THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/27/05 -- Vol. 23, No. 48 (Whole Number 1284)
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:
Phantoms of the Opera (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Neverland (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A Time of Endings: Star Wars (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Ideas (letters of comment by Steve Milton and Rob Mitchell)
MURDER IS NO MITZVAH (letters of comment
by Charles Harris and Denise Moy)
STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (letter of
comment by Charles Harris)
Star Trek (letters of comment by Dan Kimmel)
IL FANTASMA DELL'OPERA (THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) (1998)
(film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE;
ENTER DR. NIKOLA!; DON JUAN IN HELL/MAN AND
SUPERMAN) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Phantoms of the Opera (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Now that the film version of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical of
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is available, I have revised my old
article "The Phantoms of the Opera" in which I review the various
film versions of the novel by Gaston Leroux. The complete article
can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/markleeper/phantoms.htm. This issue
includes the final review for that article, Dario Argento's IL
FANTASMA DELL'OPERA. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Neverland (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I saw RETURN TO NEVERLAND. It is not as good as the best
of the original Disney version of PETER PAN, but it never gets as
bad as the worst of the original. This film does not use guilt to
coerce children into affirming a specious belief. Somebody at
Disney must have realized only religions are allowed to do that.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A Time of Endings: Star Wars (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Last week I discussed the end of "Star Trek" series of series.
This week I would like to talk about my take on the "Star Wars"
series, also coming to an end.
In the mid-1970s I loved the science fiction film, but it really
did not love me back. Science fiction cinema really had taken a
rather glum turning. The notable films were pieces like SOYLENT
GREEN and SILENT RUNNING, both superficial and dour. There had
been only two science fiction films in the previous ten years
that I considered actually to be good. One was QUATERMASS AND
THE PIT (as *nobody* who knows me will be surprised) and the
other was PHASE IV. Both had gone almost unnoticed in the United
States. The crescendo of the weak science fiction was LOGAN'S
RUN which didn't even make sense as a story and had very silly
visual effects people floating on wires. I felt like I was
starving for a science fiction film with some real imagination.
At the MidAmericon World Science Fiction Convention the guy who
had made AMERICAN GRAFFITI had rented a room and was showing off
the costumes for his new science fiction film. The storyline on
the handout sounded like a comic book plot, but the production
paintings looked very nice. They were nothing like anything that
could really be done on film, but they looked creative. A
costume science fiction film like LOGAN'S RUN with sets that were
built to look like these might at least be watchable. They
should use these paintings in the advertising, I thought, even if
they don't get the film to look like that. The paintings might
get people at least imagining what is going on in the background.
By the time the film was released I had seen a trailer that led
me to believe this was going to be at least an interesting
science fiction film. It happened to be released the same
weekend as what I expected to be the big special effects film of
the summer, SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER, which featured
special effects by the great Ray Harryhausen. Last Wednesday was
the 28th anniversary of the original opening. As it happens that
was a Wednesday also. (Actually I could not see the film until
Thursday and early reports just told me I definitely should see
this film.) Watching this film I can actually say I was agog.
But then so was the rest of the audience. A lot of science
fiction fans remember that particular weekend. Much of the
world's film industry also remembers that weekend.
Last week we saw the completion of the series. In six chapters
we get the story of one man's life. The series has been a test-
bed for a lot of different ideas. Frequently the experiments
have been to the detriment of the series's popularity, but I
think that was expected. Some innovations go down smoothly with
the fans and some that do not. One that generally goes down well
is the pioneering use of computers for the expression of visual
imagination. I don't think one can fault the series for its
imagination or for how well it is translated to the screen. It
heralded a new start for the science fiction film. A lot of
films with bad plots whose only virtue was the visual component
were made by other filmmakers using Lucas's innovations. I have
heard George Lucas blamed for that, but I don't agree.
The complaint has been made that the story told in the six
chapters is shallow. For me that is not really a problem. I
think of the story much more as myth, and it was intentionally
so. But few myths do develop their characters well. Perseus who
slew the Medusa is not a three-dimensional person who shed light
on the human condition. He is a mythic hero.
