THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/10/06 -- Vol. 25, No. 19, Whole Number 1360
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 Trailers for CASINO ROYALE (film comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Nigel Kneale, an Important Force in British Science Fiction
Drama, Is Dead (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
BORAT!: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT
GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
BORAT!: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT
GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN (film review
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
John Kerry and DNA (letter of comment by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (BLAME IT ON THE RAIN, THE PHYSICS OF
SUPERHEROES, and libraries and reading queues)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Trailers for CASINO ROYALE (film comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
I just saw the trailers to CASINO ROYALE and I am quite
optimistic that this film could fit my interpretation of James
Bond. It could have in it what I have been saying I wanted in a
Bond film. A long time ago they took the path of making James
Bond a candy hero with knockdown villains and huge amount of dumb
luck. I had the feeling that they decided not to make Bond a
nasty, hard-edged government killer, but an idealized fantasy
superhero. He rarely killed for any reason but self-defense. In
the 60s and 70s and 80s there just were no films made that were
really hard-edged so there was no proven market for what was
needed make Bond a really good character.
What did come along were the British crime films that were hard-
edged. Films like LAYER CAKE (which also starred Daniel Craig,
incidentally) had a cold meanness about them, what Bond should
have had all along. The trailers for CASINO ROYALE seem to be
saying that that is the style they are going to use for Bond, at
least in this film. The reason I liked Timothy Dalton is that he
had sort of the potential to be the kind of character that the
British were putting into crime films. James Bond should be a
thug who can wear a tuxedo, not a fop who can get lucky as an
agent. I think that the trailer makes CASINO ROYALE look like a
Bond film for adults.
We shall see if the film lives up to the ad. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Nigel Kneale, an Important Force in British Science Fiction
Drama, Is Dead (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I knew I was sticking my neck out. I was a member of the
University of Massachusetts Science Fiction Club. The club did
not get much (any?) funding from the school, but we were allowed
to show films in a campus auditorium and charge some small
admission, fifty cents. We had to pick science fiction films
that we thought would be something that would draw in people.
The Films Incorporated Catalog listed FIVE MILLION YEARS TO
EARTH. I think it mentioned that it was a film with the
character Bernard Quatermass. I knew this to be a sequel to two
Quatermass films that I had seen, THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (in
the United States called THE CREEPING UNKNOWN) and QUATERMASS II
(in the United States called ENEMY FROM SPACE). I thought they
were pretty good films. How much worse could the third in the
series be? I really wanted to see it if I had a chance. So I
told the club I would vouch that this was a good film and would
be a good choice to show.
So we showed the film on Monday, April 12, 1971, and I sat there
hoping I had not screwed up and picked a loser. That was until
the film started. Even the rambunctious college audience watched
this film transfixed. I decided on the spot that it was the best
science fiction film I had ever seen. I still have not seen a
better one. The projectionist that night laughingly said that he
cursed us. He had expected to put on the film and then study for
his French exam the next day. Once the film was on he could not
even open the book.
But FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH got very little release in the
United States. Virtually nobody saw it. For literally decades I
kept telling people there a really fabulous science fiction film,
the best science fiction film ever made. I am still considered
sort of a nut on the subject, though the film has finally become
known in this country. At that time only the British seemed to
know the film and they shared my love of it. In Britain the
film's hero, Bernard Quatermass, the film (under its true title
QUATERMASS AND THE PIT), and the film's author Nigel Kneale were
all household names.
At this time there were three Quatermass BBC plays. There was
"The Quatermass Experiment", "Quatermass II", and "Quatermass And
The Pit". "The Quatermass Experiment", made in 1953, was
unexpectedly a huge media event. It virtually emptied the
streets of London as people were all home watching the play. "The
Quatermass Experiment," was the United Kingdom's first science
fiction serial, and Quatermass was the first British television
hero. As two more plays were made each was more successful than
its predecessor was until churches started rescheduling services
so that congregations and clergy would not miss the plays.
Each play was adapted into a film by Hammer Films of Britain, a
studio that incidentally built their great success on horror and
science fiction after having success in the field with the first
two Quatermass films. The third film was not made until the late
1960s. The titles of the films were the same as the BBC plays
but EXPERIMENT was intentionally misspelled "XPERIMENT" to
emphasize the X-Certificate. These films each got a modest
release in the United States with the terrible respective names
THE CREEPING UNKNOWN, ENEMY FROM SPACE, and FIVE MILLION YEARS TO
EARTH. In 1980 a final Quatermass story was made for television,
called simply "Quatermass". It was never re-adapted into a film,
but a feature film was made by editing down the television movie.
In 2005 the BBC again produced a television version of "The
Quatermass Experiment", doing it as a live play, the first in
several years. The Quatermass plays were the inspiration for the
DOCTOR WHO series. Kneale was asked to write for DOCTOR WHO, but
he did not like the series thinking it was too scary for a
children's series.
