THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/07/08 -- Vol. 27, No. 19, Whole Number 1518
El Honcho Grande: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
La Honcha Bonita: 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:
Accomplishment (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This Probably Wasn't What She Meant (comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Middletown (NJ) Library Science Fiction Book & Film Group
(announcement by Charles S. Harris)
The Case for Caution (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
HOW ABOUT YOU (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
APPALOOSA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Correction (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
INDEPENDENCE DAY (letters of comments by Dan Cox
and Wendy Sheridan)
Science Fiction and Magic, and RELIGULOUS (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
This Week's Reading (TITANIC and THE TITANIC; END OF A DREAM,
MONSTERS OF THE SEA, LITTLE CAESAR, and THE PUBLIC
ENEMY) (book and movie comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Accomplishment (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Only Nixon could go to China.
Only George W. Bush could get America to elect a black President.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Probably Wasn't What She Meant (comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
Sarah Palin had announced that whatever happens on November 4 is
because "God will do the right thing" http://tinyurl.com/5wuu2a.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Middletown (NJ) Library Science Fiction Book & Film Group
(announcement by Charles S. Harris)
The inaugural meeting of the Middletown Library Science-Fiction
Book & Film Group will take place on Thursday, November 13. The
film will be MINORITY REPORT (2002), starring Tom Cruise and Max
von Sydow (and also Haley Joel Osment's father). It will be
projected from a DVD onto a large screen. Further information:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
The movie is loosely based on "The Minority Report", a short story
by Philip K. Dick. The story can be read in its entirety on Google
Books: http://tinyurl.com/The-Minority-Report-Dick
Science-fiction enthusiasts of all ages are welcome to attend the
movie, the book discussion, or both. Future films and literature
will be chosen by the group members.
Film: 5:30, Thursday, November 13
Discussion: 8:00, Thursday, November 13
Middletown Township Public Library
55 New Monmouth Road
Middletown, NJ
Telephone: 732 671-3700
Map & driving directions:
http://tinyurl.com/33pf3b
For information about the group, or if you'd like to receive
notices about future meetings, contact Charles Harris,
. [-csh]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Case for Caution (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was discussing the stock market with a friend a week or so ago.
He mentioned that he thought that that was a very good time to buy
stocks and that many stocks were undervalued at that point. Not as
advice but to tell him my viewpoint I suggested that one particular
stock he was considering might not be the best of ideas. I gave
him my reasons for thinking that way.
I cannot say that I know a lot about the stock market. In fact, I
do not think I know very much at all. But I have noticed that
advice I have gotten from others, whether I have followed it or
not, had proven to be a bad idea about three-quarters of the time
has proven to be on the short term or the long term bad. I joke
about how bad my judgment is on stocks. I say I buy stocks the way
I buy fruit. I generally buy it at a good time and then hold onto
it so long that it turns out to have been a bad decision to buy it
in the first place. The truth is that I have done fairly well by
my investments and have been very conservative. In disastrous
times like the tech bubble bursting or what is currently happening-
-whatever that really is--I have been hurt a little, but not very
much. All I will say about my strategy is that I go for security
rather than aggressive growth.
My friend just sent me an article from the New York Times by Alex
Berenson (http://tinyurl.com/berenson) that starts out "The four
most dangerous words for investors are: 'This time is different.'"
My friend is probably right and will probably do well. But I have
read a lot of science fiction and one message that it has is that
things really can change. The future can be more different from
the past than we might expect. Every once in a while which people
say, "This time is different," it really is.
I remember back with the Y2K situation I urged people to be
prepared for serious problems. I prepared that way myself. When
it turned out to be a relatively minor incident people came back to
me to point out how wrong I had been. It would have been harder to
explain to them about mathematical expectation. Nobody came back
to me and chided me that I had bought fire insurance on my house
for that same period of time and that was also a waste. I have
never had a house fire. A house fire for me would be an
unprecedented event. Yet I still pay premiums in case the
unprecedented does happen. Disastrous low-probability events do
happen.