Another complaint is the George Lucas years later went back and
revising his earlier films in the series. I admit I would love
to have on DVD the original release version of STAR WARS. But I
think I also understand the need for the revisions. Quite simply
Lucas was not making six films; he was making a single film in
six parts. There were six releases over a course of twenty-eight
years. But I think he was telling one story that he wants it to
be watchable in one seamless stretch. For the effects style not
to seem wildly uneven, the earlier films have to be revised to
look like 2005 films. I doubt there will be any further
revisions, at least not once the films are uniform in style.
Another experiment is to shoot his series out of chronological
order. This causes its own set of problems, but Lucas has kept
them manageable. He intended that the Indiana Jones films would
be made in reverse chronological order and found the problems
were insuperable. But telling this story in two trilogies made
the odd order much easier.
Lucas has certainly made some mistakes along the way. He wanted
to see if pure CGI characters could be included in the story and
could be major characters. Jar-Jar Binks proved the concept,
though many found the character obnoxious and irritating. He
provoked outright hostility from some quarters. But Peter
Jackson built on Lucas's concept and gave us his Gollum, a much
more interesting CGI character. That might not have been
possible without Lucas taking the lead.
Lucas's episodes were somewhat uneven. Starting with RETURN OF
THE JEDI he seemed to be aiming at a younger audience or at least
to be more aware of their presence. The Ewoks of RETURN OF THE
JEDI were entirely too cute. So was the pod-race sequence of THE
PHANTOM MENAGE. Seen as a six-film series with cuter and more
serious elements, the style seems to me a little more even.
After all Shakespeare put comic relief into his most dour
tragedies.
George Lucas has been blamed for negative changes in the film
industry, many of which can be seen as being a direct result of
filmmakers mimicking the "Star Wars" phenomenon. To me this
makes as much sense as saying that if CITIZEN KANE had been
followed by a bunch of poor semi-biographical-films then Orson
Welles would be at fault for having made KANE. Much of the film
industry learned how to be more profitable by mimicking Lucas,
but I do not blame Lucas for that.
Lucas was also the catalyst for science fiction and fantasy to
become much more central to the American film business. Again I
neither credit nor blame Lucas. In both his success was the
catalyst.
Science fiction is about imagination and the movies to a large
part are about suspension of disbelief. Lucas gave the industry
the tools it needed for that where they clearly were missing in
films before STAR WARS. Even if the films he made were terrible,
and I would argue they are actually fairly good now that we can
see the the entire story, he should be thanked for creating the
tools to make the science fiction look real.
Where I do credit Lucas is in demonstrating that what the
imagination can picture the screen can show. In FORBIDDEN PLANET
there is a machine that makes mental images and allows them to be
shown to others. George Lucas made his own machine and gave it
to the world. His six-chapter life story of Anakin Skywalker
(a.k.a. Darth Vader) is more than the sum of its parts. I am
both sorry and happy to see the story complete.
Had George Lucas not made STAR WARS, no doubt eventually someone
else would have applied computerized image creation. And there
are many who think that this emphasis on the transferring mental
images to the screen is a bad thing. But the series and Lucas
have affected every imaginative film since STAR WARS, if not
directly, by creating a market. For better or for worse--and I
think for the better--his films have been a real milestone in the
history of cinema. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Ideas (letters of comment by Steve Milton and Rob Mitchell)
In the 05/13/05 issue of the MT VOID, Mark noted, "The literature
of ideas, including science fiction, gets the least respect of all
[literature]."
Steve Milton responded, "The answer to your question is that
people are bored about what they do not understand. People (as a
topic) are the lowest common denominator among the three
categories of people. Ideas are only of interest to geniuses who
are in a distinct minority."
Mark responded, "I think that is the direct implication of the
original quote. I was saying that the people who talk in ideas
get respect, but science fiction, though about ideas, does not get
a lot of respect. I was noting the irony. Of course Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason is about ideas also and gets respect.
