THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
09/15/06 -- Vol. 25, No. 11, Whole Number 1352
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:
The Latest on Pluto
Cold Is Hot; Hot Isn't Cool (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Trailer Park Report: Live-Action Films, Part 1
(film comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE ILLUSIONIST (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
HOLLYWOODLAND (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
AURORA BOREALIS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
OLD JOY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Upcoming Animation and Other Films (letter of comment
by Dan Kimmel)
This Week's Reading (GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ IN 90 MINUTES,
GARCIA MARQUEZ FOR BEGINNERS, TIME IS THE SIMPLEST
THING, "Dr, Cyclops", Jorge Luis Borges)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Latest on Pluto
For the latest political fall-out on Plutogate, see
http://tinyurl.com/r8m2x. You can buy products to show your
support at http://tinyurl.com/eour8 (and elsewhere, no doubt).
(My favorite is "Back in my day, Pluto was a planet". [-ecl])
===================================================================
TOPIC: Cold Is Hot; Hot Isn't Cool (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A billboard for McDonalds says "Cold is the new hot." I think
they are selling ice coffee. It occurs to me we grew up with
undesirable places to live, like Minnesota, and desirable places
to live, like Florida. In Minnesota you have to shovel snow.
Warm or hot places had more cachet. But with the warm weather we
have been having people may want to live in the cooler regions.
So perhaps cold really is the new hot. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Trailer Park Report: Live-Action Films, Part 1 (film
comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I am continuing with my coverage of the trailers for upcoming
films shown at the World Science Fiction Convention.
It may be a sign of what is going on in the film industry, but it
was quite noticeable that the same popular actors like Nicholas
Cage or Scarlett Johansson were showing up in multiple films.
While the power of the stars seems to be waning in Hollywood, the
studios are still using a few young, attractive faces repeatedly.
Hugh Jackman, best known for playing comic-book character
Wolverine, is involved in four of the films presented: FLUSHED
AWAY, HAPPY FEET, THE PRESTIGE, and THE FOUNTAIN. What we saw in
this trailer compilation are not all the films coming out, by any
means. It is a small sample and Jackman is in four of the films.
Somebody obviously thinks his name will attract people, probably
on the basis of his playing Wolverine in X-MEN. Also, some of
the ideas seem repetitive. THE ILLUSIONIST (trailer not shown
at the convention) and THE PRESTIGE both seem to be sumptuous
period pieces about stage magicians. The plots may or may not be
quite different but I expect a lot of the dramatic tension of THE
PRESTIGE, like that of THE ILLUSIONIST, will work off the tension
of the mystical focus a stage magician affects.
Dakota Fanning will be starring in a new live-action version of
CHARLOTTE'S WEB. It looks very much like it will be handled like
a third BABE film. It is very much in the same style with
talking animals and a cute and very similar pig voice.
E. B. White's book is a children's classic, albeit a tear-jerker
for kids, so this has the potential to be a good film. I have
heard of children actually breaking down and crying when they get
to the end of the book. Actually I hope that the filmmaker--the
director is Gary Winick--has the good sense to leave the sad
elements in for the children. I am hoping it does not have a
"better, happier" ending. My personal feeling is that the sad or
frightening things I read or saw as a kid did me no harm and a
lot of good. Perhaps parents want to protect children from
things that are pornographic--that is another argument--but scary
or sad books or movies are good for children, like broccoli.
They help to form well-rounded adult minds. I was sad that
(spoiler coming) Bambi's mother died, but it helped to teach me
the value of life. These days kids learn the value of life from
films like THE MATRIX with its machine gun sequences. Perhaps
the value of life has changed accordingly.
