@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 06/12/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 50

       MT Chair/Librarian:
                     Mark Leeper   MT 3E-433  732-957-5619 mleeper@lucent.com
       HO Chair:     John Jetzt    MT 2E-530  732-957-5087 jetzt@lucent.com
       HO Librarian: Nick Sauer    HO 4F-427  732-949-7076 njs@lucent.com
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
                     Rob Mitchell  MT 2E-537  732-957-6330 robmitchell@lucent.com
       Factotum:     Evelyn Leeper MT 3E-433  732-957-2070 eleeper@lucent.com
       Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
       second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
       201-447-3652 for details.  The New Jersey Science Fiction Society
       meets irregularly; call 201-652-0534 for details, or check
       http://www.interactive.net/~kat/njsfs.html.  The Denver Area
       Science Fiction Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of
       every month at Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.

       1.             URLs            of             the             week:
       http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6960/turkey.htm              and
       http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824/turkey.htm.  Our trip logs for
       Turkey.  [-ecl]

       ===================================================================

       2.  I don't know if this article is going  to  go  where  you  will
       think  it  is going to go.  But some of the news has given me pause
       and something to wonder about.  It seems that Disneyworld is caught
       between two camps.  Gay Pride Month is being celebrated in Orlando,
       Florida, this year.  Orlando would probably not do anything to stop
       the  celebration  even  if  it could.  I think they would have some
       serious Constitutional problems if  they  tried  to  say  that  gay
       people could not come to Orlando or could not celebrate.  Basically
       it is a First Amendment issue.

       Now you may have heard that Pat Robertson--that's the Reverend  Pat
       Robertson, minister and sometime Presidential candidate--has stated
       in that august public forum, THE  700  CLUB,  that  "I  would  warn
       Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes and
       I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's  face  if  I  were
       you."   He  suggested  that  tolerance of homosexuality "will bring
       terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly  a
       meteor."   I  guess  one  can  infer from this that he is a pompous
       zealot who presumes to speak for God, though he  does  seem  to  be
       keeping  current on his movies.  But the point of this piece is not
       to deride the Reverend.  Frankly that is a waste  of  good  typing.
       Why  should  I  waste  my  time composing paragraphs to make fun of
       Robertson?  Most of the country is doing  that  already,  and  even
       that  is a waste since Nature has insulted Pat Robertson far beyond
       our poor means to add or detract.

       But that is not where I am going here.  The irony of the  situation
       is  that Robertson's real anger is at Disneyworld and as it happens
       Disneyworld is safe, at least from tornadoes.   How  can  I  be  so
       sure?   It's  thermodynamics.  Disneyworld is a place with a lot of
       heavy machinery, after all.  And heavy machinery gives off a lot of
       heat.  And heat rises.  And cooler air comes in at the bottom.  Now
       I don't completely understand the dynamics of a tornado,  but  from
       what  I  am told tornadoes, which after all are spinning funnels of
       air, cannot come too near rising  columns  of  air.   The  two  are
       incompatible.   So  if God indeed set of the laws of nature to work
       His will, as I assume the Reverend Robertson believes, then perhaps
       God  does not reward intolerance to homosexuality.  That would just
       be Robertson projecting his intolerance on God.  Perhaps  what  God
       rewards is the generation of heat.

       Okay, I can see that look on your face.  Why would God want  us  to
       generate  heat?   As  if  all the other acts of God were completely
       comprehensible and this was would  be  the  first  mysterious  one.
       Look, Moses came down from the mountain with ten rules and who were
       those rules good for?  It just happened they were pretty good rules
       for  running  a  society.   I  mean, things tend to fall apart with
       people murdering each other and coveting each other's  asses.   The
       Ten  Commandments  did  a  lot  to hold things together and so were
       fairly self-serving on a societal level.  They were just  what  the
       Israelites  needed  at  that  moment in time.  It would be a pretty
       nifty coincidence if it were also what served God's  wishes.   What
       if  Moses,  in  a good cause, made them up?  I mean, he smashed the
       tablets and then reconstructed the whole list  perfectly?   Do  you
       believe  that?  I can't even remember a shopping list.  Maybe Moses
       was the author himself and wanted to attribute the laws to  God  to
       make  them  seem  more official.  Maybe God really loves people who
       generate heat.  Perhaps the real message was not  the  tablets;  it
       was  the Burning Bush.  I mean, from the early times in Egypt, what
       was the symbol of God?  The sun.