Perhaps it is explained that SF does not seem to be a literature
of ideas. All too frequently it is not any more. Respected
authors like Thomas Disch complain that SF is too much about
ideas. He talks about "the tyranny of ideas" in SF." [-mrl]
Rob Mitchell also responded to Steve, saying, "One possible
implication of Mark's obervation combined with Steve's response,
is that "great literature" is targeted at the lowest common
denominator, at least the lowest at the time the author was
working. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that implication, nor
with related implications if we generalize the concept to fields
other than literature (e.g. art and music). Must ponder..."
[-rlm]
Mark then responded to both, saying, "I think SF does not have a
good reputation in the eye of the mainstream because of bad TV,
pulp covers, poor films, etc. It is ironic that though we see it
as a literature of ideas, that is not the literary community's
viewpoint. That may be changing. It used to be that SF was
looked down on in the classroom. Now more often it is assigned
reading. It could be the teachers are taking a broader viewpoint
and it could be that they are just lowering their standards. (Can
you tell I just read Thomas Friedman's editorial today at
http:/www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/opinion/13friedman.htm)?"
===================================================================
TOPIC: MURDER IS NO MITZVAH (letters of comment by Charles Harris
and Denise Moy)
In response to Evelyn's review of MURDER IS NO MITZVAH in the
05/13/05 issue, Charles Harris that a relative of his who reads
mysteries but not sf, and she mailed back, "Hey, thanks for book
review. I plan to get it." [-csh]
And Denise Moy wrote, "I thought you might want to know about one
of our professors' books, INTERESTING JEWS: AMERICAN JEWISH
DETECTIVE STORIES by Laurence Roth put out by Rutgers University
Press." Rutgers' blurb about it is at
http://165.230.98.36/acatalog/__Inspecting_Jews_1586.html. [-dm]
===================================================================
TOPIC: STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (letter of
comment by Charles Harris)
Regarding REVENGE OF THE SITH, Charles Harris forwards the
following from an unspecified source:
"Today, Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith opens at theaters
nation-wide. And weirdly enough, the plot of what will undoubtedly
be one of the biggest films in movie history revolves around a
scheming senator who, seduced by visions of absolute power,
transforms a democratic republic into an empire."
"We've put together a new TV ad, based on the same theme, that
we're launching today. It's our first (and only) political ad to
feature both a space battle and an army of judge robots. You can
check it out at: http://www.moveonpac.org/savetherepublic/."
About the film and its reviews, Charles also writes, "Hmmm. I
just read a couple of the '83% Fresh' reviews of SITH on Rotten
Tomatoes, and I'm beginning to wonder about Rotten's scoring (and
about whether I want to see SITH at all). Rick Groen's Cream of
the Crop 2-star review is awarded a positive tomato; I challenge
you to find anything positive in his review. [This was apparently
an error that has since been corrected. -mrl] Ebert does dole out
3.5 stars and does offer a couple of unsupported positives
('...fun...', '...a great entertainment...'), but it seems to me
that the few positives are called into question by his more
numerous and pointed criticisms. Even Ebert's putative praise of
the SFX is equivocal: '...special effects should be judged not by
their complexity but by the degree that they stimulate the
imagination, and 'Episode III' is distinguished not by how well
the effects are done, but by how amazingly they are imagined.'
That the effects are amazingly imagined does not at all imply that
they *stimulate* the imagination; cf. SKY CAPTAIN. I get the
impression that Ebert feels an obligation--to the fans and film
historians--to give the film his imprimatur despite his own
lukewarm judgment." [-csh]
Mark responds, "I read [Ebert's comment] as praise. The entire
quote can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/9lq9n. THE HULK, on the
other hand, had perfect special effects but they did not show me
anything particularly imaginative. Everybody knows that Lucas's
effect are going to be complex and look perfect. In addition they
will also be imaginative.
"You say you draw a distinction between being imaginative and
stimulating the imagination. I am not sure I understand the
distinction even when you give SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF
TOMORROW as an example. I was lukewarm on SKY CAPTAIN, but
thought it was both imaginative and stimulated the imagination.
I thought it fell down in its dramatic aspects.