It is not uncommon for film trailers to be actually booed by the
Worldcon audience if the films do not look good. This year only
one film that I noticed, a remake of the classic film THE WICKER
MAN starring Nicholas Cage, brought jeers from the audience. One
can tell by the trailer that the new version misses much of the
point. It looks like it has real supernatural elements. The
story does not need them. (It is like Kiyoshi Kurosawa's film
SÉANCE, a remake of SÉANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. But the
frequently very good Kurosawa adds a real ghost. That is one
thing this film does not need.) Part of the point is that it is
not supernatural. I will add my opinion to the folks in the
audience. Rent the original. [P.S. This is already in theaters
as to this publication and is making a very poor show.]
THE PRESTIGE is the film that at the moment I am most looking
forward to. Christopher Priest is a very good author and my wife
Evelyn recommended this book before it was a movie. The plot
involves two competing stage magicians, one of whom can perform a
seemingly impossible trick. Is it really impossible? There was
a similar question for a competing film this season, THE
ILLUSIONIST. The trailer speaks of a very good-looking film with
a good period feel. Christopher Nolan directs as he did for the
film MOMENTO and BATMAN BEGINS. The cast includes Christian
Bale, Michael Caine, Hugh Jackman, and Scarlett Johansson. [The
film is reviewed this issue.]
BORAT (full title: BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE
BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN) seems to be a low-budget
independent comedy about a reporter from Kazakhstan who comes to
the United States to study Americans from his own cultural point
of view. He knows nothing about the United States. That is a
pretty tired premise. This looks from the trailer like a very
standard fish-out-of-water story. Robin Williams did it well
with MOSCOW ON THE HUDSON. There was some of this sort of humor
in THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING. The sort of
joke is to show Borat leaving for America in a taxi and as the
camera pulls back we see it is pulled by a horse. Rumor has it
that the character is anti-gay, anti-gypsy, and especially anti-
Jewish. The trailer is not going to improve international
understanding. I doubt the film will either, but it may have
more teeth than the trailer made it seem to have. In general, my
advice is to avoid comedies about characters taken from
television shows. This includes Coneheads, Pat, and Borat from
HBO's (and Britain's Channel 4's) the "Da Ali G Show."
[P.P.S. It was more than two weeks ago that I wrote the above
about this film causing trouble. It turns out now it is causing
an international incident. See
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/09/14/borat.shtml and
http://tinyurl.com/jddqw.]
I will be looking forward to FLYBOYS. The film appears to be
about the Lafayette Escadrille. When France was fighting Germany
in World War I and America was still officially neutral, some
young men went to France to fly with the French biplane
squadrons. They called themselves Escadrille Américaine. When
Germany protested that people from the neutral United States was
attacking Germans the squadron was officially abolished but
unofficially just renamed the Lafayette Escadrille. FLYBOYS is a
film about the Lafayette Escadrille which promises of lot of
biplane flying and probably some dogfights. The special effects
look very digital, but they still get the idea across. Director
Tony Bill previously helmed a lot of television and a few OK
films like MY BODYGUARD and UNTAMED HEART. I did not recognize
any of the actors, but that is not necessarily a bad sign. I
will certainly see FLYBOYS.
Most historians now believe that about a millenium ago there were
Vikings in the New World. I cannot tell much about the plot of
PATHFINDER, but it is set against a backdrop of invading Vikings
fighting Indians. The style reminds me somewhat of THE
THIRTEENTH WARRIOR, a film that was promising and started very
well but which wore out its welcome. Too much (albeit realistic)
fighting without character interest makes for a dull movie. The
IMDB describes the film as, "A Viking boy is left behind after
his clan battles a Native American tribe. Raised within the
tribe, he ultimately becomes their savoir in a fight against the
Norsemen."
Martin Scorsese usually makes a good crime film. THE DEPARTED is
the story of the Justice Department's efforts to bring down Frank
Costello. The plot looks reminiscent of DONNIE BRASCO. There is
a cop infiltrating Costello's organization trying to counter
Costello's spies in the justice department. The cast includes
Jack Nicholson as Frank Costello, Mark Damon, Mark Wahlberg and
Leonardo DiCaprio. I think DiCaprio can out-act Damon or
Wahlberg, but we shall see. My wife Evelyn pointed out the
similarity to the Hong Kong film INFERNAL AFFAIRS and the IMDB
confirms it is a remake of that film. Since when does Scorsese do
remakes? I guess he did do AGE OF INNOCENCE.
