THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/16/05 -- Vol. 24, No. 25, Whole Number 1313
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:
Interaction Worldcon Report Available
What I Have Learned (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Impact of Rod Serling and "The Twilight Zone"
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
KING KONG (2005) (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (KING KONG and "Audubon in Atlantis")
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Interaction Worldcon Report Available
My Worldcon report for Interaction is available at
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/interact.htm. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: What I Have Learned (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
All life is suffering with minor respites for chocolate. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Impact of Rod Serling and "The Twilight Zone" (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
I was this past week on a panel discussing the television show
"The Twilight Zone". It brought back a lot of good memories of
the late 1950s and early 1960s when my life really was divided in
two pieces: watching "The Twilight Zone" and waiting for the next
"Twilight Zone". I don't think that there is any television show
that had the impact on me that that series did. I was a kid who
loved science fiction and fantasy. This show channeled me into
adult written science fiction. The story is that maybe a year
after it premiered my father returned from a business trip and
brought back a book that had been left on the seat. It was
NOTIONS UNLIMITED by the late, great Robert Sheckley. My reaction
was how terrific it was that you could find Twilight-Zone-like
stores in books. It was a while before I looked at science
fiction books and did not think of "The Twilight Zone". I
remember hot days in the summers of that time my mother would take
my brother and me and friends to the swimming pool and we would
sit in the back seat and sweat and talk excitedly about that
really great episode of "The Twilight Zone" that we had just
seen. And we discussed what were the best episodes. But it was
more than a show that pleased just youngsters.
"The Twilight Zone" was a revolution for broadcast fantasy. More
science fiction fans were getting their doses of fantasy from one
television show than they had from all the other broadcast sources
of fantasy combined. There had been several radio and television
shows of science fiction before. Some of the most popular were
those associated with Arch Oboler. They had low-grade science
fiction ideas and were not very good writing. A typical Arch
Oboler story would have a scientist is working on growth hormone
and carelessly spilling his waste onto the ground. Next thing
you know he has giant worms attacking his house. His most famous
story, I think, was "Chicken Heart" about a scientifically
treated chicken heart that kept growing to monstrous size and was
"in your town . . . on your street!" The series might have had a
dubious charm but rarely good writing. Other series like "Quiet
Please" occasionally had a well-told story, but it was mostly
there for the ideas. On television besides programs like
"Captain Video" and "Tom Corbett"--Westerns and crime stories set
in space--there was some acceptable science fiction from "Science
Fiction Theater", a short-lived anthology series, but nothing
that would be really engaging. The stories were on the level of
having a surprise ending that that strange person in the story
was actually an alien. We could say something similar about "One
Step Beyond". "Tales of Tomorrow" should be mentioned also.
What was different about "The Twilight Zone" was Rod Serling. He
was not a fantasist doing his best to write decent drama. He was
a dramatist who wanted to do some fantasy stories. He had done
several outstanding plays for live television and was considered
a really good dramatist. His best remembered plays are probably
"Patterns" and "Requiem for a Heavyweight," but only because they
were adapted into films. With "The Twilight Zone" this writer of
great dialog was doing fantasy stories on a weekly basis. In the
beginning the new "Twilight Zone" series had both good ideas and
human drama, though the emphasis was actually more on the drama.
Even my parents, who were never much for fantasy stories, watched
the first season of "The Twilight Zone". I can only assume it was
because of the quality of the writing.
"The Twilight Zone" would have decent actors and some soon-to-be
stars: actors like Robert Redford, Jack Warden, Jean Marsh, Lee
Marvin, Robert Duvall, and Martin Landau as well as later
familiar faces like William Shatner. There were also some
extremely good character actors. I did not appreciate this at
the time, but as the years roll by I am more impressed with the
acting of Jack Klugman, most notably in "The Twilight Zone"
episodes "A Passage for Trumpet" and "In Praise of Pip". He
could play emotional pain as well as anybody I have ever seen. I
did not appreciate his performances when I was eleven, but today
they literally bring tears to my eyes. Other actors like Art
Carney gave some of their best performances for Serling.
Where Serling ran into trouble were the requirements of a weekly
anthology series. That is a very difficult regimen. From an
early point he brought in writers like Richard Matheson and
Charles Beaumont to pinch-hit for his writing. Matheson just had
his feet barely wet in dramatic fantasy with his script for THE
INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN. He had also written for some television
Westerns before "The Twilight Zone". He contributed sixteen
scripts to Serling's series. (Only Serling wrote more "The
Twilight Zone" scripts.) This experience started a whole career
for Matheson in fantasy drama. Matheson is another of my choices
for under-appreciated creative people of fantasy.
Even with a stable of good writers and actors Serling could not
keep up the standards the show really demanded. Eventually he
had to go with lesser ideas and less talented writers. Some of
the final season episodes are painful to watch. Most science
fiction magazine editors reject Adam and Eve stories immediately.
