THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
MT VOID 03/09/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 36, Whole Number 1431
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
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:
Be Real! (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Through History with Jack Lemmon (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LADY SLINGS THE BOOZE by Spider Robinson (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
VENUS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
ADAM'S APPLES (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper)
Truth (letter of comment by Mark R. Leeper)
THE ASTRONAUT FARMER, AMAZING GRACE, and BREACH
(letter of comment by Taras Wolansky)
This Week's Reading (BLOOD MUSIC, AN OXFORD TRAGEDY,
HEADS TO THE STORM, and THE BIG BOOK OF JEWISH
CONSPIRACIES) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Be Real! (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I am watching GODZILLA: TOKYO S.O.S. One character is suggesting
that they *not* activate Mecha-Godzilla because Mothra has taken a
pledge she would fight Godzilla and defend Tokyo. He thinks that
all by herself a dying Mothra can stop Godzilla. Right! What is
he living in? Some kind of fantasy world? [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Through History with Jack Lemmon (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Evelyn and I were discussing the task of casting actors for roles
in films. A case where the casting really did not work for
either of us was Jack Lemmon in the role of Marcellus in Kenneth
Branagh's 1996 version of HAMLET. It might be interesting to
give a little thought to what actually went wrong with this
casting.
The problem is that Jack Lemmon seems to just not have the "look-
and-feel" of an Elizabethan. His manner seems too much the
manner of a 20th century American. He looks too modern. This
does not mean that he cannot play at all in historical films. He
did not look tremendously miscast the western COWBOY. In that he
played a sort of eastern dude who on the trail becomes a
successful cattleman. He perhaps seems just a little out of
place riding a horse, but the viewer probably ascribes that to
his background. So we might conclude that Lemmon fits into some
historical settings but not others.
Some actors are not as good in some historical locations. One
actor who seems to fit well into historical settings is (was?)
Charlton Heston. He has played El Cid, Cardinal Cardinal
Richelieu, Michelangelo, and Ben Hur among many other roles.
Heston claimed that in the 1960s and 1970s filmmakers just decided
he had a medieval face. He has also been in several Westerns.
Fitting into a Western, however, is not quite the same as fitting
into other historical periods. Nobody has ever fit into Westerns
better than John Wayne has. He has a commanding presence and a
peace about himself that works well in Westerns. He was
everything we deep down want a cowboy to be. It is probably
those qualities that led director Dick Powell to think he could
do reasonably well as Genghis Khan in THE CONQUEROR. Though he
was usually an actor, Powell was actually not a bad director. He
made five films in the 1950s and the other four are actually
decent. THE CONQUEROR was certainly the biggest exception. With
its bad casting, THE CONQUEROR was a severe miscalculation and the
result was a howler so mismatched that it has become the stuff of
legend.
Even within a period there are places an actor can fit in and
others where he cannot. Getting back to Jack Lemmon, he probably
would have been out of place in THE PATRIOT, but he might have
fit a little better into the musical 1776. For that matter
William Daniels did just fine as John Adams in 1776, but it is a
little hard to picture him in THE PATRIOT without first picturing
him as a John Adams type.
James Cagney seems quintessentially a 20th century American, but
he manages reasonably well to fit into William Dieterle's and Max
Reinhardt's A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (1935). I am not sure he
would have been a good choice in a production of HAMLET, but he
does all right in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. For that matter I
am not sure Lemmon might not have done reasonably well in a
production of a light Shakespearean comedy. It is just the
sepulchral scenes in HAMLET that do not fit his personality.
It may be an oversimplification to say that Jack Lemmon was just
the wrong type to play in HAMLET. When you see a character who
seems really wrong for a historical role there is some fault with
the casting and some with the actor and some with the director,
but I think that person who is most responsible usually gets away
without much blame. Any bad performance is in the last analysis
the fault of . . . the producer. It is the director's
responsibility to oversee the performances and make sure that
quality performances end up in the final print. If the director
is not doing that, it is the producer's responsibility to get a
new director. The producer arranges for the funding and unless
he abdicates the responsibility to the director the
responsibility for the final product is his.
If a director has been lumbered with a bad actor he should get an
actor who can handle the role. But the responsibility is on the
shoulders of the producer. If the producer insists on a
particular bad actor, that is the producer's fault.