Brian DePalma is also doing a crime film, THE BLACK DAHLIA. This
is a work of fiction based on the unsolved Black Dahlia murder
case. In 1947 Los Angeles aspiring actress Elizabeth Short
(nicknamed Black Dahlia) was found in an empty lot, her body cut
in half at the waist and most of the rest of her body mutilated.
James Ellroy, who wrote L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, also wrote a fiction
novel based on the case and this film an adaptation of that
novel. The film stars Josh Hartnett, Aaron Eckhart, Scarlett
Johansson, and Hillary Swank.
Speaking of fiction films about unsolved mysteries, HOLLYWOODLAND
is about another Los Angeles case. In 1959 George Reeves, who at
the time was television's Superman, apparently committed suicide.
It has been suggested since that it might have been murder, but
it was never proven. Adrien Brody, Diane Lane, Ben Affleck, and
Bob Hoskins star in a more fanciful murder mystery. [P.S. Okay,
now I have seen it. I have a review this issue. I think they
filmmakers missed the point of where the real story was.]
Next week I will talk about some of the major fantasy releases,
including an adaptation of Neil Gaiman's STARDUST. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE ILLUSIONIST (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A mystical and mysterious stage magician, Eisenheim,
becomes the rage of Vienna while working out his own personal
love triangle. His childhood sweetheart is now engaged to the
Crown Prince. The Prince has the power of his station, and
Eisenheim seems to have his own mystical powers. This is a
captivating and atmospheric tale that will keep the viewer
wondering what is real, what illusion. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or
7/10
As the film opens you are on a stage in the city of Vienna in
pre-World-War-I Austria. A magician on that stage sits in a
concentration that could burn holes in paper. He stares in a
silence that the uneasily audience shares. The entire room is in
profound concentration. Then at the magician's side he is
seemingly joined by the translucent spirit of a woman. As the
diaphanous apparition floats at his arm the Chief Inspector of
Police recognizes the woman, arises from the audience, and orders
that the performance be halted immediately and that the magician
be arrested. The magician (played by Edward Norton) is the
mysterious Eisenheim, whose powers have astounded all of Vienna.
Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti), the catspaw of the Crown
Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), cannot allow anything to happen on
this stage that might damage the interests of Prince Leopold.
And he has the feeling that the illusionist is dealing in powers
that will be dangerous to the Prince and perhaps even to
Eisenheim himself. The enigmas of Eisenheim and his tricks have
become an obsession with Uhl. This is the spellbinding opening
of THE ILLUSIONIST, written and directed by Neil Burger, based on
a story by Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Millhauser.
From the theater Uhl goes to see Prince Leopold and tells him,
and you, of the arrest and the history of Eisenheim. Eisenheim
who was born Abramowitz loved a girl above his station. He
impressed her with tricks he had learned from a traveling
magician. But their romance was not to be because he was a poor
boy of low birth. His girlfriend became the Duchess Sophie Von
Teschen (Jessica Biel) and now both he and the Crown Prince want
the same woman. But she is engaged to the Prince and Chief
Inspector Uhl, though fascinated with Eisenheim, will protect the
Prince.
Millhauser's story is at heart a simple one. One woman is torn
between two men: one whose powers are all too well known and one
whose powers are unknown and uncanny. The recreation of the
Vienna of a century ago is beautiful, though nearly sabotaged by
Dick Pope's cinematography that over-uses sepia tone photography
and, in the early parts of the film, a blurring of the borders of
the frame, probably from Vaseline smeared on the lens. Later in
the film this unsubtle and manipulative effect is used a lot
less. Another problem is that the visual images on the stage go
far beyond what would have been possible with very early 20th
Century stagecraft. In a film where the main mystery is whether
Eisenheim truly has mastered the arts of true magic or if he is
just a clever stage magician, the visual imagery seems to imply
strongly the magic is real. The illusions are just too
convincing.