But Nigel Kneale created much more than just the Quatermass
stories over his long career. Kneale had lived on the Isle of
Man, but had to leave for health reasons. He came to London as
an actor, but decided that he would not have a distinguished
career in acting and changed to writing, joining the BBC in 1948.
In 1950 he won the Somerset Maugham Award for his collection of
short stories, TOMATO CAIN. I am unaware of any science fiction
stories that were published under his name and only one or two
horror stories, yet he was one of the most important influences
on British science fiction in the second half of the 20th
century. His medium was drama, and his plays always had a strong
feel for character, frequently missing from science fiction
drama. In 1954--one year after "The Quatermass Experiment" and
one year before "Quatermass II"--he adapted George Orwell's 1984
performed with then-obscure actors Peter Cushing playing Winston
Smith and Donald Pleasance as Syme. The result had such a
disturbing effect on the public that there were calls for
controls on television in Parliament.
Kneale would frequently adapt other authors' books to film
including LOOK BACK IN ANGER, THE ENTERTAINER, THE FIRST MEN IN
THE MOON, THE WITCHES (a.k.a. THE DEVIL'S OWN), and SHARPE'S
GOLD. Some of his work is still considered classic in England,
but has not come to the United States. This includes a play,
"The Stone Tape", and "The Year Of The Sex Olympics", a play that
presaged NETWORK and THE TRUMAN SHOW. Kneale also wrote the
screenplay for HALLOWEEN III, but removed his name after too many
changes were made. But Quatermass will always be his most famous
creation.
On October 29 Nigel Kneale died at the age of 84. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BORAT!: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT
GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Wretched. Just wretched. Rating: low -2 (-4 to +4) or
1/10
The film BORAT!: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT
GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN, henceforth just to be called
BORAT, apparently got a very positive reception at the Toronto
International Film Festival. It rates an impressive 8.5 rating
out of 10 from the Internet Movie Database. At the Rotten-
Tomatoes site 135 out of 141 critics, including all the "cream of
the crop" critics give the film a thumbs-up. The film has been
lauded on National Public Radio.
I felt impelled to tell you all the honors just to be fair. What
did I think of the film? It was horrible. I think the studio is
promoting it because it cost next to nothing to make and will
probably reap a big profit in relation to its cost. But I never
thought I would say this about a film intended to poke fun at
bigotry. My recommendation is to stay away. Dreadful hardly
seems to cover this film. BORAT is a barrage of is one stupid
vulgarity after another. I will not claim that nothing was
funny, but I can honestly say that there was little I found to
chuckle at.
And while I feel no special loyalty (or enmity) to the Kazakhs,
but this film really does slander them as much as Polack jokes
slander the Polish. Adding more bigoted shock humor to the world
does not fight bigotry. Actually, the National Conference on
Soviet Jewry says about the country, "Anti-Semitism is not
prevalent in Kazakhstan and rare incidents are reported in the
press. None have been reported in the last two years." For more
on the lot that Borat gets wrong and the little (but admittedly
some) he gets right see
http://www.slate.com/id/2152789/fr/rss/. Sacha Baron Cohen's
goal is purely low-grade shock humor, not accurate reportage.
Along the way we learn most Americans will choose politeness over
confrontation when faced with bigotry. Now there is a big
surprise. That fact may be regrettable, but there are far worse
faults.
The plot suggests that Borat is an envoy from Kazakhstan who has
been sent to the United States to learn American ways. He
travels as a stranger visiting people and events, reminiscent of
Andrei Cordescu's ROAD SCHOLAR, but rather than making
philosophical observations, Borat (played by Sacha Baron Cohen)
makes boorish comments and does even more boorish things
supposedly reflecting on his fictional Kazakh upbringing and
viewpoint.
This film appears to be reality TV in the same sense that "Candid
Camera" was. It just creates a bunch of repulsive situations and
catches people's reactions. Whether or not the bystanders were
tipped off to the joke ahead of time is left as a matter of
speculation. At one point a meeting of mortgage brokers is
invaded by Borat and an obese friend having a nude wrestling
match in their midst. That is how Kazakhs behave, I suppose.
Real funny stuff there, Sacha. Not.
I firmly believe that if history has taught us anything it is
these three principles:
1) You do not understand your enemy you cannot hope for victory.
2) Appeasement will not eliminate a foe.
3) Film comedies based on TV skits are not worth the effort.
BORAT was just not on my wavelength. If this film is on your
wavelength, perhaps you need to recalibrate. I rate BORAT a low
-2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 1/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BORAT!: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT
GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN (film review by Evelyn C. Leeper)
What he said. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: John Kerry and DNA (letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to Mark's article on John Kerry in the 11/03/06 issue
of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes, "My fears about the John
Kerry comment run very much the line about how you think. I,
too, had the initial reaction of, "Oh, shit! What did that idiot
say now?" In 2004, I didn't want to vote for either major
candidate--or any of them, including Ralph Nader, who means well,
but has no practical political experience--because I didn't like
them. I ended up voting for the 2004 vice-presidential
candidate, thinking "who would I rather see a heartbeat away from
the Presidency?" That's why I voted for John Edwards. Anyway,
Senator Kerry has a habit of saying things that too easily get
misconstrued. (In contrast, Bush simply can't speak English.