In the case of HAMLET, the director was Kenneth Branagh and the
producer was David Barron. So whose fault was it that Jack
Lemmon struck everybody as wrong in Hamlet? I would say it was
Branagh's or Barron's fault. Ultimately it was Barron's fault.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Jess has a terrible life at home and at school. But
situations get much more bearable and better when the new girl in
town moves in next door and is enrolled in his class. She opens
for him a whole new world of intellect and art and fantasy. The
two are outcasts, but form a rich (platonic) relationship
together that strengthens Jess for some of the emotional wrenches
to come. This is a film that is by turns wonderful and
heart-breaking. Do not expect a big special-effects fantasy.
Fantasy and its power is just one theme among several well-
presented themes. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Gabor Csupo's film THE BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA is based on a classic
children's book by Katherine Paterson, from a screenplay by Jeff
Stockwell and David Patterson. I had never encountered the book
but now wish that I had. This is a film about and for young
adults, but curiously it is more adult and moving than most mass-
market films. It stands with THE JOURNEY OF NATTY GANN and NEVER
CRY WOLF as one of the best dramatic films to come from Disney.
Jess Aarons (played by Josh Hutcherson) is the one boy in a
family with five children. His sisters gang up on him and the
household is filled with tensions. His father (Robert Patrick)
is stern and undemonstrative. At school he is prey to bullies.
Life is unfriendly and unforgiving. But that all starts to
change. A new girl moves into his class and into the house next
door. Leslie (AnnaSophia Robb) is a weird kid whose family does
not even own a television. She has, however, a wonderful mind
and a powerful imagination. She chooses Jess to be her friend,
almost forcing her friendship on him. It takes Jess a little
while to warm up to her friendship, but when he does he realizes
how wonderful Leslie really is. She opens his mind to a world of
imagination and creativity. Together they create a fantasy
kingdom called Terabithia out in the woods. Their relationship,
which is incidentally kept meticulously asexual, is one of the
richest and most complex that either could experience in a
lifetime. The gusto with which they create fantasy worlds
together is reminiscent of the relationship in Peter Jackson's
HEAVENLY CREATURES minus the dark side. It also has in store for
Jess one of the most tragic moments of his life.
Josh Hutcherson of ZATHURA: A SPACE ADVENTURE plays Jess and
manages to convey a gamut of emotions that even adult actors
rarely need. AnnaSophia Robb is perhaps not quite right for
Leslie. Leslie is as bullied as Jess in school. It strikes me
that a girl as attractive as Leslie is would draw the attention
of the boys in the class and that would lead to an entirely
different dynamic. However, director Gabor Csupo probably needed
to make the audience partially fall in love with Leslie, so it an
understandable casting choice. It is a little odd to see Robert
Patrick playing Jess's father. He is familiar from action films
like DIE HARD II. This is a very different sort of role for him.
The film takes the viewer through a gamut of emotions, including
some that the younger children might find intense. It is not so
much a fantasy as a film about the healing power of fantasy.
With one foot in the real world and one in a fantasy world, THE
BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA is reminiscent of the recent PAN'S
LABYRINTH, though stylistically the films are quite different. I
rate THE BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or
8/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0398808/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: LADY SLINGS THE BOOZE by Spider Robinson (copyright 1992,
Ace Science Fiction, $18.95, 257pp, ISBN 0-441-46928-0) (book
review by Joe Karpierz)
So, a theme begins to emerge. Last time I reviewed CHASM CITY,
three years after I read the previous novel from its author.
Remember when I was on that Spider Robinson kick? Yeah, three
years ago this month--March of 2004. Like I said, a theme begins
to emerge.
So, I finally picked up the next book in the Callahan universe of
novels by Spider Robinson, entitled LADY SLINGS THE BOOZE. So,
we're back in Lady Sally's place, and she *still* isn't the main
character in the novel, although she plays a much bigger role
this time around. Our main character is a private detective
named Joe Quigley, who gets sent to Lady Sally's on a job by a
rather public figure who wishes to remain completely out of the
picture.
Remember, Lady Sally's is a brothel, but as you might also
remember it is a completely different type of brothel than is the
stereotypical house of ill repute. Nevertheless, the reader can
understand why Quigley's client wants nothing to do with the case
other than to make sure that it gets properly handled.
So, anyway, this novel is really two stories. The first is the
story of the case that Quigley is sent to handle, and along the
way he ends up becoming an artist in the house (artist is the
term for the people who ply their wares at Lady Sally's), falling
in love and marrying a telepathic knockout blonde with two
bodies, and well, finding out that "a place like that" isn't all
that bad. Anyway, the first story deals with a fellow who has a
special watch that allows him to pull some nasty tricks with the
employees at Lady Sally's. As our hero, Quigley figures out what
is going on and almost gets himself killed in the process of
capturing the crook. And by getting the case solved, Quigley,
who takes the house name of Ken (see my review of Callahan's Lady
for what that's all about), gains the respect and admiration of
all the major players in the book, including Mike Callahan
himself, who makes a cameo of sorts (probably to ward off the
angry hoards of folks who said the last one really wasn't a
Callahan book).