There are those who believe that nature and some man-made systems
tend to correct themselves and those who believe that the
unprecedented can happen. I consider nature to be in very much a
stable equilibrium. One year there may be more of a certain kind
of insect around, say ladybugs. That makes things good for birds
that feed on ladybugs. The next year there are more of these birds
around and the ladybug population goes back down. Then the birds
that feed on the ladybugs also diminish. Certainly nature has
found a stable equilibrium over millions of years and it takes a
lot to topple it. This may have lulled us into a false sense of
stability. Lots and lots of people driving cars with gasoline
engines very possibly can put more carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere than nature can counter and things really can change.
We have had the amount of CO2 in the air increase in the past and
it has not done too much to the environment. But with India and
China getting heavily into the act, this time may be different.
There are certainly people who think that global warming is just a
temporary fluctuation, and things are going to be like they were
again. After all there have been warmer and colder winters all our
lives. There are others who think that things really can change
given enough impetus. We still do not know what is happening in
financial credit. The fixes are not automatic and the more people
know about the financial crisis, the more frightened they seem to
be. Right now I do not have a whole lot of faith in this country's
leadership. A lot of unprecedented things have happened
particularly over the past four years.
I am not giving investment advice here, and Berenson is right that
it is very dangerous to immediately jump to the conclusion that
disaster is coming. But the simple fact is that with respect to the
economy and with respect to global warming this time really is
different. Yes, I will give investment advice. One has to look at
the current situation and decide what is the best investment
course. Do not assume that everything always blows over and that
things always return to normal. George Santayana said, "Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But I say
that those who trust history are condemned to be misled by it.
Nothing happens the same way twice. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: HOW ABOUT YOU (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: There is room for a simple, feel-good story in the holiday
season and HOW ABOUT YOU fills the bill nicely. This Irish film
has a ne'er-do-well misfit left in charge of a residence home over
Christmas with four cantankerous oldsters. A good ensemble cast
brings this adaptation of a Maeve Binchy short story to its amiable
if predictable end. Anthony Byrne directs a delightful Irish
comedy-drama that takes a bittersweet look at aging and dying.
Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Ellie (played by Hayley Atwell) has made a bit of a mess-up of her
personal and professional life. She is now trying to lend a
reluctant helping hand to her equally reluctant sister Kate (Orla
Brady). Kate runs The Woodlands, a residence home for the elderly.
It is going about as well as anything ever goes for Ellie. A
collection of difficult residents seems to dislike Ellie just about
as much as she hates them. This hostile, belligerent, group,
dubbed "the Hardcore", includes once-popular actress (Vanessa
Redgrave), a retired High Court judge (Joss Ackland), and two
sisters (Imelda Staunton and Brenda Fricker). Ellie forms one
friendship, not with one of the hardcore but with cancer-plagued
Alice (Joan O'Hara), who is the one positive resident. Each has
been something of a free spirit and Ellie would like to give Alice
some hashish to ease her pain.
When Kate must go away on family business she is forced to leave
Ellie illegally running The Woodlands with its four hardcore cases
over the December holidays. After a shaky start the five people
who cannot get along with each other prove they might have an
unexpected chemistry.
In other hands this story could have been cloying, but the veteran
cast gives a strong performance. Director Anthony Byrne has a
really good cast to work with and they give him really engaging
performances. One probably could not find a better set of actors
for this story than Redgrave, Ackland, Staunton, and Fricker.
Perhaps they change a little too quickly in Jean Pasley's script
(which rather than a hundred minutes could have been two hours
without overstaying its welcome), but they bring real humanity to
their characters. And they are characters rather than caricatures.
They seem childlike in both the better and worse senses of that
word. Joss Ackland is particularly enjoyable in the one major male
role in the film. Ackland is one of the great solid British
actors, rarely a lead, but a very strong supporting actor.