"Incidentally at the Rotten Tomatoes site, the critics choose for
themselves if their review will be summarized with a positive "red
tomato" or a negative "splat." I know that because my reviews are
also included there. I assume that Groen's "red tomato" was his
own temporary clerical error. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
is a site that give a comprehensive selection of film reviews, each
one denoted with a positive "red tomato" or a negative "splat"
assigned by the critic.)
"[As for Ebert's obligation], I think you are wrong. I
think that Ebert is someone who is sincere and knows his own
mind." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Star Trek (letters of comment by Susan Wysk and Dan Kimmel)
We got a couple of responses to Mark's article on "Star Trek" in
the 05/13/05 issue.
Susan Wysk wrote, "I didn't get interested in science fiction by
watching Star Trek. I became interested when Mr. Lomonoco in
seventh grade science had us choose and read a science fiction
book. I read one of Heinlein's juveniles and have been reading
science fiction ever since. Since you and I know how old we are,
that was definitely before Star Trek." [-sw]
Mark answers, "I had Lomonoco in 7th grade also and do not remember
ever being assigned a science fiction book, but he was a good
teacher and he might well have. I wonder if he did in our class
and I just forgot it. I wonder what I picked. I was interested
in SF since I was five years old. By the time I was in junior
high I was really into it." [-mrl]
And Dan Kimmel writes, "Good, thoughtful reviews of 'Star Trek'
and 'Star Wars'. I'm not 100% in agreement, but are we ever? :)
I just want to point out that you gloss over the best of the
'Trek' series (i.e., you don't mention it at all): 'Star Trek:
Deep Space Nine'. I've been on too many panels when I said it was
the best and was greeted by cheers rather than shock to think this
is just my own take. It had an African American commander *and*
his son as regular characters, plus an Arab doctor (played by an
Arab actor), and dealt with religion quite seriously for 'Star
Trek'. Of course there were no Earth religions because
Roddenberry was an avowed secular humanist and thought humanity
would be beyond religion by then. It took avowed atheist
J. Michael Straczynski to recognize that as a major flaw and
rectify it in 'Babylon 5'. (Indeed, he did it so well he got
comments wondering if he had secretly found his faith.) There
were several standout out episodes of DS9, the titles of which
escape me. Two totally subverted the 'reset button.' In one
episode Sisko dies or otherwise is taken off this mortal plain (I
forget the details) and we get a moving drama spanning years of
how the other characters go on in their lives without him. He's
back at the end, of course, but our understanding of the
characters had deepened. In another, Sisko--a Federation
officer!--lies to the Romulans to get them into the Dominion war
on our side, and then erases the logs to cover up his deceit. In
effect, he's hit the reset button himself."
"I interviewed several people involved in the series, and executive
producer Ira Steven Behr told me how they got away with doing a
darker, grittier and sometimes funnier version of Trek.
Essentially as long as they hit their syndicated ratings marks the
front office suits were more concerned about launching 'Voyager'
and the UPN network. Unfortunately Paramount entrusted Berman and
Braga with the future of 'Star Trek' rather than noticing the
brilliant work that Behr and company were doing." [-dk]
Mark responds, "Each 'Star Trek' series seems to have its
advocates and they are all enthusiastic. It is hard to give any
one series the edge for me. The doctor was half-Arabic and raised
in Britain. If you just saw him it would be darn hard to pick out
that there was anything Arabic about him but his name. He is
actually about as Arabic as Evelyn is Puerto Rican. I agree that
'DS9' got better, but it took a while. Sisko was taken "off this
mortal plain" and off on some immortal fancy. :-) Sisko doesn't
hit the reset button himself; the script-writers do. But I admit
the series had its points. Objectively it may have been the
highpoint of Trek, but the first series gets points because it
came early. (Just like STAR WARS. The 1977 film is a +4 because
of the time it was made, but REVENGE OF THE SITH is probably the
most dramatic episode of the series.) 'Voyager' was certainly a
step down. You are probably right that 'DS9' was the best
science fiction. If I were writing the article again I probably
would have mentioned it more prominently." [-mrl]
Dan answers, "You mean I was right? :-) I'm sure you'll make the
correction when the essay is published in the 'Best of Mark
Leeper' anthology."