Whatever happened to his Ivy League education?) Once I read the
context of Kerry's comment, it made more sense, but was still a
bit over the heads of his intended and unintended audiences. I
got the impression that he was also referring to the general
malaise of American public education, referencing our young
people's inability to name countries around the globe. No matter
how you slice it, your closing comment about our youth not
learning how to read and think for themselves is definitely a
problem our society is facing. I am afraid our society is
dumbing down big time, which makes me fearful for the future."
[-jp]
Mark replies, "Yes, Kerry does say a lot of things that can be
easily misconstrued, although I think in many cases he is
willfully misconstrued. But I am not defending him. I tried to
make clear I am not a Kerry advocate. I just find it too much of
a coincidence that so many advocates on issues so perfectly break
down on party lines or religious lines. Years ago there were
Democrats who saw a lot of logic in the Republican point of view
and vice versa. There were more moderates. I guess it is part
of the polarization, but a lot a political decisions people are
delegating to their parties, and their moral decisions they are
delegating to a book or worse to a religious leader. There seems
to be more fervor and less individual thinking worldwide. [-mrl]
John also wrote, "Time to get off this rock before it crumbles to
pieces. (And boy, do I hope and pray that this cynical joke of
mine does not become reality, let alone misinterpreted.)" [-jp]
Mark adds, "We both do." [-mrl]
In response to Mark's article on DNA in the 10/27/06 issue and the
letter of comment on it in the 11/03/06 issue, John writes, "The
DNA discussion went a little over my head--I am not much of a
molecular biologist, sorry; just an English geek--> but it was
still understandable at a basic level. Interesting stuff, more so
if I was more knowledgeable on the subject. That's it for now.
Thanks for the issue, and I look forward to the next
installment." [-jp]
Mark answers, "I don't think there was much beyond the basic
level. I certainly do not know much biology. I do know that two
twisted threads are hard to separate. And thank you for
writing." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
BLAME IT ON THE RAIN by Laura Lee (ISBN 0-06-0833982-1) is
subtitled "How the Weather Changed History", and it is a series
of short pieces on how various historical events were affected by
weather. There are the obvious ones (Napoleon's invasion of
Russia) and the less familiar ones (Truman's defeat of Dewey),
the short-term ones (the Challenger accident) and the long-term
ones (the susceptibility of Native Americans to disease). While
not all are interesting (and I am not sure I completely agree
with some of her conclusions), it is probably worth flipping
through at the library. (Mark pointed out that the cover art has
a picture of Kennedy with the caption "Would JFK have been
elected President if it had been sunny on Election Day in 1959"--
but 1) the election was in 1960, not 1959, and 2) this day is not
discussed in the book.)
(Does it seem like every non-fiction book these days has a
subtitle? This did not used to be true, but that was because
back in my day they gave more meaningful titles to books, or
assumed you understood the title. If you saw a book titled
"Franklin Pierce", you assumed it was a biography of Franklin
Pierce. You did not need a subtitle such as "The Unknown
President" or "New Hampshire's Son" or whatever.)
THE PHYSICS OF SUPERHEROES by James Kakalios (ISBN 1-592-40146-5)
is yet another book in the current flood of books trying to teach
academic subjects using popular culture. In the introduction,
Kakalios says, ". . . over the decades physics teachers have
developed an arsenal of overstylized scenarios involving
projectile motion, weights on pulleys, or oscillating masses on
springs. These situations seem so artificial that students
invariably lament, 'When am I ever going to use this stuff in my
real life?' One trick I've hit upon in teaching physics involves
using examples culled from superhero comic books that correctly
illustrate various applications of physics principles.
Interestingly enough, whenever I cite examples from superhero
comic books in a lecture, my students *never* wonder when they
will use this information in 'real life." Apparently they all
have plans, post-graduation, that involve Spandex and protecting
the City from all threats." Be that as it may, Kakalios
addresses such questions as "Can we calculate what the gravity on
Krypton is, and can we have a planet with that gravity that
supports life?" and "Could Atom punch his way out of a vacuum
clean bag?" There is a lot of math, and this is more like a
physics textbook than a light read about superheroes, but
definitely good for all us geeks.
And one note: I commented a couple of week ago that I was
gradually shortening my queue of books to be read. One reason it
does not get shorter faster is that I read a lot of books from
the library--the local library, inter-library loan, and the
library where Mark goes every couple of months for a four-hour
origami meeting. In fact, about a third of my reading is from
the library. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I do not know what I may appear to the world;
but to myself I seem to have been only like a
boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting
myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble
or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the
great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before
me.
-- Isaac Newton