A little gimmicky in the writing are the repeated placements of
either the song or its title in the script. Since thematically the
song seems to have little to do with the storyline, its use is a
bit excessive.
The story is reminiscent of other films including a good dose of
Henry Cass's THE LAST HOLIDAY (1950) and more recent films on the
subject of eldercare like THE SAVAGES and AWAY FROM HER.
The films stands as a reminder for the holiday season that good
acting can transform a simple story into a moving experience with a
broad range of emotions. I would rate HOW ABOUT YOU a +2 on the -4
to +4 scale or 7/10. After you see the film, just try to get the
song "How About You" out of your head. The film is dedicated to
Joan O'Hara who played the likable dying Alice and who herself died
not long after the film completed.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0887745/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: APPALOOSA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Two hired mercenaries are made deputies in a small New
Mexico town to round up a rancher who murdered a deputy. A fine
cast produces a surprisingly low-key outing. It sports a plot
like a Western from 45 years ago, but pacing familiar from
LONESOME DOVE. APPALOOSA is an unexceptional Western but one
with a good eye for detail. It was produced by, directed by, and
stars Ed Harris, who also sings a little. Rating: high +1 (-4 to
+4) or 6/10
As the film begins Everett Hitch (played by Viggo Mortensen)
philosophizes in voice-over that the foreseeable never really
happens and the unforeseeable is what your life becomes. That is
apparently what happens to him and his partner Virgil Cole (Ed
Harris), two lawmen and hired killers, when they are engaged by the
town of Appaloosa, New Mexico to bring in a local rancher who
murdered a deputy. The rancher is Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons)
who, with a small army of ranch hands, is a law unto himself. The
two are good killers and do not expect it to be a big job. Ah, but
the unforeseen is what their life becomes as they begin a long
battle of wits against Bragg. Meanwhile, Cole falls in love for
the first time with Allison French (Renee Zellweger), a widow lady
who comes to town and immediately is attracted to Cole.
The plot of the two lawmen trying to capture and bring to trial a
powerful rancher is the sort you might find in a Western that would
have been made in the 1960s. This plot has a little more depth in
that Virgil Cole is sort of a dubious hero. First he insists on
becoming the town dictator, with his own set of laws to make easier
his task of bringing law and order. He is a killer with a badge.
And the badge is the only thing that makes him better than Bragg,
who is also undeniably a killer. If any character is sympathetic
it is not Cole but Hitch who is in the partnership a definite
second among equals. While the plotting is 1960s, the low-key
style and pacing are post-LONESOME DOVE. This gives us more time
to get to know the characters, and the film covers a long time both
on the watches of the audience and in the lives of the characters.
There is no brash Western score of the sort that Elmer Bernstein
would have given APPALOOSA. Instead we hear only three or fewer
instruments at any one time. The photography is often dark figures
on a bright background to give the feel of the hot New Mexico
climate. This would all be bleak if it were not for some light
dialog, especially between Hitch and Cole. With one running gag
Cole has a propensity for using impressive words that are just on
the tip of his mind but no nearer. He is anxious to use big three-
dollar words in an era when three dollars would have bought a lot
more than it does today.
The film is based on the novel by Robert B. Parker (who generally
writes about detectives Spenser and Jesse Stone). In addition to
the other hats Harris wears in this production (and it usually is a
broad-brimmed black hat on screen) Harris also sings a song over
the end credits and proves to have nearly as good a singing voice
as that other actor-director Clint Eastwood. The film has some
good actors in smaller roles like Timothy Spall and Lance
Henriksen. I am just not sure that Zellweger really feels like a
woman of the period. Mortensen and Harris play well together like
two men who fit each other like comfortable old shoes. Hitch might
like Cole's woman, but he usually knows not to push the issue.
Hitch is the better educated, but Cole is reading Emerson to try to
catch up. Hitch knows that he has just book learning, but Cole
knows the job of handling ruffians and gunfighters. Their byplay
and the little details of life in the 1880s are arguably more
important to the film than the inevitable big gunfight.