And Mark says, "A stopped clock is right twice a . . . . Uh, no,
I mean... Yes, you are very erudite." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: IL FANTASMA DELL'OPERA (THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) (1998)
(film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Dario Argento's take on the Phantom of the Opera is
bizarre without being rewarding. Argento rejects the Phantom's
deformity that is so central to Gaston Leroux's character and re-
envisions the phantom as a sort of handsome Tarzan of the Rats.
This film diverges from the original story whenever possible
going into silly subplots. The Phantom himself is not deformed
in this version and here he is the Phantom only because he is
loyal to the rats who adopted and raised him. Rating: low 0 (-4
to +4) or 4/10 (Warning: spoilers of Argento's gimmicks in this
review.)
I consider myself a fan of horror films and I know that Dario
Argento is a cult horror director, but I have to admit that he is
a taste in horror that I have somehow failed to acquire. His
classic is considered SUSPERIA, and while it has a few good
scenes, overall it does little for me. His other films do less.
He in a big way goes in for sadistic stalker films. There had
already been one bizarre adaptation of Phantom that played up the
slasher aspect. It was the 1989 version starring Robert Englund,
best known as Freddy Kruger. The Gaston Leroux novel probably
was in public domain in 1998, so legally Argento could make a
film of same story the then (and as of this writing) popular
stage play was based on. The fact he could did not mean he
should have, obviously. And it becomes more obvious when one
sees the film. He was clearly not into adapting the novel, and
though he uses much of the plot of the novel, his heart and his
creativity is clearly more in the aspects that diverge from the
original. Frequently the divergences are homages (spelled
t-h-e-f-t-s) from better films.
The film starts with a sequence borrowed probably from BATMAN
RETURNS. In Paris an unwanted baby is abandoned and cast adrift
in an underground sewer. He is rescued and his floating basket
is pulled to safety by hospitable rats who adopt and raise the
boy. In 1877 the baby has grown to manhood under the Paris Opera
House. Played now by Julian Sands, he is something more than a
human man because he has mental powers to talk telepathically to
others and even to possess a victim's arm here and there. Yet he
still thinks of himself as a large rat. The phantom is not
deformed and not so much repulsive as unkempt with stringy blond
hair down to his breast. Sand possibly did not want to wear
horror make-up.
The rat-man Phantom hears aspiring opera singer Christine (played
by Argento's daughter Asia Argento) and begins to dominate her
telepathically. Christine's main obstacle to stardom is Carlotta
(Nadia Rinaldi) who is ugly, stupid, rude, bloated, selfish,
gross, and untalented, but who is nonetheless the prima donna of
the Paris Opera House. One wonders how they chose her. From
there the story half-heartedly follows the story of the book with
side trips involving child molesters, gratuitous nudity,
hallucinogenic dreams, a visit to a fabulous bordello, a treasure
hunt, and an overzealous rat catcher who collects rat tails jars
and who is building a motorized, riding rat vacuum. (This is
1877 remember.) It all sounds like more fun than it actually is.
The screenplay is by Gerard Brach and Dario Argento. It borrows
not just from BATMAN RETURNS but also one sequence is taken,
quite illogically, from X THE UNKNOWN. While the scene
effectively creates tension and a curiosity as to what is going
on, the scene is a cheat and never makes sense in the context of
the film. Classic sequences from the novel are forced into the
storyline as a matter of form. We have the unmasking scene with
Christine sneaking up on the Phantom, though here there is no
mask to remove. We have a chandelier scene. But this is much
more the story of a mad killer, avenger of rats, who likes to
bite body parts off his victims like rats do. The character of
the never-named Phantom never makes sense either. Raised by rats
he somehow learned not just to talk but to speak in poetry, he
seems to know about the ocean's rolling, and know some of the
terminology of physics.
An Italian opera house no doubt stands in for the Paris Opera
House in this production. Argento, filming in Budapest, probably
had no trouble finding one he could rent inexpensively. This
opera house does not have the huge catacombs of the novel, but it
does seem to be built over caverns that become a frequent
setting. There are occasionally effective visuals, though
looking down Carlotta's throat is not one of them. The musical
score by Ennio Morricone, though non-memorable, is a definite
plus. And Argento knows, perhaps because he is Italian, a few
very beguiling pieces of opera to leaven the film.