The second story deals with why Lady Sally is in the here and now
to begin with. Remembering her secret from CALLAHAN'S SECRET, we
know she's not from around the here and now. However, we find
out that she's here to stop World War III from happening, and
that Ken (Quigley, Joe, whatever) leads the team that helps her
solve this little problem (with a little help from Nikola Tesla,
but that's for you guys to go read).
I finished reading this three days ago, and I'm still trying to
figure out what the point of all this is. LADY SLINGS THE BOOZE
is a typical Robinson novel--light and entertaining. But, as I
intimated, it seems to be cobbled together from two separate
stories (I'm sure someone reading this review either will know
for a fact that Robinson slammed these two stories together, or
will go and research the issue to determine the correct answer).
What it also seems to be is a free-love sort of story that we all
might have read back in the 60s and/or 70s, but I guess this
makes sense given that Robinson is a free loving hippie of sorts.
This book is also full of atrocious puns--but for the most part
they failed to amuse me. Either they're no longer funny, or I'm
just turning into a sourpuss.
Like its predecessor, it falls flat. CALLAHAN'S PLACE is sorely
missed. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: VENUS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A septuagenarian London gentleman brings a young woman
into his house to take care of him and he and his friend are
shocked at how much difference there can be in a multi-generation
gap. Through the barrier of age, Maurice finds himself attracted
to the woman half a century his junior and he makes an effort to
understand her. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Old age does not come all at once. The approach of decline and
death comes on little cats' feet, almost imperceptibly over a
long period of aging. Watching day by day one does not notice
the change as it happens, one can only compare over long
intervals of time and then be surprised at the accumulated
change. Roger Michell's VENUS is a study of May-December
relationship, not really sexual, but not entirely not either. It
is a study of a man scrutinizing and trying to understand the
last bits of his life.
Maurice (played by Peter O'Toole) is elderly though he has not
fully accepted it. To a previous generation he was a familiar
actor and among his friends he is still has celebrity. But he
finds that younger people are not so aware of him. He knows he
is much closer to the end than the beginning, and still fights to
maintain some verve. It is not an easy struggle. Roger
Michell's VENUS is a comedy/drama studying the character of an
elderly man and of a woman about twenty who have to deal with
each other.
Maurice struggles to adapt to life inside a body that is slowly
running down. He still keeps up his friendships and remains as
active has he can. But a reminder of his age is coming. He
spends a lot of time with his friend Ian (veteran actor Leslie
Phillips). Ian brings his niece's daughter in to take care of
him. Some part of Maurice is still young and some part of him is
attracted to the twenty-ish Jessie (Jodie Whittaker). Maurice
tries to take in his stride that she thinks of him as almost a
different species. She had never heard of him as an actor. Nor
does she listen to his kind music, and he does not know her
music. It is as if they are from different countries.
Maurice has what he likes to think of as refinement and wisdom.
Jessie clearly values neither very much. She is frequently
vulgar and coarse, qualities which take Maurice somewhat aback
and even chase Ian out of the house. Maurice wants to help
Jessie and at the same time to refine her. Then, not unlike the
plot of Shaw's "Pygmalion", he finds he is somewhat attracted to
the semi-refined person he has made of her.
The performances are top-notch, but the idea of the story is not
original and the twists that come are not entirely unexpected.
As Kenneth Turan points out, when Peter O'Toole was given an
honorary Academy Award three years ago he chided the judges by
saying he was still in the acting game and apparently he is. He
was nominated for another Academy Award for the role as Maurice,
so indeed we are still hearing from him. Maurice is not a role
to compare with some of his great ones, but he handles it in fine
style. The O'Toole who had such strength in LAWRWENCE OF ARABIA
now has a natural frailty that runs through his performance as a
man denying his weakening state. He has to do things like
slapping himself just to force himself out of bed. Jodie
Whittaker is a newcomer, but she gives a strong performance.
Also around is a small role for Vanessa Redgrave as Maurice's
one-time wife.
