THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
10/22/04 -- Vol. 23, No. 17
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Frank R. Paul Gallery (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Be Happy in Your Work (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Letters of Comment (Andre Kuzniarek and Joseph T. Major)
THE GRUDGE (2003) (Japanese version) (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
DEAD BIRDS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
SIDEWAYS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA and
OPTICAL ILLUSIONS: LUCENT AND THE CRASH OF
TELECOM) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Frank R. Paul Gallery (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In the 1920s and 1930s the most prominent name in science fiction
was Hugo Gernsback who published several proto-science-fiction
magazines. His magazines always had amazing imaginative covers.
Gernsback's best cover artist was Frank Rudolph Paul (1884 -
1963). Frank R. Paul is remembered by many as the best science
fiction artist ever. Paul's work graced the covers of "Amazing
Stories", "Air Wonder Stories", "Science Wonder Stories", and
"Wonder Stories". Among his work was probably the most famous
pulp cover ever, his cover for the "Amazing Stories" publication
of H. G. Wells's THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. A huge collection of his
art can be found at http://www.frankwu.com/paul1.html. Scroll
down the page and visit each of the rooms of Paul's art. Or click
on one cover and then click the right arrow at the bottom of the
picture to step through each cover. It is worth the trip. Boy,
those were fun days for science fiction. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Be Happy in Your Work (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Humanity is reaching a crossroads. I know what you are thinking.
But it is not that crossroads. No, it's not that one either.
This is a crossroads that has generally gone unnoticed, but we are
coming to it. This one is going to really raise some moral
issues. They may have some knee-jerk responses, but we have to
think about them.
In the film THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, Colonel Saito, the
Japanese prison camp commandant, tells his British prisoners, "Be
happy in your work." It is an ironic line since these captured
soldiers are essentially being used as slave labor to build the
eponymous bridge. There is not much chance that these soldiers
will be happy in their work and they are going as slowly as they
can without inviting being shot. Presumably the bridge they build
is of high quality, but when workers are not happy in their work
you cannot expect that. What if old Colonel Saito really had the
power to actually make the prisoners happy in their work not by
rewarding them, but by making their minds happy in their work?
You can see this question from two different aspects. My first
response is to react with horror. Slavery seems the lowest human
condition. To turn people into happy slaves is horrific. On the
other hand what are we saying here? We really do not want the
prisoners to be happy? The Japanese Imperial Government was going
to use them to build the bridge in any case. If suddenly they
were made happy in their work wouldn't they be better off.
Wouldn't their Japanese taskmasters also be better off having
happy workers? Any way you look at the question it is a difficult
moral issue. The problem is that we are coming to that very moral
issue.
Barry Richmond, a neurobiologist at the National Institute of
Mental Health has published findings in the journal Nature
Neuroscience. In the project he led showed that rhesus monkeys
can be permanently changed from being antagonistic to obedient.
In trying to find ways to combat mental depression they blocked a
gene in the brain called D2. Now what does that do? Well the
reason we work is because we hope to be rewarded for our work. A
lot (most?) of the people who work in our world have onerous tasks
that they would not be doing but for the reward they hope to get.
The association of work and reward is somehow controlled by D2.
Block D2 and rhesus monkeys become excited and enthusiastic about
their work without worry about the food pellets dropping. They
become compliant and happy slaves.
The monkeys were given a task of working levers in certain ways
based on colors on screens in front of the levers. Prior to
blocking D2 the monkeys had a "What's-in-it-for-me?" sort of
attitude. When the food pellets stopped coming, they got very
disinterested in the task. When D2 was blocked in their brains,
the monkeys just ignored the fact that the rewards stopped coming.
They were just happy in their work with no thought of reward.
Rhesus monkeys are not the only animals to have this D2 gene in
their brains. Homo sapiens have an identical gene. Presumably we
now have a way to make humans happy and motivated in even
disagreeable jobs.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? We don't like the idea of
whole armies of soulless workers who have been manipulated into
doing what they are told and liking it. On the other hand, there
are certain days when I think I would like to be a little more
happy and enthusiastic about tasks like cleaning bathrooms and
scrubbing floors. There are days when I would like to just be a
happy, contented slave for the next eight hours and then return to
myself. If there were a pill I would gladly take it and enjoy my
work. I just don't want to see the captains of industry slipping
something like this into the cafeteria food at their places of
business. But even there I am not sure it would be a bad thing.
