THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
06/03/05 -- Vol. 23, No. 49 (Whole Number 1285)
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:
Separated at Birth? No, Can't Be. (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
A Time of Endings: Godzilla (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Godzilla (letter of comment by Daniel Kimmel)
THE ALGEBRAIST by Iain M. Banks (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
MILWAUKEE, MINNESOTA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (A SLIGHT TRICK OF THE MIND,
THE ITALIAN SECRETARY, CITY OF GOD)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Separated at Birth? No, Can't Be. (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Is it my imagination or does the recent reconstruction of a
Neanderthal woman's face look just a bit like actress Lili Taylor?
http://tinyurl.com/7b6ze
http://www.thespiannet.com/actresses/T/taylor_lili/lt.jpg
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A Time of Endings: Godzilla (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
With two other science fiction franchises coming to an end, much
less notice is being given to a third important series.
Currently being released in this country is GODZILLA: FINAL WARS.
I have had people look at me strangely when I have said that this
is an important science fiction series and lament its passing.
Most Americans seem to associate Godzilla with silly man-in-
rubber-suit monsters clumsily stepping through miniature sets.
Do I seriously respect Godzilla films? In fact I do. Perhaps
not as much as "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", but it has been an
important force.
I was probably five years old and already a little interested
science fiction when TV started showing ads for GODZILLA, KING OF
THE MONSTERS on television. It was years before I got to see the
film, but it was a definite dream of mine to see the film with
the nightmarish images I saw in the TV ads. Friends would talk
about having seen it and how it did just what the atomic bomb
did.
One of the most interesting things that I knew about the film is
that it was actually a Japanese film. People in other countries
made monster movies! In my young mind there were three cultures
in the world. There was our American culture, there was Japan,
and there was everything else. Every five years or so from that
point on I would pick up something new that fascinated me and
came from Japan, the "other" culture. First it was Godzilla,
then origami, then the samurai armor in the local art museum.
(This was in the 1960s, years before SHOGUN was released in 1980
and suddenly there was a nationwide fascination with Japan's
feudal tradition.). Then I discovered sushi, then samurai films,
then the little netsuke (pronounced "netski") figures. But it
all started with Godzilla. In fact, this country's fascination
with Japan started with the very successful release of GODZILLA,
KING OF THE MONSTERS.
Godzilla is popular. The producers at Toho claim that it is the
longest running film franchise of all time. (I do not know how
much consideration they have given to Italy's Maciste.) Fifty
years of Godzilla films is some an impressive record. But do I
actually think Godzilla films are good? Well, I would probably
say not in the Ingmar Bergman sense. I would say that the films
are a mixed bag. I would certainly say yes to the question asked
about the film GOJIRA.
The original Godzilla film that we in the United States saw,
GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS and released in 1956 was a re-
edited version of the Japanese film GOJIRA. The Americans re-
edited and crudely added scenes with Raymond Burr. This gave the
film an American hero and somewhat eased backlash from the war
that was fought eleven years earlier.
The original 1954 film GOJIRA, produced by Japan's Toho Studio,
imitated KING KONG and THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, but it
managed to use its low budget and some real inventiveness to
advantage making nightmarish and memorable imagery. For example,
the filmmakers realized their waxy props melted under the bright
lighting giving a weird effect. So the monster was given fiery
breath to take advantage of the newly discovered effect. Most
impressively we see the monster (mostly) only at night, lit from
below, and shot from a low level. This makes the creature look
huge and adds a touch of realism. The monster was played in the
only way the budget allowed, with a man in a suit. It was given
a feeling of mass by over-cranking the camera, effectively
filming the creature in slow motion. The writing also is eerily
effective. It opens with a fishing boat seeing a bright flash
described by survivors as "the sea exploded." What could be more
eerie than something as inert as sea water suddenly exploding?
The popular notion these days is that the American producer of
GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS, Joseph E. Levine, re-edited the
film to edit out its anti-nuclear and anti-American message.
That is the belief I have seen repeated multiple times by
different writers. And like many popular notions I think it is
false. I have seen both versions, several times each. The
essential message that Godzilla was like the atomic bomb and that
scientists bear responsibility for how their discoveries are used
is very carefully retained. Even the debate was over whether the
monster should be studied rather than killed. Only one scene
that I felt added substance to the original was excised. This
was very probably the most poignant scene I remember ever seeing
in a monster film. (I realize it is not a great selection.)