Some of the budget constraints on this film can be seen in the
dull film stock on which it was released, but the film is
engaging. There is a good deal of humanity and a bit of
nostalgia. I rate VENUS a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0489327/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: ADAM'S APPLES (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: ADAM'S APPLES is an enigmatic and absurdist comedy from
Denmark. Apparently it is some sort of re-working of the story of
Job. A neo-Nazi skinhead goes to a church to work out part of
his prison sentence by being rehabilitated by a priest. The
priest turns out to be blissfully crazy. It is not clear if this
is all some sort of strange parable or just a black comedy with
several very strange and eccentric people. Rating: low +2 (-4 to
+4) or 7/10
Adam (played by Ulrich Thomsen) is a neo-Nazi released from
prison. He is filled with hate for just about everybody he
meets. To set him on the right path he is to spend a community
service and rehabilitation period living at a church supervised
by Ivan (Mads Mikkelsen) a priest who has two or three other such
wards. Ivan also seems to have his own problems. His reaction
to a background more painful than Adam's is to turn off his own
ability to sense physical and emotional pain.
Ivan first asks Adam to choose a goal--any goal he wants to work
toward. Adam chooses to make an apple cake using the beautiful
apples from the tree that is the pride of the church. There is
an obvious way this story could go, but it is never really clear
where the story is going.
Adam immediately clashes with two other ex-convicts being
rehabilitated. Gunnar (Nicolas Bro) is a kleptomaniac and a
rapist. Khalid is a militant Afghani who expresses his passion
with armed robbery. Adam finds that he does not understand these
men and at first reacts violently. But his most violent reaction
is to the priest. Ivan seems to go through life assuming that
all the trouble and pain is visited on us by the Devil and
therefore we need pay no attention to it. He simply rejects all
bad things in life as if they have not happened.
As obstacles mount up between Adam and his pie a sort of
theological debate grows between Adam and Ivan. Is adversity
from the Devil as Ivan believes or, as Adam reads in the Book of
Job does it come from God. And in odd ways God seems to enter
the debate on the side of Adam.
While this goes on each of the priest's wards seems to live in a
world of his own, denying the real world in different ways. The
eccentricities only work to feed Adam's rage and make him more
violent. Ivan fails to notice even the beatings that Adam
subjects him to and just keeps encouraging Adam to bake his cake
in spite of the various garden pests and problems that seem to
keep getting in his way. Ivan is not the hero he at first
appears and is frequently tyrannical with his own parishioners.
Each character seems to be on a different wavelength and each
person's bizarre behavior seems to echo in the others. Meanwhile
God or the Devil is somehow sending messages to Adam through the
Bible in his room.
None of this gives a feel for how strange this film is and how
bizarre the characters and the turns of fate are. This is a film
that is difficult to pigeonhole. ADAM'S APPLES jumps from comic
to tragic to surreal to dramatic without missing a beat. The
film was written and directed by the Danish Anders Thomas Jensen,
who has a penchant for peculiar stories of weird people.
With the most bizarre characters we have seen in film for quite
some time, this strange comedy leaves the viewer constantly off-
balance. I rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. In
the print I saw the absurdist atmosphere is only enhanced by the
peculiar subtitles, as if they were written by someone who did
not quite have the hang of the English language. For example
when an exasperated character apparently gives out with "for
f**k's sake" it is translated "for the sake of f**k."
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0418455/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Truth (letter of comment by Mark R. Leeper)
In Evelyn's comments on WHY TRUTH MATTERS, in the 03/02/07 issue
of the MT VOID, she quoted the theme of a book she read. It is
"Truth matters because we are the only species we know of that has
the ability to find it out." I have to say that it was I who
pointed her to this book and it was specifically to point out that
quote. I showed her that particular quote because I dislike it so
much. If think it is wrong at least two ways. In fact, I have
found out that curiosity, which is the will to find the truth, is
not only a human trait. In spite of the old adage that "curiosity
killed the cat," there are many living cats that show curiosity.
A dog will also investigate and experiment. Many years ago my
mother put a sweater outside to dry on a sweater dryer. This
device is like a little trampoline with netting to allow the
sweater to dry on top and bottom. She came back out to find our
dachshund had gone to the effort to step up on the dryer, walk
across the sweater, and step down on the other side, leaving
footprints across the sweater. Why would he bother to do that if
he was not curious to find out what it was like to walk on this
different sort of surface? Dogs frequently show curiosity,
particularly if they think there is a possibility that there will
be something to eat as part of the experience. I seriously
disagree that we are the only species that is interested in
finding truth.