This is one of the poorest adaptations of THE PHANTOM OF THE
OPERA, though it is much preferable to the 1989 version. Argento
could have diverged from the classic story if he had good ideas,
but a riding rat vacuum is clearly not one of them. I give this
version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale
or 4/10. [-mrl]
[As noted earlier, Marks comprehensive article reviewing the
previous versions of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA may be found at
http://www.geocities.com/markleeper/phantoms.htm.]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Susan Wysk passes along a recommendation, writing, "I just read a
time travel book called HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE by Chris
Roberson. I thought it was very good." I'll add that it is on my
list to read. It's on my list to read. (Roberson won a Sidewise
Award for Alternate History last year for "O One" and is nominated
again this year for "Red Hands, Black Hands".) Unfortunately,
the book is available only at one of the libraries not in our
inter-library loan system, so I'm going to have to go there to
read it.
Guy Boothby's ENTER DR. NIKOLA! (ISBN 0-87877-032-1) has a
copyright date of 1975 for Newcastle Publishing. Although there
is a note on the cover that says "former title: A BID FOR
FORTUNE", there is no real indication that the book was actually
about eighty years old even in 1975 (it was written in 1895), or
that it is the first book of a series and does not have a real
ending. As an example of the genre of "super-villain" story that
pre-dated Sax Rohmer's "Fu Manchu" (who first appeared in 1912)
and similar works, it is of some historical interest, but not
very satisfying for general readers.
DON JUAN IN HELL by George Bernard Shaw was this month's book
discussion group choice. This is the middle part of Act III of
MAN AND SUPERMAN (ISBN 0-140-43788-6), and is often performed as
a stand-alone play. (Conversely, when MAN AND SUPERMAN is
produced, this section is often left out.) Charles Harris (a
member of the group as well as a correspondent to the MT VOID)
said that having read Oscar Wilde's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GREY,
he had probably had enough of the sort of aphorism that both
Wilde and Shaw peppered their works with. I wondered if being an
Irishman in England makes one write that sort of aphorism. We
couldn't quite define what make them similar--Mark suggested that
there must be axioms of metamaximetics waiting to be discovered.
I also discovered that while Shaw may be a great dramatist, he is
no paleontologist. On page 144 of the 1964 Penguin printing, one
character says, "The megatherium, the ichthyosaurus have paced
the earth with seven-league steps and hidden the day with cloud
fast wings." The ichthyosaurus was more like to swim the sea with
seven-league strokes. I did like the writing, aphoristic as it is
at times and even though towards the end it starts to bog down.
I'll give an example of what I like, so you can judge your
reaction. Don Juan tells the Devil, "Your friends are all the
dullest dogs I know. They are not beautiful: they are only
decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and
starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably
dressed. They are not educated: they are only college passmen.
They are not religious: they are only pewrenters. They are not
moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they
are only cowardly. They are not even vicious: they are only
"frail." They are not artistic: they are only lascivious. They
are not prosperous: they are only rich. They are not loyal, they
are only servile; not dutiful, only sheepish; not public spirited,
only patriotic; not courageous, only quarrelsome; not determined,
only obstinate; not masterful, only domineering; not
self-controlled, only obtuse; not self-respecting, only vain; not
kind, only sentimental; not social, only gregarious; not
considerate, only polite; not intelligent, only opinionated; not
progressive, only factious; not imaginative, only superstitious;
not just, only vindictive; not generous, only propitiatory; not
disciplined, only cowed; and not truthful at all: liars every one
of them, to the very backbone of their souls." (This is also an
example of why theater acting is much harder than film acting.
The actor needs to learn this line, word for word--because on the
stage, actors are not permitted to change the script at all
without the writer's permission--and get it right the first time,
performance after performance. No retakes, no editing, no "Can
we change 'factious' to 'contrary'?") [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is
that he really is very good, in spite of
all the people who say he is very good.
-- Robert Graves