There is one scene as Godzilla is rampaging through Tokyo. We
see at the base of a building a woman cowering and shielding her
two young children and re-assuring them by telling them they will
be with their father soon. This is pretty strong stuff and I am
not surprised it was eliminated for the American release.
GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS was the first Japanese film that
was an international success. And it was a big one. It overcame
the Americans' hatred for their defeated enemy to become an
indelible part of pop culture. Sequels were a natural
consequence. In the series it spawned the films were aimed at
younger and younger audiences. Godzilla was turned from a nasty
monster to the terrible defender of Japan. (An idea of the
terrible defender perhaps had its origin in the Golem of Prague.)
The series made one or two entertaining entries before it was
turned into a set of light-hearted monster fests and the films
were generally rather juvenile. From this point on the most
serious message the films would have was that pollution was bad
because it creates monsters. The virtues of all the other films
in this series (and the later series until the present) are
mostly just that they are fun. The films became hopelessly
juvenile and wound itself down with stories that pitted monster
against monsters and monsters against evil aliens. Then Godzilla
went into hiatus.
In the early 1980s Toho apparently realized they had mismanaged
their property and decided to look at the monster afresh. They
would ignore the fact that they had made sequels in the past.
They made a second film that was intended as an immediate sequel
to the original and started a new series. In this country the
film was called GODZILLA '85. The series made many of the same
mistakes as the first series, but it was arguably on a higher
level with a story arc of competing government agencies with
different ideas as to how to as to what to do about the monster
menace. Eventually this series killed off Gojira, only to have
him replaced by an offspring.
With the series dead, Toho licensed Tri-Star Pictures to make an
American Godzilla film. Toho had retained approval on the look
of the monster. When this turned out to be too similar to their
concept they vetoed the design and Tri-Star played it safe and
designed a Godzilla whose appearance was almost entirely unlike
the original. The film was terrible, but it succeeded in raising
public awareness of Godzilla.
Toho apparently decided that the most popular films of the last
series was a new direct sequel to the original film, why not make
more immediate sequels. They had a new "alternate universe"
series, each film was a different concept for what could be a
second film in a series that started with the original GOJIRA.
Some of these were their most creative films since the first 1954
film. However, Toho has reportedly decided to abandon the film
altogether after the currently running GODZILLA: FINAL WARS.
Now that series is dead. Supposedly. But the series has been
resurrected twice after it had died. Perhaps it will be back.
Godzilla is gone but Japanese media and art and film, including
anime and samurai films, are still hugely popular in an
international market pioneered by a most unlikely cultural
ambassador, the man-in-a-rubber-suit dinosaur Godzilla. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Godzilla (letter of comment by Daniel Kimmel)
Last week, in discussing "Star Trek", Mark wrote, "Well, I have
written myself in a corner, now. I need to put together two more
articles: 'A Time of Endings: Star Wars' and 'A Time of Endings:
Godzilla.' I think I know what I will say for the first, but not
so sure about Godzilla." [-mrl]
Dan responded, "End of Godzilla? Never. He's just going to rest
a while. Just remember, there's a little bit of Godzilla in all
of us." [-dk]
To which Mark replies, "I have a chip off one of his dorsal fins
lodged in my pancreas." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE ALGEBRAIST by Iain M. Banks (copyright 2004, Orbit,
C$42.00, 534pp, ISBN 1-84149-155-1) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
We continue in our survey of this year's Hugo nominees with a look
at another of the New Space Opera by a U.K. author, THE
ALGEBRAIST. Banks's contribution to the space opera sub-genre
joins works by Alastair Reynolds and Charles Stross in making me
believe that *someone* out there actually does write the books
that I love to read.
In my recent review of Sawyer's MINDSCAN I wrote the following:
". . . the best science fiction is not about the gadgets or the
technology, but about how the gadgets or technology affect the
lives of the characters in the story . . . ."
Well, the *other* best science fiction is that stuff that is all
about cosmic scope, weird aliens, interstellar war, megalomanical
villains, and those neat gadgets. That's really what I fell in
love with when I first read science fiction, and THE ALGEBRAIST
has it all.
It is the 41st century, and humanity has reached the stars. There
is an interstellar wormhole network that allows quick travel
between star systems, and this network has allowed a great
galactic civilization to spring up. There are aliens out there
too, all sorts of weird ones. The ones we're concerned with are
the Dwellers. The Dwellers live in the atmospheres of gas giants.