Most attempts to bring back the Western try to imitate the big
brash westerns. This one is more like the minor B westerns of the
60's. I rate APPALOOSA a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
For those who stick through the credits, the film's dedication is
to Ed "Big Red" Pennybacker. He had a small role as the train
conductor but also was a popular newsman on KQUE in the Albuquerque
area. He died in July.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0800308/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Correction (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Two readers caught an error I made in the last issue. The massive
mother ship in INDEPENDENCE DAY did not hover over cities. It was
the ship in geosynchronous orbit. Being in orbit, it did not need
an anti-gravity device. However, if one were offered I am sure it
would not turn it down. In any case I was wrong about that part of
the editorial. Okay, so I owe you another editorial. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: INDEPENDENCE DAY (letters of comments by Dan Cox and Wendy
Sheridan)
In response to Mark's comments on INDEPENDENCE DAY in the 10/31/08
issue of the MT VOID, Dan Cox writes: "For the tidal force
equation, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_Force#Mathematical_treatment.
Now the real problem with INDEPENDENCE DAY is this: After
destroying the mother ship by sneaking on board with a computer
virus plus (IIRC) a large bomb, the force fields were down on the
large ships. Even with the force field down, it took an atomic
bomb flown into the ship's weapon system to destroy it. The US Air
Force had enough trouble doing this (due to the invader's fighter
ships), but after heroics suitable for a Hollywood movie they
manage to destroy one of the large invader ships. Shortly after
that you see people around the world celebrating, with large
invader ships destroyed in the background." [-dtc]
Wendy Sheridan notes, "...the problems I had with the city
destroyer ships were that if you shot them down when they were
hovering over a city, they'd fall on the city, not next to the city
- or the airfield). " [-ws]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction and Magic, and RELIGULOUS (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
In response to Mark's comments on bad science in science fiction
films in the 10/31/08 issue of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky writes:
Like Mark I've run into (or been guilty of) statements sneering at
bad science or anachronism in old SF stories. Like the scene in
A.E. Van Vogt's SLAN (1940) where Jommy Cross jumps on the running
board of a ground vehicle. "Running board"--snort, snort! But
then again, why shouldn't cars in the far future have running
boards?
I remember some reviewer looking askance at the ceiling fans in
BLADE RUNNER (1982): obviously an intentional anachronism.
Meanwhile I'm watching the movie in a modern theater with ceiling
fans.
Typically, old SF is castigated for the less-than-liberated status
of women in the future. Because, of course, social trends never
change direction. (Heavy sarcasm.) By the way, here's a real life
example of such a reversal: from Wikipedia I learn that Woodrow
Wilson segregated the Federal civil service in 1913.
One oddity I've noticed at more than a few conventions: a panel of
English majors who write SF will confidently assert FTL travel is
fantasy ("because Isaac Asimov said so"); a panel of physicists who
write SF will give you a dozen possible ways to do it. [-tw]
Mark responds, "I don't remember sneering at anachronism in old
stories. Bad science I usually give some latitude. I like the
films like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and THE FLY (1958), both
of which have bad science." [-mrl]
And in response to Mark's review of RELIGULOUS in the same issue,
Taras writes:
Bill Maher's RELIGULOUS (2008) sounds too much like shooting fish
in a barrel. He seems to be looking for religious simpletons to
pick on, rather than a fair fight. Also, when people attack
Christianity, it seems cowardly to me: what about that other
religion, that is a far greater threat. Instead, they attack
Christianity precisely because it's *not* dangerous to do so.
"So many films present a religious point of view, from Pat O'Brien
playing the wonderful all-knowing priest to James Cagney [in
1938!], to Ben-Hur finding peace in a world of sin [in 1959!]".
However, we get a very different picture when we look at
contemporary films, like SIN CITY or V FOR VENDETTA (both 2005) or
THE GOLDEN COMPASS (2007), with their evil and perverted religious
leaders. The Wikipedia article on "Anti-Catholicism in film" lists
seventeen more recent films.