What is wrong with being satisfied and happy in a job for a few
hours if the job has to be done anyway?
The researchers were looking for ways of treating mental illness
and depression. And whose to say that unhappiness in a job is or
is not a form of mental illness. At least it is a form of mental
inconvenience. This is all reminiscent of Aldous Huxley's BRAVE
NEW WORLD. There you had the high caste people, alphas, who
reaped much of the material rewards of the society. And you also
had the laborers called epsilons. They were drugged to enjoy
their assigned duties and they too were finding a kind of
happiness. So if everybody was happy in this system, who is to
say that the lowly epsilons were losers? If a system like
Huxley's makes everybody happy, what is wrong with that? Is it
better than our system, which is rife with discontent? Is
happiness at the price of a low status that does not bother you
such a bad thing?
This is the kind of question that the next generation is going to
have to ask itself.
See also:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1313556,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64550,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/6kn8p
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Letters of Comment
Regarding STAR WARS revisions, Andre Kuzniarek writes: "You can
get a decent presentation of the originals with the original
laserdiscs. If you have a player, these discs are generally cheap
and easy to obtain. I wonder if the purist market might actually
increase their value. The prints are not the best, and a lot of
the special effects matting in the space battles is exposed, while
the same artifacts have been mostly cleaned up on the DVDs.
Another benefit of the revised versions is that the finale for the
last movie is really better by avoiding the cheesy Ewok music and
expanding the context of celebration. The original ending had a
certain quaintness that is lost though. The content
'improvements' to 'IV' were totally unnecessary though, and
fortunately very little was done to 'V'. Sadly, the main change
is right up front in the snow monster scene: the old result had a
lot more tension (which means it was better) when it was edited to
avoid SFX shortcomings."
And Joseph T. Major points out: "Ever-revised re-releases of
movies are not exactly a modern phenomenon. FANTASIA (1940) was
supposed to be continually updated with new segments. Instead, it
was cut in various ways for re-release through the Forties and
Fifties (and today; racially-offensive scenes have been deleted in
various ways)."
Joseph T. Major also responds to Evelyn's comment about Russell
Hoban's HER NAME WAS LOLA ("Max meets first Lola Blessington"):
"Was she a showgirl? With yellow feathers in her hair, and a
dress cut down to *there*? Sorry, I heard that song about a
million times, thanks to automatically programmed Top Ten Hits
radio stations. Oddly enough, long before that song was
conceived, *I* went to the Copacabana in New York--with my
church choir!" [Actually, Hoban has Lola Blessington comment on
always being associated with that song, as well as references to
other well-known works involving Lolas. -ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE GRUDGE (2003) (Japanese version) (film review by Mark
R. Leeper)
[The American remake of THE GRUDGE opens this week. This review of
the original Japanese film ran in the 12/12/03 issue of the MT
VOID.]
Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4)
THE GRUDGE, written and directed by Takashi Shimizu, does not have
an intelligent plot, but it is still an intelligent horror film in
that Takashi Shimizu has thought out what it takes to make a ghost
scary on the screen. William Castle would put a skeleton on the
screen and perhaps over the audience. A film like GHOST would put
a translucent image of a human on the screen. Neither of these
are really scary images because they are so familiar and were when
they were used. Takashi Shimizu makes his images unfamiliar as
well as weird. Or he creates a symbol of security on the screen,
for example a blanket, and then has it betray its victim. The
story is not intelligent but the images are. Many of the
frightening images are associated with strange ghostly child.
This is not one long story but a number of short stories,
connected incidents somehow connected to one modern and innocent-
looking house that is filled with malice. The stories are told
out of chronological sequence and really do not shed a lot of
light on each other except to show how ghosts can spread their
evil. If Shimizu's THE GRUDGE catches you in the right mood, this
is a very effective ghost story. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: DEAD BIRDS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: About the only thing that is original and unfamiliar
about this house of horrors horror film is that it is set during
the Civil War. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10
There was a time when horror films were always set in distant
places and were either period pieces or left in an undetermined
time. That was the convention of German Expressionism and
Universal did not set a horror film in anything like current day
and the United States until 1941 with MAN MADE MONSTER (1941).
Their only major series films set in the United States were SON OF
DRACULA and the later Mummy films. These days the convention is
to rarely do horror as a period piece or set outside the United
States. When Guillermo Del Toro sets a horror film during the
Spanish Civil War that is considered a really artistic touch.