Serling accepted one. Some of the later shows were also very
sloppy. In "The Bewitching Pool" the little girl's voice is done
by the actress for part of the story and by all-too-recognizable
cartoon voice June Foray the rest of the time.
"The Twilight Zone" borrowed a little from previous films and
radio plays; some episodes were taken almost directly from DEAD
OF NIGHT. It adapted a play by Lucille Fletcher that had been
popular on the radio. But it virtually strip-mined ideas. For
years afterward we saw one reworking of a " Twilight Zone" idea
after another. Others film can be found that were made up in
large part of ideas from "The Twilight Zone". CARNIVAL OF SOULS,
BRIDES OF DRACULA, POLTERGEIST, and several television movies re-
use ideas that were probably taken from "The Twilight Zone". The
series was a new fantasy idea every week.
I cannot think of anything I acquired during the period that "The
Twilight Zone" was on that I value as much as the experience of
looking forward to each new episode of "The Twilight Zone".
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: KING KONG (2005) (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Peter Jackson's longtime ambition to make a new version
of KING KONG is fulfilled with a great yet respectful expansion
and remake. He finds enough ways to improve the original film
that even die-hard fans should be impressed. There is a lot of
film here for a single admission ticket. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4)
or 9/10
The question has been asked, "If you have a favorite film, who
would you want to remake it?" And the best answer is, "Nobody!"
If you have a favorite film you want the story left as it is. At
least that is the common wisdom. But all my life one of my
favorite films has been the 1933 KING KONG. (I gave the 1976
remake a viewing. It was painful. The opening was reasonable,
but as the film went along it got worse and more painful.) Then
it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to make another
remake. Well, at that time Jackson had showed some talent. But
I was a little relieved when the project was tabled and Jackson
went off to make his version of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. That was
an extremely hard project and Jackson proved himself to be a very
good visual fantasist. He also was the first director ever to
have one film I rated -4 (BAD TASTE) and another I rated +4 (THE
LORD OF THE RINGS). Then he went back to Kong. Okay, Mr.
Jackson, do your best.
All right, I admit it. Peter Jackson actually made a better
version of KING KONG than the original. It really is
considerably better. I gave the original KING KONG a +4.
Jackson's version gets a +3. His film was not as original as the
1933 KONG and he had seventy-two years of technology to help him.
But he has made what I would judge one of the greatest action-
adventures ever filmed. By making a film that is almost 80%
longer he has the time to develop his characters and it does
show. He gives the people back-stories so you can actually get
involved with the characters. I have to admit that in the first
half-hour or so of the film I was getting involved in the stories
of Carl Denham as an unscrupulous filmmaker and of Ann Darrow as
someone other than the girl who would be in a hairy paw. This is
not the same Ann Darrow who was in the 1933 version, but she is
close enough. Carl Denham is similar to the original but is more
of an unprincipled sharpster who is less than likable. Another
change that I think would have been made in the original film if
the writers had a second chance: the girl is sympathetic to the
beast. The same team did that with SON OF KONG and in MIGHTY JOE
YOUNG. But the original Ann Darrow in the 1933 version never
seemed to look at Kong as anything but a threat. In fact, any
sympathy that the audience felt for the ape may have been
unintentional.
I will not say a lot about the plot, since most people have seen
the original film, and that tells more than enough about the plot
of this version. Jackson has used the original film as an
outline and just expanded it with a great deal of respect for the
original material. He was content to tell very much the same
story and just in scene after scene show how his visual sense and
his seventy-two years of additional technology allowed him to
outdo the original on a scene-by-scene basis. For example in the
original KONG the natives are not really as impressive as
intended, and they are entirely the wrong race. In the new film
they are racially more accurate and as scary as the orcs of LORD
OF THE RINGS. In the original film all the character foundation
work takes place before Ann is kidnapped so after that the film
can be non-stop action. The same is true here, but it is about
seventy-five minutes before the real action starts. It does the
job, but the film does not drag.
Even some of the best films have a few scenes the fans could do
without. I have problems with both versions of KONG. In the
original film poking fun at Charlie, the Chinese cook, never sat
well with me. In the new film nearly every scene seemed to work
for me for most of the film. But there is a silly little idyll
that I could have done without with Kong and Ann on a frozen pond
in Central Park, away from the hustle and bustle that one might
expect would accompany having a twenty-five-foot ape loose in the
New York City.
The Jackson team has created a marvelous visualization of the
whole Kong story. Skull Island earns its name, not with a giant
mountain that looks like a skull, as unlikely as that would be.