I do question whether a magician whose real name is known to be
Abramowitz could have escaped having his background become a
major issue in anti-Jewish Austro-Hungary. The Prince (who is
despicable in many ways) and the Chief Inspector make only a
passing reference to the name. Of course, Edward Norton does not
look Jewish at all. Most critical attention seems to be going to
his acting performance. He is magnetic, but I would contend that
behaving strangely does not require as much acting ability as to
appear to be perfectly normal in a part. It is, I would claim,
harder to play Victor Frankenstein believably than it is to play
his creation. I am more impressed with Paul Giamatti's Chief
Inspector Uhl. This is a very different sort of role for
Giamatti than those he has been getting. He is polished, urbane,
and a member of the establishment. He is a near opposite to his
character in SIDEWAYS and in films like PLANET OF THE APES.
Those who enjoyed this film, and there should be a lot, should
also try to find Menahem Golan's THE MAGICIAN OF LUBLIN (1979),
based on the Isaac Bashevis Singer novel which may well have been
much of the inspiration of this film. The ILLUSIONIST is a
hypnotic film that is an act of stage magic in itself. I rate it
a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: HOLLYWOODLAND (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In 1959 a private detective investigates the apparent
suicide of George Reeves, television's Superman. This is an
interesting film and its weak sequel inter-cut together. They
had an original story in Reeves's life and the uncertainties of
his death, but it did not need to be turned into film noir. The
revelations are intended to be a shocking look at dirty business
in Hollywood, but it rarely ever achieves even surprise. As
exposes go, this one is pretty tame. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or
6/10
In 1959 George Reeves, who played Superman on television, was
found dead of what appeared to be a suicide. Superman had been a
hero of millions of children across the country for whom "The
Adventures of Superman" was a favorite television program.
Without much competition in the early Fifties, it had been the
most exciting children's program on television. To those who
associated Reeves with the invincible role he played, the news
sounded almost impossible. There were rumors at the time that he
might have been murdered, but nothing that added up to much or
could ever be proven. HOLLYWOODLAND is a fictional mystery
revolving around the death of George Reeves.
Reeves (played by Ben Affleck) had been despondent, ironically,
over the success of the Superman program. He had taken the role
reluctantly hoping and expecting to do better things with his
career. He had had small roles like one of Scarlett O'Hara's
suitors in GONE WITH THE WIND. The Superman television promise
was that the program would be very low-profile. Reeves could
take the money, which he desperately needed, and proceed with his
career. Instead, he became typecast. He was a national icon to
the five-to-fifteen set and even to some of their parents. After
the Superman series, Reeves had been cast for FROM HERE TO
ETERNITY and most viewers seem to have recognized him in a small
role. In HOLLYWOODLAND we are led to believe that his scenes
were cut from the FROM HERE TO ETERNITY. (In actual fact the
recognition was apparently treated as an irrelevancy by Columbia
and essentially ignored, possibly in the hopes that it would
actually help the picture's success as actor recognition
frequently does. Reeves appears in the released film with every
one of his scenes intact.) The actor was depressed, however, and
either did take his life or someone else killed him. This story
is told in flashback sequences as seedy detective Louis Simo
(Adrien Brody) investigates the peccadilloes and death of Reeves.
The problem with HOLLYWOODLAND is that it is not really a single
story. It is a story and its sequel. The story, sort of a
biopic of George Reeves, is relatively accurate as far as I can
tell. The sequel is a fairly cliched and fictitious detective
story based on rumors about George Reeves's death. Because the
writers thought the real story was their detective plot, they
shortchanged the biopic on time. What Simo turns up is neither
as shocking as the writers had hoped, nor is it even particularly
interesting. Basically what we discover is that studios try to
protect their financial interests and that people enjoy sex
enough to do bad things for it. So what else is new?