DEAD BIRDS is unusual just because it is a period piece.
During the American Civil War, a band of deserters robs a gold
shipment and then holds up in an abandoned Southern mansion where
evil mystical rites had once been performed on unwilling slaves.
The creaky old estate proves to be a poor choice for a place to
seek refuge. This particular set of deserters is not the most
companionable bunch of people anyway. But the problems they have
with each other are small compared to the ones they have from
whatever inhabits that house. Alex Cox directs a script by Simon
Barrett.
The setting of the story in Alabama during the Civil War is the
most creative thing about DEAD BIRDS. Few horror films have been
set at that time, though horror and supernatural writer Ambrose
Bierce used the period quite effectively. The return to his
setting is an inexpensive way to give the film a feel of some
stature and some atmosphere. The constant hiss of insect noises
helps to make the setting unsettling. Sadly that is about all
that is really creative about this film. The film is a very
standard issue haunted house sort of film, sort of a slow-to-start
and low-grade version of THE EVIL DEAD. Depraved rites have
turned the children who used to live in the mansion into ugly
demons that look not unlike similar demons we have seen before in
other films. Just what these rites were or what happened in this
house in the past is never clearly explained.
Standard script mechanisms do not help. There are the usual jump-
shot false alarms that are too predictable to pack much punch.
The story develops very slowly once it moves to the mansion.
There is only one dead bird in the entire film. At least there is
only one dead bird that is noticeable. The director assures us
that another scene has many, but by his own admission they just
look like clods of dirt. The backstory of what happened in the
mansion originally is less than clear. Much of the period feel is
poorly handled. The good-looking woman--yes, of course there is
one--has obvious makeup that she would probably not have, and if
she did she would not use. The Southern uniforms look nice and
clean and well tended, not at all dusty.
There are really only two settings in the film. The mansion is a
brooding old place that in real life was previously a religious
retreat. The town we see briefly at the beginning was purchased
cheaply by redressing a village from the film BIG FISH. The demon
children are a CGI effect created in Korea.
Thus a promising idea was turned into a rather mundane horror
film. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: SIDEWAYS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This film is getting a lot of attention, but it is really
just a likable romantic comedy of personality as two buddies learn
about each other on a road trip prior to the marriage of one of
them. The film will be of particular interest to wine lovers.
Rating: +1 (-4 to +4)
Something you should know about me before reading this review.
Like a certain famous personality I never drink . . . wine. The
appreciation of wine might have much helped my enjoyment of this
film.
Miles Raymond (played by Paul Giamatti) is a fairly serious
personality living each day of his life with frustration and
disappointment. He is an aspiring writer who is marketing a novel
and at the same time teaching English in middle school. Adding to
his dissatisfaction is his recently divorced. His ego is taking a
real beating. Meanwhile his best friend Jack (Thomas Haden
Church)--handsome but a little superficial--is a TV actor about to
get married. Miles, who is to be the best man, has arranged a
road trip. The two will drive around southern California playing
golf, having a good time, and visiting wineries. Miles is a wine
connoisseur, knowing each vintage as if it was a friend for years.
Jack just likes drinking wine and fooling around with women,
enjoying both without learning much about either. Everyone makes
fuss over Jack, but Miles can see the selfishness and
tastelessness in his Jack as only a friend can. The two are old
pals but are very different types. Miles is shocked to hear that
Jack also wants to take his last unmarried week to get some sex
and also to get Miles to have sex. What follows is a sort of laid
back comedy of romance and personality. Waitress and wine-
enthusiast Maya (Virginia Madsen) and a tasting-room hostess
Stephanie (Sandra Oh) offer the romance.
The film, directed and written in part by Alexander Payne, is a
mini-education in wine as well as an endearing look at one of
those people who cannot seem to make life work for him. Payne had
previously directed ELECTION and ABOUT SCHMIDT. In the former he
looked at the sort of character who feels he has value, but is
just not the sort of person the world rewards. Paul Giamatti is
one of those character actors who always seems talented and
engaging but who rarely seem to get a lead in a film. He is a
face I have seen in film for years with small but magnetic roles
in films like PLANET OF THE APES and PAYCHECK opposite leads
perhaps not unlike the character Jack in this film. But until
last year's AMERICAN SPLENDOR I never remember him getting a lead
role. In spite of his long-since receded hairline and his edgy
manner (or perhaps because of them) he has some sort of magnetic
appeal on the screen.
