS
and likes both the recent A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM and Kenneth
Branagh's LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST. He also places Baz Luhrmann's
ROMEO + JULIET in Miami rather than southern California. While
the angle of the sunlight (and the weather) during the beach
scenes would seem to support this, the desert location of Romeo
trailer argues rather strongly against it, and the milieu of both
the city and the beach also indicate southern California. (Yes, I
know Giacomo Puccini had a desert outside of New Orleans in the
opera "Manon Lescaut"; it was wrong there too.)
As is becoming common, I found strange synchronicity in some of my
reading. Milton Steinberg's AS A DRIVEN LEAF is a philosophical
novel centered around Elisha ben Abuyah and the famous Jewish
sages of his era (during the reign of Hadrian and the Bar Kochba
rebellion). It's not surprising that some of the same people are
quoted in the "Pirke Aboth" ("Sayings of the Fathers"), but it is
a bit startling to see the same *sayings* in both places (in
particular, Rabbi Hanina's "Pray for the peace of the government;
for, except for the fear of that, we should have swallowed each
other alive."). It was even more surprising to pick up Franz
Kafka's DIARIES and read the traditional version of the
penultimate incident of Steinberg book. The story of AS A DRIVEN
LEAF is about Elisha's struggle between the faith of Judaism and
the philosophy of the Greeks. (Phrased in those traditional
terms, of course, this already shows a bias that "Jewish
philosophy and Greek faith" would not.) In any case, Elisha
becomes enamored of Euclid's approach and decides he must prove
his religion starting with axioms self-evident in their truth and
building on those axioms. In this he seems to anticipate
Descartes by over a millennium. Unfortunately, the author decides
to have the end turn on Euclid's Fifth Postulate in a way that
simply doesn't ring true--the argument seems way too modern for
that era. Yet that doesn't lessen the worth of the rest of the
novel and its musings, particularly its central notion that it is
not enough that good should come from something, but that there
must be good intentions behind it. "The good which is born by
chance out of the evil design is corrupt and rotten at the core.
The Empire was conceived in the lust for power [and] is motivated
now by the desire to protect a system of exploitation. Everything
else in the sight of those who administer it is secondary. ...
[Whenever] the liberties of the individual or a group come into
conflict with the interests they serve, they will destroy the
former unhesitatingly for the sake of the latter." This would
seem to contradict Rabbi Hanina, and indeed Elisha's dilemma is in
part in trying to resolve these two opposing views.
I enjoy Andrei Codrescu's essays on NPR and find them thought-
provoking, but somehow when they are put down on the printed page,
they seem much more cynical and bitter. The latest of his
collections that I'm reading, RAISED BY PUPPETS, certainly has
that problem, though I suppose it's possible that the radio essays
are bitter and cynical and I just miss it. Codrescu does say in
"My Brush with Hollywood" that writing is different than speaking
when he writes, "If they're written down, they're literary. When
they're on tape [or radio], they're not." (He's wrong about
Sabbatai Zevi, however. Codrescu places him around the year 1000;
actually Zevi lived in the 17th century. In addition, Sabbatai
Zevi and his followers were Jewish; why would they think the world
was ending in the year 1000? And for that matter, there was no
widespread belief at the time that the world was ending in 1000--
that was a story concocted about six hundred years later.)
Tim Cahill's travel essays are also cynical, though with more of a
touch of humor (at least at times). In PECKED TO DEATH BY DUCKS,
the first few essays, having to do with war, are less humorous
(perhaps surreal is a better word), but it comes through in the
rest. I'm not talking about rolling-on-the-floor-laughing funny,
or even funny at the level of Bill Bryson, but a recognition of
the basic ridiculousness of the situations Cahill finds himself
in. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The best measure of a man's honesty isn't his
income tax return. It's the zero adjust on
his bathroom scale.
--Arthur C. Clarke
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/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/