       And you don't have to go back to ancient history.  The standard  of
       living  of  the  world  increased during the Industrial Revolution.
       Life became more rewarding.  You know what else was  changing?   We
       were building great factories that generated heat.

       Look at the end of World War II in the Pacific.   Both  sides  were
       headed  for  a protracted siege that could have killed a million on
       each side.  And there was very  little  doubt  about  the  eventual
       outcome,  which was pretty much obvious after the Battle of Midway.
       But it was going to be very, very expensive to get the Japanese  to
       submit to the inevitable.  And God was not showing himself to put a
       stop to it all.  But then what happened?  Suddenly  in  Alamogordo,
       New  Mexico,  something happened that generated a great heat.  Then
       the same people generated two more great heats.  And fortune smiled
       on  those  who  created  that  heat.   Even  today the world's most
       powerful country is the one that generates the most heat.

       Why would God want heat?  Who knows?  Why do so many  people  think
       He wants us to live in harmony?  "What is Man that Thou are mindful
       of him, O Lord?"   Our  prayers  say  all  the  time  that  we  are
       insignificant.   Maybe we are and he is not doing it for us.  Maybe
       the universe is more comfortable for Him if it isn't  so  cold  and
       dark  everywhere.  Maybe God comes to Earth and enjoys the creature
       comforts of warming up.  And that is really what he wants,  for  us
       to  make a warm place for him to rest when his current seventh days
       come around.  It makes as much sense as anything else does.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       3.  Detective's tale  at  Lucent  Technologies  leads  to  monument
       honoring the father of radio astronomy

       HOLMDEL, N.J. -- A detective's tale, involving a Nobel Prize winner
       and  a  National  Academy  of  Sciences member, has led to a June 8
       ceremony at Lucent  Technologies'  Bell  Labs  facility  here  that
       honors the first person to hear radio waves from outer space.

       Karl Jansky's discovery in 1931, which was not  publicly  discussed
       until  a  1933  page-one article in the New York Times, spawned the
       field of radio astronomy.  When Jansky died in 1950  at  the  young
       age  of 44, however, the Bell Labs scientist had received no formal
       recognition from the scientific community.

       "The discovery was ahead of its time because in 1933,  radio  waves
       had  nothing  to do with astronomy, so it really fell between radio
       engineering and astronomy,"  said  Bell  Labs  astrophysicist  Tony
       Tyson, one of the two sleuths in this tale and also a member of the
       National Academy of Sciences.

       Tyson helped pinpoint the  former  location  of  Jansky's  original
       100-foot-long  antenna,  which  resembled  a  box kite lying on its
       side, supported by Ford Model T tires.  The location was a  crucial
       finding  because  monuments--in  this case, a 13-foot-long stylized
       replica--fittingly reside on historical sites.

       "It didn't seem right to just go out there and pick a  spot,"  said
       Tyson's  fellow  sleuth  Robert  Wilson,  a  Nobel Prize winner and
       former Bell Labs astronomer.  "Because  Jansky's  antenna  was  the
       start of our science, we wanted to mark it appropriately."

       Jansky's discovery actually was an offshoot of  his  work  to  find
       sources  of  static  in  overseas  radio  signals.  While two clear
       culprits were local and distant thunderstorms, a third was a steady
       hiss  of  unknown  origin  that appeared daily at the same time and
       same location.  By using a star map,  Jansky  discovered  that  the
       waves came from the center of the Milky Way.

       "There is a clear message here," Tyson said.  "Serendipity  happens
       to those people who are both prepared and open minded."

       Even  though  Jansky  performed  some  follow-up  studies  on   the
       extraterrestrial radio waves for several years--mostly in his spare
       time--he  largely  abandoned  those  efforts  to   pursue   wartime
       research.   Years  later, other scientists continued developing the
       field of radio astronomy, which has  led  to  such  discoveries  as
       quasars, pulsars, black holes and the expanding universe.  In fact,
       near the site of Jansky's monument, Wilson  and  fellow  Bell  Labs
       scientist  Arno  Penzias  discovered radio waves that actually were
       remnants of the Big Bang.  Their 1964 discovery led  to  the  Nobel
       Prize in Physics 14 years later.

       About 10 years ago, Wilson and Tyson were talking about Jansky  and
       decided  they wanted to honor his contributions to astronomy, which
       were not fully understood until shortly  after  his  death.   Until
       that   initial  conversation,  there  had  been  relatively  little
       recognition for Jansky, except when astronomers labeled the  radio-
       wave measurement unit the "jansky."

       Sometime during the 1960s, the state of New Jersey erected  a  road
       sign on an utility pole near the Bell Labs' Holmdel facility, which
       marks the site--roughly one half mile from the original antenna--as
       the  birthplace  of radio astronomy.  Unfortunately, it's unsafe to
       stop along that section of the road. "You could hardly stop in your
       car  and  read  the  sign  without  getting  hit from behind," said
       Wilson, now a senior scientist at  the  Harvard-Smithsonian  Center
       for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., and a Bell Labs consultant.

       Also during the 60s, the National Radio  Astronomy  Observatory  in
       Green Bank, W.  Va., dedicated a replica of Jansky's antenna, which
       was built by the same carpenter at Bell Labs who had worked on  the
       original.

       Wilson and Tyson  began  searching  for  Bell  Labs  records  about
       Jansky,  but  they soon discovered Jansky's lab notebooks from 1928
       to 1937  were  missing.   Those  notebooks,  they  realized,  would
       provide  one of the crucial clues that would pinpoint the antenna's
       original location.  The antenna itself vanished sometime during the
       1950s.

       A few years ago, a summer student majoring in archeology  found  an
       old  box  of papers at Bell Labs' former facility in New York City.
       At one time, the papers had been slated for a corporate museum, but
       they  remained  in  the  possession  of a company executive who had
       corresponded with one of Jansky's colleagues.

       One page in the notebook, Tyson discovered, provided  the  location
       of  Jansky's office and also the antenna's angular position.  Then,
       he and Wilson analyzed the other pieces of the puzzle: a survey  of
       the  former Holmdel building; an old map of Holmdel Township, which
       showed the building's location by  a  stream;  and  an  old  aerial
       photograph that faintly showed the antenna itself, the stream and a
       tree line that partially exists today.  Eventually,  with  lots  of
       geometric   analysis,  the  two  astronomers  determined  that  the
       original antenna was 1,000 feet from the old building,  placing  it
       on  a grassy patch near the current Holmdel building's main parking
       lot.

       "I was just relieved that the actual location was on grass and  not
       asphalt,"  quipped  Tyson, who along with Wilson have devoted a few
       hours weekly to the Jansky memorial during the last several years.

       For the June 8 ceremony,  Tyson  and  Wilson  were  expecting  many
       members of Jansky's family, including his sister, son and daughter,
       and also some of his former colleagues and friends.  For  instance,
       Jansky's  former table tennis partner and Bell Labs engineer George
       Eberhardt  attended.   And  Grote  Reber,  who  confirmed  Jansky's
       results  in  1937  and  later  mapped the Milky Way galaxy in 1941,
       traveled from Tasmania to attend.  Also  attending  were  be  Jesse
       Greenstein,  who  was  one  of  the  first  scientists to attempt a
       theoretical explanation of Jansky's observations.

       Lucent Technologies, headquartered in Murray Hill,  N.J.,  designs,
       builds  and  delivers  a wide range of public and private networks,
       communications  systems  and  software,  data  networking  systems,
       business  telephone  systems and microelectronics components.  Bell
       Laboratories is the research and development arm for  the  company.
       For  more  information  on Lucent Technologies, visit the company's
       web site at http://www.lucent.com.

       ===================================================================

       4.  THE TRUMAN SHOW (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: A man lives  his  life  not  realizing
                 that  he  is  on  television and an audience of
                 millions watches his every move.  But the  game
                 is  starting to slip and Truman is beginning to
                 guess that reality is not what he thinks it is.
                 Jim Carrey stars in an old science fiction idea
                 that is new  to  films.   After  several  years
                 Peter  Weir returns to the weird.  Rating: 9 (0
                 to 10), +3 (-4 to  +4)   SPOILER  WARNING:  The
                 premise  of  THE  TRUMAN SHOW is told in all of
                 the trailers, but  it  is  not  fully  revealed
                 until  well  into  the  film.  This review does
                 discuss that premise.

       There was a time when Australian Peter Weir made strange and quirky
       films like THE CARS THAT ATE PARIS, THE PLUMBER, and THE LAST WAVE.
       But Weir lost that level of creativity at some  point.   His  films
       were  more  professional  and  perhaps more polished, but they were
       closer to Hollywood fare.  At most they had just a small  whiff  of
       the  strange  his earlier films had.  It has been a long time since
       Weir made a film as enthralling philosophically as THE TRUMAN SHOW.
       Weir looks at the media and what it is doing to both the viewer and
       the person under media scrutiny.  The film  also  takes  a  playful
       look at the relationship between humanity and God.

       Truman Burbank (played by Jim Carrey) is now thirty and through his
       whole life he has been off-camera only in his most private moments.
       In some unspecified number of years, in the future people all  over
       the  world  tune in to watch THE TRUMAN SHOW and track how his life
       is progressing.  As sort of a cross between AN AMERICAN FAMILY  and
       CANDID  CAMERA, "The Truman Show" follows one character through his
       every day and even his every move.  Truman has no idea that  he  is
       being  watched.  If he knew it would spoil the entire project.  And
       a phenomenal investment has been put into creating the  huge  domed
       studio  the  size of a town with cameras everywhere to relay to the
       world everything that happens to Truman.

       The whole  project  is  the  brainchild  of  the  godlike  producer
       Christof  (Ed  Harris).   No  effort  has  been spared to build the
       unbelievable domed studio or to ingrain phobias into Truman so that
       he is afraid to stray too far from his home.  As part of the latter
       effort we see a visit to a  travel  agent  who  has  decorated  her
       office with marvelous anti-travel posters.  Christof has programmed
       nearly everything that has ever happened to Truman.   Christof  has
       cast  the  important people in Truman's life including his supposed
       parents and his wife Meryl (Laura Linney of  TALES  OF  THE  CITY).
       Meryl's   responsibilities  include  keeping  Truman  in  line  and
       unsuspecting,  delivering  charming   commercials   for   sponsors'
       products placed into Truman's world, and above all to keep smiling.
       But things are getting a little difficult for Meryl  as  Christof's
       production staff gets a little sloppy: lights fall from a clear sky
       and supposedly dead characters from Truman's past  find  their  way
       back  onto the show set.  Truman is starting to get suspicious that
       there is something not right about his reality.
       Does Jim Carrey do a good job of playing Truman Burbank?  That is a
       very  difficult  question  to answer.  At first brush it would seem
       not.  Carrey is his usual weird and does his trademarked  brand  of
       clowning  around.   Is  this  the way someone raised on camera with
       scripted experience would behave?  Probably not, but it is  unclear
       how  he  would behave.  He almost certainly would lean to some form
       of weird.  Whether this is one way he could be  weird  is  hard  to
       tell.  The constantly smiling Laura Linney is at first charming and
       quickly becomes grating, but again these are unusual circumstances.
       She would not behave like an actress because this is like almost no
       acting job  has  ever  been.   She  would  have  to  be  constantly
       improvising  and  be onstage 16 to 24 hours a day, year in and year
       out.  Her role would have to be  her  primary  life.   Perhaps  her
       little  Stepford wife is precisely what would result.  Rounding out
       the major characters is Ed Harris as the de facto god  of  Truman's
       world.   Harris  takes  his  role in a quiet understated manner and
       does a fine job.

       I would have loved to have seen THE TRUMAN  SHOW  cold,  having  no
       idea  what the film was about.  Unfortunately the ads give much too
       much away.  There is a slow build to where the viewer is  told  the
       information in the trailer.  Much of the mystery of Andrew Niccol's
       script (as complex as his script for GATTACA) is lost.  One of  the
       big holes, however, is that this is a much less believable story if
       taken literally rather than as allegory.   One  must  believe  that
       there  are  thousands  of  actors  in  Truman's  world who are just
       waiting months or years to be cued.  There are  probably  parts  of
       Truman's  town  that  he  never  visits,  but the actors have to be
       prepared if he does.  Fantastic preparedness must be  arranged  for
       contingencies  that  probably  will  never occur.  In addition, the
       number of cameras  needed  to  produce  THE  TRUMAN  SHOW  must  be
       literally  phenomenal.   At  one point Christof estimates that 5000
       cameras are used to cover all the places that Truman might possibly
       go.   A  little  back  of  the  envelope calculation will show that
       figure has got to be orders of magnitude low without a fair risk of
       losing  Truman.   The town as shown must be about nine square miles
       and then Truman goes off into the woods in the course of the  film.
       The  logistics of setting up and running this pseudo-town seem more
       and more complex the more one thinks about them.  But  again,  this
       is  more  a  religious  allegory than a science fiction story to be
       taken literally.  Niccol has a lot of fun playing with the  various
       features  of  the  artificial sky as a recurrent theme in the film,
       but also giving the film a sort of medieval cosmology.

       Music is by Burkhart (von) Dallwitz and seems to consist mostly  of
       easy  listening and classical music on a sort of celestial, New Age
       theme.  The idea for THE TRUMAN SHOW is one that has been  done  in
       science  fiction  several  times  previously.  Then there are ideas
       borrowed from other sources like the 60s TV show THE  PRISONER.   I
       would rate THE TRUMAN SHOW a 9 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +3 on the
       -4 to +4 scale.  This is Weir's best film since THE LAST WAVE by  a
       wide margin.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       5.  A PERFECT MURDER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: This is an updating and a remake of  a
                 great  stage  thriller.   The  new version adds
                 some complexity to the story, but nothing  that
                 could  really  be  called an improvement.  This
                 story did not need to be moved into  the  world
                 of  international  finance  and the ultra-rich.
                 Director Andrew Davis has little grasp on  what
                 made  the  original  characters compelling.  He
                 delivers a version that is dark, humorless, and
                 violent.   Rating:   5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to
                 +4)

       I did not care much for Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER when I
       saw  it  as  a  child.   It  seemed  a  set-bound  and a rather dry
       exercise.   Seeing  it  as  an  adult  was  an  entirely  different
       experience.   It  clearly  is a stage play, but it has to be one of
       the most brilliant stage thrillers ever written.  The  entire  play
       works  like  a well-oiled machine of surprising complexity.  It was
       *the classic* stage  murder  thriller.   Compared  to  DIAL  M  FOR
       MURDER,  SLEUTH  and DEATHTRAP are merely gimmicky.  For DIAL M FOR
       MURDER, the playwright really sat down and sweated all the details.
       The  one  unrealistic  touch  is that main character Tony Wendes is
       just too brilliant to be fully believed.  He  has  a  mind  like  a
       computer,  thinking  out  all  possibilities and reconstructing his
       plans instant by instant.  The play must have been  rewritten  over
       and  over  as  Frederick  Knott  rethought  the possibilities.  The
       remake A PERFECT MURDER has some of the plot, but it loses a lot in
       the transition.