I cannot claim this is my kind of movie, but it was a pleasant and
insightful comedy of character. It is receiving some very strong
praise from other corners. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
My main reading this week was Philip Roth's THE PLOT AGAINST
AMERICA (ISBN 0-618-50928-3). Apparently that has been a lot of
people's reading--this is probably the first alternate history to
make the best-seller list since Sinclair Lewis's IT CAN'T HAPPEN
HERE. (If it isn't, I'm sure someone will point it out.)
For those of you who don't follow the best-seller lists, the
PLOT's plot is that in 1940 a dead-locked Republican convention
nominates Charles Lindbergh as their Presidential candidate, he
defeats Roosevelt, and his pro-Nazi sympathies have a devastating
effect on the United States. Roth claims he wrote the book in
2000, which makes some of the parallels between Lindbergh's
America and that of 2004 particularly startling. (On the other
hand, in any time of crisis, there will be some group that the
rest of the population will choose as the scapegoat to blame.)
The book is told in the first person by a "Philip Roth" who is
seven at the time of Lindbergh's election. (Apparently Roth often
uses some version of himself and his family in his novels.) This
"Philip Roth" is Jewish, lives in New Jersey, and has a family
diverse enough in character to cover all the types Roth (the
author) wants to show--the honest, the dishonest, the violent, the
peaceful, and so on. Some have said that what the narrator says
seems too perceptive for a seven-year-old, but one can argue that
it is actually being told several years later by an older boy (or
man). My objection is that the ending seems a bit forced, and the
reversion to so many similarities with our own timeline seems
unlikely.
Yet Roth does capture the essence, by making the reader feel as
thought he or she is in that world, that these rabble-rousing
speeches have been made, that people have been co-opted in
relocation plans, that there are roving gangs attacking people who
don't fit their idea of "Americans", and that everything that
seemed secure is no longer.
However, I do have a few bones to pick with Frank Rich's review in
the "New York Times". Rich describes the book by saying, "The
plot of 'The Plot' belongs to a low-rent genre, 'alternate
history,' in which novelists of Mr. Roth's stature rarely dwell."
Well, yes, if reviewers are going to call it a low-rent genre,
it's no wonder that serious novelists shy away from it. Later,
however, Roth says, "By sweeping us into an alternative universe,
it lets us see the world we actually inhabit from another
perspective." Precisely--that is why alternate histories are
meaningful, or can be when done well. The fact that many are not
done well does not make the good ones any less valuable.
And a couple of weeks ago, Charles S. Harris commented on Rich's
review, noting "Mr. Rich doesn't even comment on the most glaring
improbability in this supposedly scrupulous alternate history
book: The 1-cent Yosemite National Park stamp pictured on the
cover was issued in 1934, and therefore would no longer be
available to receive the swastika overprint in 1940, the crucial
election year in the novel." Well, it turns out the stamp
pictured on the cover (with overprint) is one that the main
character (a seven-year-old budding philatelist) sees in a dream
when the events begin unfolding in 1940. Obviously bothered by
all the talk of the Nazis and such, he dreams that when he opens
his stamp album he discovers that his George Washington stamps now
have Hitler instead, and the National Parks stamps have the
swastika on them. No, it isn't logical, but it is the dream of a
seven-year-old, and admittedly a striking image for the cover.
I also read Lisa Endlich's OPTICAL ILLUSIONS: LUCENT AND THE CRASH
OF TELECOM (ISBN 0-743-22667-4). For anyone who worked for Lucent
during the period covered, there will not be a lot of new
information, and most of the book is about the higher-ups. There
is some discussion of Bell Labs which those of us from Bell Labs
might find interesting, but this is one I'd recommend you borrow
from the library rather than buy (especially all of you who found
yourself laid off or retired early and are now getting by on a
tighter budget thanks to Lucent :-( ). (Another book I would like
to read is Narain Gehani's BELL LABS: LIFE IN THE CROWN JEWEL
(ISBN 0-929-30627-9) but none of the libraries around here seems
to have it.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Maddox's Second Law: Reviewers who are best placed
to understand an author's work are the least likely
to draw attention to its achievements, but are
prolific sources of minor criticism, especially the
identification of typos.