The real crime of this film is that the filmmakers did not know
where the best part of the story was. The ironies of George
Reeves's life, ruined by the wrong success, are actually more
engaging than the familiar dangers of a private eye's job.
Reeves was destroyed by being too successful in a role perhaps
beneath his talents and certainly beneath his aspirations. That
was where the actual story was. Adrien Brody is probably a
better actor than Ben Affleck is, but they gave Affleck the more
original role as Reeves. Brody, who was excellent in THE
PIANIST, was stuck with the cliched sleazy detective role. There
is nothing in the detective plot that was not done many times
better in films like CHINATOWN.
The casting of the film is spotty at best. Brody's Louis Simo is
a fictional character so the part can be cast any way they want.
But the script has someone call Simo a Ralph Meeker type. As
good as Brody is, he comes off nothing like Ralph Meeker. They
needed to rewrite that line in the script and just did not.
Reeves looked very different from Ben Affleck and really was a
better actor in the Superman role than Affleck seems to be.
Admittedly in glasses, the Affleck Clark Kent does resemble the
Reeves version of Kent. The film is shot in under-saturated
colors with a limited color palette that is a bit irritating.
The title HOLLYWOODLAND was apparently an unhappy choice for the
filmmakers, but the titles they would have wanted more are
copyrighted by the Superman people. The film reportedly was to
be called TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY. Hollywoodland is
an old building development whose name loomed in large letters
over Hollywood. Eventually the last four letters were removed;
the rest remains there to remind any doubters what town they are
in.
Writer Paul Bernbaum and director Allen Coulter thought that the
real story here was the scandal and mystery surrounding the death
of a national hero. Had they recognized that George Reeves was
the real story--and that the dirty linen was only a small part of
that story--they could have made a much better film. I rate this
HOLLYWOODLAND a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: AURORA BOREALIS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: An aimless Minneapolis man who cannot work out some
personal problems has put his life on hold for years as a result.
Duncan Shorter is likeable to his friends, but uses excuses and
cynicism as an justification not to get himself a life. Some of
the characterizations are of quite good with Donald Sutherland
giving a very strong performance. But some may find the pacing,
like life in this cold town, just a little slow. Rating: high +1
(-4 to +4) or 6/10
Joshua Jackson of television's "Dawson's Creek" plays Duncan
Shorter, a mid-20s Generation-X loser in process of squandering
his life. His professional life has been a series of short jobs
that he holds for a few weeks and then gets fed up with. His
anger or his cynicism usually gets the better of him and he gets
himself fired. Duncan's father, whom Duncan idolized, died when
Duncan was fifteen, apparently leaving him with only two
grandparents as family. Duncan's life has become what little
work he can get and hanging out at the local bar with his buddies
whom he has known since the fourth grade. While he is at the bar
he frequently lends his apartment to his married brother for
trysts.
Duncan showers all his pent-up affection on his father's parents
Ronald and Ruth (Donald Sutherland and Louise Fletcher),
particularly Ronald. Ronald is afflicted with Parkinson's
Disease and with Alzheimer's. Ronald and Ruth live in an
apartment building that caters to the elderly, and when Duncan
loses a grocery store job he comes to work in maintenance at the
apartment building to be close to his grandparents. There he
meets Kate (Juliette Lewis), a free-spirited home assistant who
cares for Ronald. She sees that Duncan seems to be frozen in
time like his car gets frozen in the snow. He is, however,
stable in his family life. Kate, on the other hand, is a rambler
who moves from town to town as the whim takes her. She changes
towns like Duncan changes jobs.
The plot, like Duncan's life, has a slow, leisurely pace. The
film is 110 minutes and the plot progresses little in the first
hour. Instead, Brent Boyd's script lets us get to know Duncan's
family and friends in several credible and arresting scenes.