Also, I am not sure that something necessarily matters just
because we are the only species that can do it. We are probably
the only species that can designate stones to be Pet Rocks. Sure
we can do it. Probably no other species can. But does that mean
that making stones into Pet Rocks matters? I think not. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE ASTRONAUT FARMER, AMAZING GRACE, and BREACH (letter of
comment by Taras Wolansky)
In response to Mark's reviews of THE ASTRONAUT FARMER, AMAZING
GRACE, and BREACH in the 03/02/07 issue of the MT VOID, Taras
Wolansky writes:
One thing about THE ASTRONAUT FARMER stuck in my craw: the
government being so intent on preserving its space monopoly that
it will even threaten to shoot you down with a missile. When
American films are seen in foreign countries, people take stuff
like that at face value; indeed, even some naive people here do.
(Recall the people who thought Oliver Stone's JFK was a realistic
account!) Obviously, there are at least half a dozen serious
private space projects going on right now, and nobody's shooting
at them.
AMAZING GRACE was indeed a bit of a disappointment, though it
deserves an Oscar for make-up. One can keep track of time by
watching William Pitt's complexion deteriorate. Also, it would
have been valuable to note somewhere that all the African slaves
traded across the Atlantic were enslaved by other Africans.
Olaudah Equiano is a major character in the movie; in his
autobiography he tells how he was enslaved, sold and bought a
half dozen times--"and then I first laid eyes on a white man."
Dang! Now I'm going to have to see BREACH after all!
It's not that you made the film seem so great, it's that Caroline
Dhavernas is in it. Her short-lived fantasy series,
"Wonderfalls", is a favorite. (The DVD has all thirteen
episodes, of which only four were aired.) I'm glad to see she's
finding work.
Another reviewer of BREACH noted that the filmmakers missed the
point of Robert Hansen's acting like a "fanatic Catholic". He
was a very highly skilled spy: this was part of his "legend", the
false character a spy creates to throw off suspicion. Similarly,
when Soviet diplomat Arkady Shevchenko defected in the late
1970s, I remember it was often remarked that he was known as a
"hard-liner". In reality, he'd been spying for the U.S. for
years. [-tw]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Our science fiction group read BLOOD MUSIC by Greg Bear (ISBN-10
1-596-87106-7, ISBN-13 978-1-596-87106-9) this month. This was
expanded from a shorter piece, and both won Hugos. Yet I found
that the basic premise required too much of a suspension of
disbelief on my part, even while enjoying parts of the book quite
a bit. I suppose it is a sort of alternate history now, since a
good-sized chunk of it takes place in the World Trade Center
towers.
AN OXFORD TRAGEDY by J. C. Masterman (ISBN-10 0-486-24165-3,
ISBN-13 978-0-486-24165-4) is another classic Dover mystery,
notable for its academic setting. There is an entire sub-genre
of "bibliomysteries" which take place in bookstores, libraries,
and academic settings, and this falls in that category. (See
http://www.bibliomysteries.com/ for an extensive list.) This
is not especially noteworthy as a mystery, but I still applaud
Dover for having brought what seems to be an entire generation of
mysteries into print.
HEADS TO THE STORM edited by David Drake and Sandra Miesel
(ISBN-10 0-671-69847-8, ISBN-13 978-0-671-69847-8) is a "tribute
to Rudyard Kipling," but I suspect you have to be more of a
Kipling fan than I am to see the influences in some of the
pieces. Some of the introductions explain the connections, but a
lot are more about how the author discovered Kipling.
Unfortunately, there is a certain sameness to these--the "Just
So" stories, then the "Jungle Book" stories, and so on. Kipling
fans will undoubtedly like this better than I did, though.
My complaint about THE BIG BOOK OF JEWISH CONSPIRACIES by David
Deutsch and Joshua Newman (ISBN-10 0-312-33439-7, ISBN-13
978-0-312-33439-0) is not that it presents all the classic "Jewish
conspiracies" as true. It is that the authors seemed reticent to
give the writing even a smidgen of believability. (Goliath, they
say, was bribed to throw the fight and used the money to open "a
small bistro specializing in Meso-Mediterranean fusion." Maybe
they were worried that if they had anything at all plausible,
someone would use it to bolster their own claims of conspiracies.
The result is something even less convincing than the parody
newspaper "The Onion". Come to think of it, though, "The Onion"
*has* managed to be taken seriously by the media in other
countries, so maybe Deutsch and Neuman would be right to be
concerned. Deutsch and Neuman are the editors and publisher of
"Heeb: The New Review", which the "New York Post" described as "a
cross between 'The Onion' and 'Vanity Fair'." Perhaps when they
do not have to sustain a premise through an entire book, it works
better. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
An orphan's curse would drag to Hell
A spirit from on high;
But oh! More horrible than that
Is the curse in a dead man's eye.
-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge