THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
07/16/10 -- Vol. 29, No. 3, Whole Number 1606
C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted 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:
And Thereby Hangs a Tail (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
James P. Hogan, RIP (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Comments on A WEDNESDAY (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
DESPICABLE ME (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
3D (letters of comment by Dan Kimmel and Andre Kuznariak)
THE CITY & THE CITY (letter of comment by Joe Karpierz)
This Week's Reading (THE RADIOACTIVE BOY SCOUT and
"Richard III") (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: And Thereby Hangs a Tail (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The FDA has gotten really tough on food products for consumers.
You have to declare everything. I was reading a sorbet carton and
it said, "This product was made on machinery that has also
processed milk, soy, wheat, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, and one
runaway squirrel." [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: James P. Hogan, RIP (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Prolific science fiction author James P. Hogan died at his home in
Ireland on Monday, July 12. He turned 69 last month. Hogan was
known for writing hard science fiction and had a strong following
in Japan, three times winning Seiun Awards as will as twice winning
libertarian Prometheus Awards. For more information on his
achievements see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Hogan_(writer). [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Comments on A WEDNESDAY (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I would like to comment on the politics of the (Asian) Indian film
A WEDNESDAY. I have to begin with two caveats. I am going to
discuss a film that most readers will probably never see. Non-
Indians in the United States see very few Indian films, even though
this film had, apparently, a significant impact in its native
country. Additionally, this article has a massive spoiler. Some
films like this one are very hard to discuss without spoilers
because the central idea is not revealed until late in the film.
So some readers may not want to read the article even though they
may never see the film. The two caveats tend to cancel each other
out, I guess. I cannot spoil a film the reader will not see. And
if the reader is Indian, well the film is already two years old.
If he were going to see it, he probably already would have. In any
case you have been warned.
A friend who showed me this film said that it was a lower-budget
film that had nonetheless been very popular in India for the
issues and questions it raised. The film is not what it at
first appears. It goes from being a standard suspense thriller to
being a political argument. I will comment on the argument, but
you have to know a little about the film first.
The story is told by Prakash Rathod (played by Anupam Kher), a
retired Commissioner of Police in Mumbai who cannot shake himself
of thinking about this one case from toward the end of his career.
We see that case in flashback.
A terrorist (Naseeruddin Shah) telephones Rathod and says that he
has placed five bombs around the city that will be detonated if
four militants, members of Al Qaeda, are not released from prison
and put on a plane. The caller tracks the police action and gives
them orders via cell phone while the police try to track him down.
The film so far seems like a relatively standard police thriller.
Can the caller be stopped before the militants are released and
before the bombs are detonated? That is a fairly common sort of
thriller plot and the viewer takes on the film on those terms.
Then some unexpected things start to happen.
[One last spoiler warning. Okay, you have been warned.]
The caller intentionally kills three of the four militants and
orders the police to murder the fourth one. Then the caller
explains what he was doing. He refuses to say whether he is a
Hindu or a Muslim, and that it does not matter which he is. He did
not kill these men because they were Muslims but because they were
terrorists. His motive was not religious. It was that he was
tired of seeing his society torn apart by hatred between Hindu
extremists and Muslim extremists. He wanted only peace. He
represented the frustration that the vast majority of the Indian
(and American) people feel over the hatreds that dominate too much
of his country's attention. The caller simply intended to strike a
blow against extremism. It is a frustration that many people from
the United States are also feeling.
The character in the film actually is the latest in the long line
of militant peace activists--vigilantes, really--many of whom in
fact and fiction came from our own country. Actually our fiction
is full of vigilantes: Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet, Batman,
Zorro, or any number of masked heroes. There are many such films.
The DEATH WISH films come to mind.
I guess I like A WEDNESDAY as a film, but I think people are
allowing themselves to agree with the caller. He is doing
something about his frustration and the frustration that many of
his compatriots feel. The caller's actions have to be judged with
two different criteria. Is what he did effective? Is what he did
moral?
I think the easier question to answer is whether it would have been
effective. Even feeling his frustration I can say that he was
playing right into the hands of Al Qaeda. He had taken four
militants and made them martyrs. They would probably be made role
models. They would be easy for Al Qaeda to replace. There is a
sea of militants out there and replacing fallen comrades is one of
the things Al Qaeda does best. If these four were made martyrs the
net effect would have been that eight more would replace them.
But there are the moral issues the film raises. Even had the plan
worked, is it correct to resort to violence to end violence? The
philosophy is "If I can get in one punch I could end the violence."
History says that is not a good policy. The caller's taking
justice into his own hands does not sound like the way to end the
hostilities. "Good" violence is rarely the tool to end violence.
The caller is really only taking out his frustration by "whacking
the beehive." That is not a good idea. Unilaterally refusing to
counter violence is probably not the solution either, but
provocative actions will make matters worse. So I do not know what
a solution is, but I frequently can tell what it is not. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: DESPICABLE ME (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Gru, a super-villain of the James Bond film type, goes
into competition with another super-villain, Vector. Gru needs
three little girls from a local foundling home to penetrate
Vector's stronghold. But Gru does not count on the power of three
cute little girls to transform his life. Pixar raised the bar even
higher for digital animation films with TOY STORY 3 and it is well
out of reach for Illumination Entertainment, the producers of
DESPICABLE ME. This film is mildly amusing, but by next week I
probably will not remember anything about it. Rating: low +1
(-4 to +4) or 5/10
If DESPICABLE ME had been made ten years ago, it probably would
have been much more enjoyable. Coming less than a month after TOY
STORY 3 with its themes of loyalty, obsolescence, and abandonment,
DESPICABLE ME seems like awfully thin entertainment. If I were to
give a one-sentence theme to DESPICABLE ME it would be the power of
affection and cuteness to overcome evil. Hoping not to prejudice
my case, I do not believe in the theme and it was even less
credible in the film. In spite of a few obscure jokes, DESPICABLE
ME is predominantly a children's film with sufficient vulgarity to
keep the kids entertained.
The story begins with the discovery that a pyramid in Egypt has
been stolen and replaced with an inflatable imitation. Everybody
is unhappy, but not the least is the super-villain Gru (voiced by
Steve Carell). This nasty louse fancies himself the world's
greatest villain, but here some other villain has outclassed him.
Gru has to do some quick planning for an even bigger heist. He
decides he is going to steal the Moon. He has met another super-
villain named "Vector" with whom he vies for a shrinking ray. The
ray is just what Gru needs to pocket and transport the moon. But
Gru needs to get into Vector's fortress stronghold. Vector has
bought cookies from three cute foundlings: Margo, Edith, and Agnes.
Gru can use their cookie delivery as a cover to break into Vector's
stronghold, but he has to temporarily adopt Margo, Edith, and Agnes
so they will be available for his plan. But that means setting up
house for them. He takes them in, but finds that caring for three
young girls is more effort than he bargained for. He has to be a
father for them. Little does he know the changes three cute little
girls can bring. Of course, everybody in the audience knows what
changes are in store.
DESPICABLE ME comes from Illumination Entertainment, a new group
trying to compete with Pixar Animation. At least these days, what
makes a Pixar film work is character. The Pixar writers give
considerable thought to who Woody and Buzz are in the TOY STORY
films. They know who Carl Fredricksen in UP is. And the viewer
knows what these characters want and what their worries are on a
human level. Illumination has not given similar thought to
DESPICABLE ME. Why is Gru the way he is in this film? His mother
did not understand him as a child. What he wants now is to steal
the moon so that he can keep up with another super-villain. These
are flat ideas. There is no reason to care about Gru. For the
writers to so ignore the audience's commitment to the character
just is not good enough any more. Gru has created a race of
helpers he calls "minions", but they are designed with the same
lack of commitment put into the human characters. They are yellow
and shaped like a Tylenol capsule. Beyond that they have mouths
and each has one or two eyes behind goggles. There is not much to
tell one from another. Compare that to all the minor character
toys in TOY STORY. One can easily tell them apart and each has a
distinguishable personality. Far too little care was given to
Gru's minions to make the audience really care about them. Instead
of different personalities, it is just one personality over and
over. That becomes almost a joke in the film as they all respond
to Gru's speeches in exactly the same way.
It might have been better if I did not know who was voicing the
main characters. When Gru speaks it is all too easy to picture
Steve Carell flexing his voice into a vaguely Russian accent in a
way that I do not picture Mike Myers in SHREK. I thought evil
Russian accents went out with Boris Badenov and the Cold War. On
the other hand I did not recognize Julie Andrews at all as the
voice of Gru's mother and it hardly seems to me that such a name
actor was needed for the voice.
Some moments of humor and allusions to James Bond films help to
lighten the experience of seeing DESPICABLE ME. But digital 3D
animation is too expensive a process to waste on such poorly
defined and delineated, one-dimensional characters. I rate
DESPICABLE ME a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1323594/
What others are saying:
http://members.rottentomatoes.com/m/1214097-despicable_me/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: 3D (letters of comment by Dan Kimmel and Andre Kuznariak)
In response to Mark's comments on 3D in the 07/09/10 issue of the
MT VOID, Dan Kimmel writes:
I'm in agreement with Mark. I've taken to advising readers not to
pay extra for 3D and enjoy the brighter colors of 2D instead. There
has only been one film in the recent spate of 3D where I thought it
made a difference and that was "Avatar." Of course James Cameron
conceived the film as an immersive 3D experience and shot it that
way. Otherwise 3D is just lipstick on a pig (e.g., "The Last
Airbender") or an unnecessary window dressing for an otherwise
worthwhile film (e.g., "Up," "Toy Story 3," "Despicable Me").
I've heard Jeffrey Katzenberg (DreamWorks Animation) talk about how
this is the future of cinema. I remained unconvinced. It would be
like someone making the case for sound films solely on the basis of
Chaplin's nonsense song in "Modern Times." [-dk]
Mark replies:
I think we are in near complete agreement. I should however add
that it is probably not wiser, older heads such as ours that will
decide. It is probably the teen and 20s audiences that do the most
movie going probably will be given what they want. [-mrl]
And Andre Kuznariak writes:
This, from Ebert's article, says it all:
"Having shot DIAL M FOR MURDER in 3D, Alfred Hitchcock was so
displeased by the result that he released it in 2D at its New York
opening."
I've been shopping for a new flat screen TV. Being a movie buff,
I'm going for a plasma screen, and might have been interested in
the latest Panasonic model that supports 24p well (despite
potential black level loss over time). But they insist on it being
3D capable, increasing the price beyond what I care to pay, for a
feature I don't want. There might be 3 movies I would care to watch
in 3D at home, but I'm not going to by glasses for all my family
just for those 3 movies. Maybe 3D will be more relevant for
immersive video games, but that is a ways off yet, and I don't play
those anyway, can leave that up to the kids to invest in. So I
wonder if Panasonic might actually lose sales for lack of choice
with this year's models? [-ak]
Mark responds:
I had not realized they were already selling 3D ready TVs. There
still are only relatively few 3D movies. Right now the 3D capable
feature is worth relatively little to me. That may change in the
future, but I right now suspect that it will not change. That was
really what the article was about. My suspicion and fear is that
the TV's 2D presentation will be compromised in accommodating 3D.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE CITY & THE CITY (letter of comment by Joe Karpierz)
In response to Fred Lerner's comments on THE CITY & THE CITY in the
07/09/10 issue of the MT VOID (in response to Joe Karpierz's review
in the 07/02/10 issue), Joe writes:
I guess maybe it depends on your definition of "fantastic". In the
context of the genres we all love, this novel does not, in my
opinion, contain elements of the fantastic. I don't see any
fantasy elements--nothing is explained or caused by magic. There
are no science fictional elements as we know them. The way these
two cities are kept physically separate is explained, in my mind,
in real terms, and how Breach manages to appear out of nowhere is
actually referred to, although not explicitly (not so you'd notice,
as it were :-)), later in the novel.
It is, however, fantastic in the sense meant by the following entry
from merriam-webster.com:
3 fantastic : excellent, superlative
I agree with Evelyn that you should read this book--it *is* pretty
good, especially if you like crime stories. I don't share Evelyn's
excitement about the book, however. Whether it excites you is up
to you alone. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE RADIOACTIVE BOY SCOUT: THE TRUE STORY OF A BOY AND HIS BACKYARD
NUCLEAR REACTOR by Ken Silverstein (ISBN 978-0-375-50351-1) is
about David Hahn's attempt as a teenager to build a nuclear reactor
in his backyard shed. He was not wholly successful--the shed and
its contents became so radioactive that the EPA had to dismantle it
and bury it in a radioactive waste site in Utah. (Well, except for
the parts that his parents, panicked by the first visit from the
government threw out in the trash and ended up in a standard trash
landfill in Michigan!!)
Many of David's chemistry experiments, apparently, started with THE
GOLDEN BOOK OF CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENTS by Robert Brent. Published in
1960 ("written in an era well before lawyers began earning such
good livings off the proponents of bad advice"), THE GOLDEN BOOK is
"amazingly oblivious to the volatility of the experiments it
described." After describing the negative effects of chlorine gas
(which included use on tens of thousands of World War I soldiers),
it then goes on to tell its readers how to make it at home. It did
give a few warnings about not letting the gas out of the jars into
the room, working outdoors or opening the window, and above all "Be
careful not to breathe the fumes!" (Remember the song lyric "My
mother says not to put beans in my ears"?)
Anyway, Hahn started with this and gradually progressed to working
with radioactive elements and then trying to build a breeder
reactor. This story, it seems, did not have quite enough material
to fill a book, so it is embellished with entire chapters about the
history of atomic energy (a.k.a. nuclear energy). It turns out
that Hahn was not the only person to contaminate areas accidentally
with radiation (though he was the youngest). Part of the problem
was Hahn's (admitted) refusal to read anything negative or warning
about atomic energy. Though the Curies were his idols, he
apparently never considered that Marie Curie died of radiation
poisoning, or that Pierre undoubtedly would have had he not been
killed in a traffic accident, or that their notebooks are still
radioactive enough that people who want to examine them must sign a
detailed release form. (Recent pictures of Hahn seem to indicate
that he will suffer the same fate as Marie Curie did.)
Amazingly, Hahn did all this in conjunction with working towards
badges to become an Eagle Scout--a goal he did achieve. The main
problems seem to be total cluelessness on the part of his parents
(and step-parents, teachers, and Scout leaders. The only people
who seemed to give him any cautionary advice were his friends.
For the science fiction book-and-movie discussion group, this
month's selection was "The Tragedy of Richard the Third" by William
Shakespeare, along with Sir Ian McKellen's 1995 film which set the
action in 1930s England.
The first thing to note is that Shakespeare calls it a "Tragedy",
not a "History". This is often pointed out as an excuse for
Shakespeare's presenting such a slanted picture of Richard III, but
it probably was supposed to indicate just that it was not quite as
accurate as those histories titled "The Life of" (e.g., the plays
of the Henriad or "King John").
Reading the original play, I saw a couple of instances where
Shakespeare decided he liked his words or structure and so re-used
them in "Julius Caesar". For example, in "Richard III" someone
refers to the crowd as being "like dumb statues or breathing
stones" (Act III, Scene vii, Line 25) and says, "What tongueless
blocks were they! would they not speak ...?" (Line 42). In "Julius
Caesar", someone addresses the crowd as "You blocks, you stones, you
worse than senseless things!" (Act I, Scene i, Line 36).
Also, Richard refuses the crown two times (Act III, Scene vii,
Lines 156 and 209), then calls back those offering it
(Line 225) so that he can accept it. Caesar refuses the crown
three times (Act I, Scene ii, Lines 229, 262, and 234).
Interestingly, McKellen splits one speech of Richard's to make
three refusals, making the parallel even stronger.
McKellen also simplified a lot, dropping several characters who
would be as easily identifiable to Elizabethan audiences as
Jefferson Davies or George Armstrong Custer are to us, but with
whom modern audiences would have problems. He also got rid of the
concept of sanctuary, which was important in Richard's time, but
has no meaning in modern secular states.
And he changes the method used to "infer [imply] the bastardy of
Edward's children" from a complicated situation involving a
possible prior marriage to "Lady Lucy" (making his marriage to
Queen Anne invalid), to the simpler idea that Edward and Anne did
not marry until after the birth of the Princes. While that may
actually make sense for the older of the two Princes, it seems
beyond belief that the King of England would wait *another ten
years* and until after the birth of a second son to think, "Gee,
maybe I should marry Anne so that my sons might have some claim to
being legitimate heirs." [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The world bruises us all, but some heal faster
than others--and some bleed to death.
-- D.H. Mondfleur