They are a, well, slightly batty race--they do things like hunt
their young, fight formal wars that are more games and contests
than they are about anything else, and hoard data. Lots of data.
Lots of potentially useful and interesting data--that has no order
or organization to it whatsoever.
Our protagonist--I hesitate to call him our hero--is Fassin Taak.
He is a Slow Seer--someone who travels among and visits the
Dwellers in order to research their data. These research
expeditions are called Delves. During a Delve many years ago,
Taak inadvertently uncovered some information that is now the
cause of a rapidly approaching interstellar war the likes of which
hasn't been seen in a very long time.
You see, a while back the wormhole near the planet Nasqueron was
destroyed, effectively cutting off humanity there from the rest of
the galaxy. A new wormhole has been constructed and is on its
way, but in the meantime (roughly two hundred years), humans are
isolated. There is a rumor, however, of a secret Dweller network
of wormholes. In fact, there is a document called the Dweller
List, which is supposed to be a list of gas giants near which
wormholes to their network exist. However, the list is old.
There is supposed to be a formula called the Transform, which,
when applied to the list, will give the true location of the
Dweller wormholes, thus opening up a whole new network for the
rest of galactic civilization to use.
Remember that information that Fassin Taak uncovered? It is
contained in the third volume of a work called "The Algebraist",
and it is indeed the Transform. The Starveling Cult has found out
about it, and, led by the aforementioned megalomanical evil guy
Archimandrite Luseferous, they are coming to take over the
Nasqueron system by force and get the Transform for themselves.
Folks, this is really cool stuff. The action is fast paced--the
novel may be over 500 pages in length, but there's no padding
here. This is the real deal, a space opera worthy of the label
and definitely Hugo material. The only real shame is that it's
not available in the U.S. right now. I ordered mine from Amazon
U.K., although I'm told it can be acquired faster if ordered from
Amazon of Canada. In fact, you'll note the price I list at the
beginning is the Canadian price--there is no U.S. price yet that I
know of. But whatever you do, go out and get this one. It's well
worth the cost.
Next up is RIVER OF GODS by Ian McDonald. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: MILWAUKEE, MINNESOTA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
[This review was published in the 11/14/03 issue of the MT VOID,
but is being re-run because it is finally getting a release here.]
Rating: +2 (-4 to +4)
Albert (played by Troy Garity, son of Jane Fonda) is a childlike
man living in dingy and cold Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His mother
treats him like a little boy, which is just about what he is. She
ferries him to and from his job in a photocopy shop run by an
overly sympathetic supervisor (Bruce Dern). His one claim to fame
is that he is a terrific ice fisherman and wins tournament after
tournament. His autistic mind picks up on the subtleties of fish
behavior.
Albert's mother Edna forcefully manipulates Albert. She is not
happy when two young drifters, Tuey (Alison Folland) and her
brother Stanley, come to town and Tuey flirts with her Albert.
She knows they are up to no good. Another stranger comes to town,
Jerry (Randy Quaid). Then Edna is killed in a hit-and-run
accident and Albert suddenly falls heir to a fair amount of money.
Tuey wants to get her hands on that money and perhaps Jerry wants
to beat her to it, or perhaps Jerry has another reason for being
around. Bruce Dern's character also claims to be interested in
Albert's welfare. Just what is going on? Whatever it is, it
seems to have deep roots in the past.
The film, written by R. D. Murphy, nicely keeps the audience
guessing in this feeding frenzy of crooks. A particularly nice
scene has all the no-goods come together at one dinner.
Allan Mindel is a first-time director. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Everyone seems to be writing Sherlock Holmes pastiches these
days, or at least stories with Sherlock Holmes as the main
character. This week I read two.
Mitch Cullin's A SLIGHT TRICK OF THE MIND (ISBN 0-385-51328-3) is
not a Holmes pastiche in the usual sense of the term. There are
a couple of mysteries involved, but the focus is not so much on
solving them as on Holmes as an old man, ninety-two years old and
dealing with both the physical and the mental infirmities that so
often accompany old age. He can no longer take in a scene at a
glance and remember it perfectly. As he expresses it, "Over
time, I have realized my mind no longer operates in such a fluid
manner. . . . My means for recall--those various groupings of
words and numbers--aren't as easily accessible as they were.