Boyd writing and James C. E. Burke's makes the people very
believable and well characterized. These are people the viewer
will probably care for. There are some family tensions, but
those too are believable. Particularly affecting is the warm
relationship of Ronald and Ruth, and Duncan's struggle with his
own low self-image and low ambition. But perhaps Ronald steals
the show. Ronald knows he is caught in a downward spiral that he
is dreading and which he tries to fight. Not many films these
days make a major character of somebody who is elderly and
infirm.
Most of the plot is in the third act when the characters we have
come to know have to face issues of fighting or surrendering to
their various problems. The situations are, however, believable,
even if their conclusion may be somewhat expected. I would rate
AURORA BOREALIS a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: OLD JOY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is a not-much-happening account of two old friends
who head out for the Oregon backwoods to check out some hot
springs and to talk about nothing in particular. Even as a short
film, OLD JOY drags and feels padded. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or
4/10
While the title is OLD JOY, there is little joy in this film. In
fact there is not very much of much here. The film is only 78
minutes long and much of that is just footage showing the road
scenery of Oregon. They might have called the film THE BRIDGES
OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY. One of the two main characters, Kurt tells
his friend Mark that the reason he likes going out in the woods
is that "you can really think." He means that there is little to
interrupt your thought process because nothing of great interest
is happening. That is a lot like the experience of watching OLD
JOY. The viewer has a lot of time to think because there is not
much happening on that screen. The film is not like the films of
Andrey Tarkovsky who gave the viewer long stretches of thinking
time. This film is just about entirely thinking time.
Daniel London plays Mark and Will Oldham plays Kurt, two men each
in his thirties, who have been friends since their teens. The
characters have gone in different directions. Mark is struggling
to earn money for his fledgling family. He has a pregnant wife
and is overworked trying to build a family. He has bought into
traditional values. Kurt, on the other hand, has never settled
down and enjoys nature and hiking. Kurt likes nature trips and
sees nature in mystical terms. He claims to understand super-
string theory, but when he tries to explain what it is he fails
totally. He looks backward on all that he has lost ("sorrow is
nothing but worn-out joy") while Mark is too busy looking at
building a future.
Apparently these nature trips have been a longtime tradition.
The two go off to try to find a hot spring that Kurt had visited
previously. After a little trouble they find it, take a bath,
and return home. (Perhaps I should have put a spoiler warning on
this paragraph because it goes beyond revealing plot details,
that is just about the whole plot.) That is what you get with
OLD JOY.
In acting the ideal is not to behave as the character would at
that moment but to bring out inner truths about the character
without too much spoiling the realism. Most stories that are
character studies are contrived since the building blocks of the
personalities are all assiduously presented to the viewer. It is
not unlike a mystery story that takes pains to show the viewer
all the clues. OLD JOY does not do that. A little of the boys'
different viewpoints is presented in their conversation, but in
general nothing is made more obvious than would be if you were
somehow following around Joe Average on an uneventful day. Some
viewers may respond to that. I have to admit that it is not
appealing to me. If the film is making a statement about
urbanization it should show up in the dialog, not just show road
footage. Making the statement by showing the long sequences of
road scenery makes the film little more interesting than actually
driving the road. It is an OK drive--certainly when they get
into the Cascade Mountains--but not worthwhile at today's film
ticket prices.
Kelly Reichardt directs a screenplay she co-authored with
Jonathan Raymond based on a story by Raymond. Your capacity to
appreciate this film is really your capacity to see depth in a
"fly-on-the-wall" visit with two friends who are drifting apart
and do not really have much to say to each other. I rate it a 0
on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Upcoming Animation and Other Films (letter of comment by
Dan Kimmel)
In response to Mark's article on upcoming animated films in the
09/08/06 issue of the MT VOID, Dan Kimmel writes, "Good round-up
of animation trailers but you miss one point. FLUSHED AWAY is the
first computer animation from Nick Park, the man behind the
"Wallace and Gromit" films and CHICKEN RUN. He's got a track
record at least as impressive as Brad Bird so I'm willing to wait
and see on that the way I'm not on, say, OPEN SEASON.