This film gives the feel of a great previous civilization that at
one time lived all over the island, not just on the safe side of
the wall. How they did that with the fauna in the interior of
the island makes the story all the more mysterious. The
dinosaurs are given a new physicality that I have not seen in
even the Jurassic Park films. When stampeding dinosaurs try to
go through a narrow space you have the feel that these are
massive animals piling into each other. The dinosaurs and most
other animals look very good. The bats do not. But close-up
bats never look very good on film and it would be better for
filmmakers to just leave them out of plots. Kong is much more
like a natural gorilla in the new film. He has the posture of a
gorilla and he yawns at odd moments making him seem more like a
natural animal. The original Kong had too many human gestures,
had inconsistent dimensions, and was more a sort of ape-man than
a gorilla. The new Kong is a realistic but magnificent ape.
The film is full of loving visual and sound tributes to the
original film. The credits are done in the same style. Tiny
pieces of the Max Steiner music creep into the James Newton
Howard score. Then when we get to Times Square the same neon ads
are on the buildings and the Steiner score is reprised in an
unexpected way that pokes a little loving fun at the original
film. And at the end of the credits there is a nice tribute to
many of the names of people who contributed to the original film.
There are a few problems. Kong is graceful, but he is a little
too acrobatic to be believed. This is especially true in the
scenes where he carries Ann and would have broken her neck if
both were more than digital images. In the script Denham sees
the ape carry off Ann and does not see them again, but somehow
knows that the ape will follow Ann. The script does not explain
how he knows that.
This is a production that proves that even a great film can have
a remake that is even better. I just wish Willis O'Brien were
around and could look what they done to his Kong. I rate it +3
on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10.
Oh, and one thing that I would have been thought would have been
obvious from the 1933 film, and this film makes it even more
obvious. Some wag has found what some think is a goof in the
film. Why leave a Kong-sized gate in the wall that was intended
to keep Kong out of the village? It is easy to explain. Suppose
Kong decided to climb the wall and he ended on the other side.
We know Kong is a climber, after all. Would a native prefer
trying to convince Kong to climb the wall again to return to his
side or to open the gate and tempt Kong to return through it?
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
In preparation for this small independent film that was coming out
soon from some New Zealand director, I read KING KONG by Edgar
Wallace and Merian C. Cooper (ISBN 1-887-42491-1). This was (I
believe) a novelization written at the time of the 1933 film and
as such it is fairly close to that film. There are differences,
though. Some make little sense (in the book the ship is the
Wanderer; in the movie it is the Venture). Others were either
toned down for the movie, or "embellished" for the book, and many
of these were racial elements. In the book, for example, Kong is
destroying the native village, but Denham does not want to use
the gas bombs yet, because "the huts might stop the drift of the
gas cloud." He doesn't seem to worry too much about the natives.
And there are several passages such as: "The last pin had fallen
from her hair and it foamed down her back in a bright cascade
made more bright by its contrast with Kong's black snarl of fur.
One sleeve of her dress had been torn, so that her right shoulder
was bare. The soft, white rondure made another, more startling
contrast with her captor's sooty bulk."
Wallace's science is a bit shaky as well. Describing a
Triceratops, Denham calls it "[just] another of Nature's
mistakes, Jack. Something like a dinosaur. But with their
forelegs more fully developed." (Oh, he also spells it
"Tricerotops" and calls an individual animal a "Tricerotop".) 1)
A Triceratops *is* a dinosaur, and 2) any species that survives
seven million years is not exactly "one of Nature's mistakes."
The book is interesting only as an adjunct to the movie. I
suspect that Edgar Wallace has written better, just as Isaac
Asimov wrote many better books than his novelization of FANTASTIC
VOYAGE.
"Audubon in Atlantis" by Harry Turtledove (ANALOG, December 2005)
is competently written, but probably of more interest to birders
than to the average SF fan. The premise is that Atlantis exists
and in 1843 John James Audubon goes there to study (and draw) the
unique bird species, many of which are dying out. I had some
technical quibbles (quelle surprise!)--mostly that the existence
of a large island continent between Europe/Africa and North
America would have changed the history of the New World (and the
Old) so as to make much of the setting given extremely
implausible. However, someone pointed out that the illustration
at the beginning shows a map which has Atlantis as the eastern
part of North America, separated from the rest by a large body of
water. Unfortunately, this is not made clear in the story, and I
suspect that the map will not be included with any future
publications of the story in anthologies or collections. On the
plus side, April 6, 1843, *was* a Thursday, so at least
Turtledove did that much research. (You'd be surprised how many
people do not.) And Turtledove goes into great detail about the
characteristics of the various species (birds and non-birds as
well), but I cannot judge how accurate or likely they are. I'll
leave that to the birders. (Yes, Kate, that's you!) The
ecological part of the story was (a bit too) obviously taken from
that of the Galapagos and Mauritius. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The genius of the American system is that
we have created extraordinary results from
plain old ordinary people.
-- Phil Gramm