       In A PERFECT MURDER, the Taylors are probably one of  the  top  100
       prominent couples in the country.  Steven Taylor (played by Michael
       Douglas) is an international commodities dealer who makes deals  in
       the  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars every day.  Emily Bradford
       Taylor (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) is an  heiress  to  one  of  the
       richest  families  in  America.   She  has  a  position  working as
       translator at the United Nations General Assembly and as an aide to
       the  Unite  States  ambassador.   But Emily has other positions she
       likes more, fooling around on the side with  promising  new  artist
       David  Shaw (Viggo Mortensen).  Shaw has a future as an artist, but
       he also has  a  past,  and  that  he  would  like  to  keep  quiet.
       Unfortunately Steven Taylor knows all about Shaw's past and has his
       own plans for Shaw's  future.   The  plans  include  killing  Emily
       Taylor.   Saying any more about the new and somewhat cluttered plot
       would really be telling too much.
       Michael Douglas is  something  of  a  master  at  portraying  quiet
       smoldering  anger on the screen.  He is a good choice to show rage,
       but he cannot bring to the role the kind  of  passionless  thinking
       machine quality that Ray Milland had in the original.  Luckily this
       script does not call for Steven Taylor to make the  sort  of  quick
       rethinking  of  problems that Tony Wendes did in the original film.
       Paltrow really does have the sort of pristine good looks  that  are
       reminiscent  of  Grace  Kelly  in  the  first film.  There are even
       scenes where she looks a bit like Grace Kelly.  The problem is that
       the  film  insists  on  showing  her  in bed with her lover.  1990s
       audiences demand to see some flesh, I suppose.   There  clearly  is
       passion  going  on  though  nothing  is  seen that really counts as
       nudity.  But what we do see of the sex is enough that she no longer
       appears  to  the  viewer to be an innocent.  And that loses her the
       audience's  sympathy.   We  are  left   with   several   cold   and
       unsympathetic  characters wandering around on the dark sets of this
       film.  I should mention that Dariusz Wolski shot the  film  and  if
       that  name  is  unfamiliar,  he also filmed THE CROW and DARK CITY.
       That should tell you that he likes under-lit sets to create a  cold
       and  dark feel.  And this film certainly has that.  Viggo Mortensen
       plays the third leg of the romantic triangle.   He  does  not  have
       much  screen  presence,  but  he  does  have a very realistic look.
       Rounding out the cast, but appallingly under-used, is David  Suchet
       as  Detective  Mohamed  Karaman.  I suspect he had a bigger role in
       the original script.  It is his character in the original play  who
       does  the  real detective work.  But rumors say that the end of the
       film was re-shot and presumably his role  was  cut  down  in  size.
       Perhaps  test  audiences thought him solving the crime was a little
       too close to what he does in his TV persona as Hercule Poirot.  But
       for  whatever the reason Suchet had only a small part, and it was a
       serious waste to have such a good character  actor  in  so  tiny  a
       role.

       If you have seen the original film, there will still be plot twists
       to  keep you guessing, but you will also get an appreciation of how
       good material can sour in the wrong hands.  It takes a remake  like
       A  PERFECT  MURDER  to  show the viewer how much has changed in the
       1990s conventions of films and  to  appreciate  the  genius  of  an
       Alfred  Hitchcock.   This cold and dark remake gets a 5 on the 0 to
       10 scale and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.  [-mrl]

                                          Mark Leeper
                                          MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
                                          mleeper@lucent.com

            Television is the first truly democratic culture--
            the first culture available to everybosy and entirely
            governed by what the people want.  The most terrifying
            thing is what the people want.