And I've now seen RENAISSANCE and it's quite good. It might even
beworthy of Hugo nomination next year. It's not like there's a
lot of competition. [-dk]
[Mark responds, "Right you are on FLUSHED AWAY. The trailer just
went by too fast. Thank you for the pointer. I have to say that
the trailer did not sell me on RENAISSANCE, but your
recommendation would (in spite of our history of different
cinematic tastes). Thank you for the heads up." -mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I listened to GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ IN 90 MINUTES by Paul
Strathern, read by Robert Whitfield (ISBN 1-566-63622-1,
audiobook ISBN 0-786-17981-3) as an audiobook, and my first
observation is that the audiobook makes a liar of the title--it
is actually slightly over two hours. This is a minor nit,
perhaps, but something people buying the audiobook to fit a
particular time slot might object to. Also, the reading is not
very good, in that Whitfield mispronounces many words, such as
"Chilean", "Cyclopean", and even "junta". The book does provide
a good overview of Garcia Marquez, though it jumps around quite a
bit, not giving his biographical information until well into it.
(I also read GARCIA MARQUEZ FOR BEGINNERS by Mariana Solanet,
illustrated by Hector Luis Bergandi (ISBN 0-86316-289-4). These
two at the same time were probably overkill, especially since I
am not very familiar with Garcia Marquez's work. The Solanet, in
particular, seemed to assume that the reader had read all of
Garcia Marquez's books. Both had a the same peculiar style of
writing that I am assuming is an attempt to emulate Garcia
Marquez, but to me it just seemed strange.
TIME IS THE SIMPLEST THING by Clifford Simak (ISBN 0-020-82075-5)
is an older book (first published in 1971), but unfortunately its
theme of prejudice and persecution seems to be forever current.
At the time, I am sure people read Simak's story of the hostility
towards "PKs" (paranormal kinetics) as a parable of the then-
current attitudes of many towards blacks. (In fact, one sheriff
in the novel talks about a "boy who came across the border and
got himself tanked up. Figured he was as good as white folks.")
Then later it was probably seen as a parallel to society's
treatment of gays. ("Persecuted when they should be given all
encouragement. They have abilities at this very moment that
[we], also at this very moment, needs most desperately." I
suspect those words will come back to me the next time I read
about the Army discharging translators of Arabic because they are
gay.) Now I am sure some people will see parallels to the anti-
Muslim sentiment we are seeing. What with all this underlying
message, it is easy for the other part of the novel--Simak's
attempt to portray an alien intelligence--to get lost in the
shuffle.
It is also interesting to see that Simak projected a rise in
interest in the supernatural on television, in ouija boards, and
so on--though he had these be the result of the discovery of PK
powers rather than whatever less obvious cause has brought it
about in our times.
Henry Kuttner's novelette "Dr, Cyclops" was made into a film of
the same name, which sticks fairly closely to the story.
However, Kuttner is a bit sloppy with his arithmetic. First, the
people see Thorkel as being thirty feet high, indicating they are
about one-fifth size, or a little over a foot tall. The cellar
door is described as being as big as a two-story house--assuming
an attic, etc., that is probably consistent. Later, though, he
says, "Human beings--scarcely more than half a foot tall!"
Correction: In the 09/09/05 issue of the MT VOID, I wrote about
the Jorge Luis Borges story, "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", and
said that it had been "published in May 1940 (with a postscript
added in 1947)." According to an article by James E. Irby that I
just read, the postscript is dated 1947, but existed even in the
first publication in 1940! This is just another example of the
games Borges plays in his writing, I guess. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
You can pretend to be serious;
you can't pretend to be witty.
-- Sacha Guitry