Maher is probably right, that "there is a neurological basis for
religious belief". The bad news (at least for him) is that the
trait appears to be adaptive in the Darwinian sense: religious
people have more kids than atheists do. We secularists are too
selfish, it seems! [-tw]
Mark responds, "Maher does not pick on just Christianity, but he
does hit it the most. I think the reason is that it is the
religion with the largest membership (certainly if you consider it
all one religion). It does get in some licks at Mormons." [-mrl]
Evelyn adds, "For a story about a physical basis for religion,
read Greg Egan's 'Oceanic', available for free on his web page:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/OCEANIC/Oceanic.html."
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
We have been watching TITANIC and the various extras on the DVD,
and this led me to read more about some of the controversies, and
about some of the real people. There are two things I want to
comment on.
One was the claim in one of the DVD extras that while in first
class, women and children were more likely to get on the lifeboats
without their husbands or fathers, in second- and third-class
people were traveling as families moving to a new home and were
more likely to insist on staying together. And in fact, the
statistics seem to bear this out. According to Wyn Craig Wade's
THE TITANIC; END OF A DREAM (ISBN-13 978-0-140-16691-X, ISBN-10
0-140-16691-2), the casualty percentages are as follows:
Women/Children Men Total
First 6% 69% 40%
Second 19% 90% 56%
Third 53% 86% 75%
Crew 13% 78% 76%
While the first class passengers clearly had the best of the deal
(a man in first class had a better chance of surviving that a woman
in third class, "women and children first" notwithstanding), the
difference in survival percentages for men in second and third
class was not statistically significant, while that of the women
and children was.
The other thing is what happened to Second Officer Charles
Lightoller. During Dunkirk, when he was 66 years old, the Royal
Navy requested the use of his yacht for the evacuation. He
insisted on sailing it there himself (with the assistance of one of
his sons and two crew members). In spite of the fact that the
yacht had never held more than twenty-one people before, Lightoller
loaded 130 soldiers on it and managed to dodge German shelling and
get them safely back to England. I cannot prove it, of course, but
I am sure in my own mind that when he was loading the yacht at
Dunkirk, he remembered all the half-filled lifeboats of Titanic,
and how many people died because of that, and loaded as many men as
he possibly could.
[Okay, with an opening like that I have to ask. For each of First
Class, Second Class, Third Class, and Crew, what proportion, to the
nearest percent, were men? For each of First Class, Second Class,
Third Class, and Crew, what proportion, to the nearest percent,
were men who were also casualties? Answers next week. ?mrl]
And speaking of the sea, MONSTERS OF THE SEA by Richard Ellis
(ISBN-13 978-1-59228-967-7, ISBN-10 1-59228-967-3) is a study of
"sea monsters"--the various historical sightings and an analysis of
what they were (or might be)--as well as long sections on the
biology and behavior of the actual creatures of the sea. This is
basically a book of cryptozoology ("the science of 'hidden'
animals"), an area which has become more popular of late, as
technological developments have allowed scientists to probe deeper
into the oceans, either with diving machines or with cameras.
Returning to movies, in 1931 Edward G. Robinson gave an
unforgettable performance in LITTLE CAESAR and Jimmy Cagney
likewise in THE PUBLIC ENEMY. Neither was even nominated for an
Academy Award. Indeed, unless you are a real film buff, when you
look at the list of nominees for 1931, you won't recognize any of
them. Even film fans are probably familiar only with Adolphe
Menjou in THE FRONT PAGE and Richard Dix in CIMARRON. Frederic
March was nominated for the forgettable ROYAL FAMILY OF BOADWAY,
and Jackie Cooper for SKIPPY. The winner was Lionel Barrymore for
A FREE SOUL. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Bigotry murders religion to frighten fools
with her ghost.
-- Charles Caleb Colton