Traveling through India . . . I stepped from the train somewhere
in the middle of the country . . . and was promptly accosted by a
dancing, half-naked beggar, a most joyous fellow. Previously, I
would have observed everything around me in perfect detail . . .
but that rarely happens anymore. I don't remember the station
building and I cannot tell you if there were vendors or people
nearby. All I can recall is a toothless brown-skinned beggar
dancing before me, and arm outstretched for a few pence. What
matters to me now is that I possess that delightful vision of
him; where the event took place is of no account. Had this
occurred sixty years ago, I would have been quite distraught for
being unable to summon the location and its minutiae. But now I
retain only what is necessary. The minor details aren't
essential--what appears in my mind these days are rudimentary
impressions, not all the frivolous surroundings. And for that I
am grateful."
I'm sure some will complain of this "aging" of the story. After
all, most people get hooked on the Sherlock Holmes stories when
they are fairly young, and A SLIGHT TRICK OF THE MIND has lacks
any of the adventure of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, or any of
the detection skills shown in A STUDY IN SCARLET. In science
fiction, a fair number of people have taken up the complaint that
the "sense of wonder" is vanishing, replaced by stories about old
age and downbeat futures. And this story may indicate a similar
trend in other fields (though the downbeat world here is not the
future, but a bombed-out post-WWII Japan.) Twenty years ago, we
had YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, looking at a childhood (patterned more
after Indian Jones than Sherlock Holmes, one suspects), but now
we get what is in essence "Sherlock Holmes--The Twilight Years".
Is this because authors are getting older, or because readers of
books are getting older, or (possibly) not even an accurate
description of the current state of writing? In any case, I am
also getting older, and so at least for me this book was a
thoughtful change from the vast number of books set during
Holmes's prime. (Has anyone ever tried to take all the pastiches
and fit them into a timeline? I suspect that, like "M*A*S*H" on
television, or Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe" series, there are more
stories than time to fit them into. And Mark has noted that
James Bond forty years after DR. NO still seems to be the same
age, so the timeline there is obviously off as well.
Caleb Carr's THE ITALIAN SECRETARY (ISBN 0-7867-1548-0) is a
straightforward Holmes story. The "Italian secretary" of the
title is David Rizzio (music teacher to Mary, Queen of Scots),
who was killed three hundred years ago. But his ghost may or may
not be involved in some very strange murders in Holyroodhouse in
Edinburgh. There are a couple of problems with this novel. One
is that Carr, although an historian, has no ear for the use (or
mis-use of ahistorical words. So in the first dozen or so pages,
we run across such words as "odds-on", "sonic", and "electronic"
scattered among the supposedly Victorian prose, and each time
it's like tripping over a concealed rock. And I find the use of
the supernatural in Holmes stories problematic in general. At
the end either it turns out that there *are* supernatural goings-
on (which to my mind is completely contrary to the spirit of the
Sherlock Holmes canon--no pun intended), or there aren't, in
which case the reader feels they have been led down the garden
path. (Yes, in some of Doyle's stories, a ghost is suggested,
but Holmes immediately discounts that idea. I'm talking about
stories in which he is not so adamant.) Somehow, I just can't
recommend this book
One doesn't expect to get mathematics from St. Augustine, but I
did actually find some in his CITY OF GOD (previously discussed
in the 05/06/05 issue of the VOID). In Chapter XI, section 30,
Augustine discusses "the perfection of the number six". God
created the world in six days, he says, because six is the first
number which is the sum of its "parts" (by which he means
factors). Six is divisible by one, two, and three, and is also
the sum of one, two, and three. He explains the mathematics of
perfect numbers and then says, "This point seemed worthy of a
brief mention to show the perfection of the number six . . . and
in this number God brought his works to complete perfection.
Hence the theory of number is not to be lightly regarded, since
it is made quite clear, in many passages of the holy Scriptures,
how highly it is to be valued. It was not for nothing that it
was said in praise of God, 'You have ordered all things in
measure, number and weight' [Wisdom 11:21]." Of course, I'd be
more impressed with his number theory if in XI:31 he did not say,
"Three is the first odd whole number, and four the first whole
even number," which is some odd definition of either "first" or
"even". (He goes on to say that seven, being the sum of these
two, is often used to stand for an unlimited number.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
There's only one corner of the universe
you can be certain of improving, and
that's your own self.
--Aldous Huxley