@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 03/03/00 -- Vol. 18, No. 36
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
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 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. I was asked recently on Usenet what I would list as the ten most
influential monster movies of all time. First I will observe that
one gets a lot of strange question on the Internet. An influential
monster movie seems almost to be a contradiction in terms. The
vast majority of monster movies may be entertaining in themselves,
but they are hardly films that are considered influential.
I have interpreted "influential" as having started cycles of horror
films. I have taken a very broad definition of "monster" to
include psychotics. Okay, here is my list.
THE CABINET OF DR CALIGARI (1919)--The beginning of the German
Expressionist cycle. Between World Wars Germany made a number of
fantastic films and for one time in film history the great artistic
films being made were fantasy. Expressionism is the distortion of
the visuals to present an emotional reality. The Expressionist
movement used distorting shadows, weird camera angles, and often
odd, angular sets to create emotional effects.
DRACULA (1930)--Expressionism moves to Hollywood, the start of the
Universal cycle. Using the techniques of German Expressionism, and
not a little talent from European refugees, Universal Pictures
started its own cycle of horror films.
KING KONG (1933)--A leap forward in expressing fantasy on the
screen. Though the film is essentially little more than a
reframing of THE LOST WORLD, Willis O'Brien's special effects for
the first time are accomplished enough to allow for suspension of
disbelief. The score by Max Steiner was his first great score and
made a name for him.
THE CAT PEOPLE (1942)--Takes horror out of a gothic setting and
puts it in everyday locations. Producer Val Lewton was something
of a maverick and made a series of intelligent and literate horror
films. This film, full of sexual double-meaning, was the first set
in familiar, identifiable surroundings.
THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS (1951)--Beginning of the 1950s giant
monster films. It was also the inspiration for GOJIRA. It
established Ray Harryhausen as a serious force in American fantasy
film special effects.
GOJIRA (1954)--Beginnings of the Japanese Science Fiction cycle.
This film was probably the most serious and intelligent monster
movie ever made. It really is about how Japan felt under nuclear
attack and questions the uses of science. It also was the first
international success for Japanese cinema and made Godzilla an
international film icon.
CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)--This was a completely new approach to
how to do horror on the screen. It was the first major all-color
gothic horror film. It used its color to make the horror more
shocking and graphic. It was an astounding hit and created the
whole 1960s cycle of horror films from several studios in Britain,
most notably Hammer and Amicus.
PSYCHO (1960)--Inspiration for the 1960s psychological horror cycle
and the 1980s slasher film cycle. This is a film made on a
shoestring that broke many of the rules.
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)--A super-low budget thriller that
uses its cheapness to seem more real. Another unfortunate leap in
the depiction of gore on the screen.
HALLOWEEN (1978)--The first slasher film; has been remade
innumerable times with slight variations. There is a little plot
at the beginning and end, maybe about ten minutes in all, and most
of the rest of the film is set-ups and murders. It is a film that
nearly dispenses with plot or real characters. Making such films
is an easy, bankable investment which in the days of video almost
cannot lose money.
Note two things. I am not listing good films, I am listing films
that had influence on those that came after them. Also note that
there has not been a really influential monster movie in twenty-two
years. A few profitable formulae are being used over and over.
The few good horror films may each have two or three imitators.
Curiously there does not seem to have been a major new movement in
monster films in thirty-two years. Either monster movies have
become soulless or perhaps one has to be young to appreciate what
soul they have. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. TITUS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: TITUS is a production of TITUS
ANDRONICUS, widely considered to be
Shakespeare's worst play but here given a first
class visual treatment nonetheless. This is an
over-the-top melodrama of horrible revenge.
HAMLET may be a better play, but its virtues
are worn out from over-familiarity. TITUS on
the other hand is a lot of fun. Rating: 8 (0
to 10), +3 (-4 to +4) SPOILER WARNING: I will
reveal some plot points. And how odd it is to
have a Shakespeare play so little familiar that
it needs spoiler warnings.
Personally I think I need to see another production of HAMLET about
as much as I need to see another production of A CHRISTMAS CAROL.
Which is to say, not very much at all. The same few number of
Shakespeare's plays seem to be done over and over. The value of
seeing Shakespeare's good plays is somewhat compromised by their
over-familiarity. There may be a lot more of interest in seeing
one of his minor plays that never get seen. Of Shakespeare's 39
plays (the current count) it seems only a handful regularly
produced. Most of the rest are rarely seen.
TITUS ANDRONICUS is nearly universally considered to be
Shakespeare's worst play. It is a horror tale of revenge as a
Roman noble and a captured Goth Queen wreck terrible revenge on
each other in Imperial Rome. Academician Harold Bloom suggest that
the play was never meant to be taken seriously and was
Shakespeare's attempt to lampoon the pre-Grand-Guignol blood and
thunder plays popular in his day. Humble film reviewer Mark Leeper
suggests that Bloom may have it backwards. It may well be an
effort to demonstrate that even violent horror plays of the time
might be written with poetry, grace, and magic. Is it so different
from Stanley Kubrick attempting a Stephen King horror story
complete with elevators flooded in torrents of blood? TITUS is
reminiscent of Peter Greenway doing what could be a TALES FROM THE
CRYPT episode in operatic style in THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE,
AND HER LOVER. In any case TITUS ANDRONICUS is a play rarely
performed and though it will not be for all tastes it is one that
for many of us should be seen because it is a hoot.
In ancient Rome soldier and noble Titus Andronicus (Anthony
Hopkins) returns from the wars with the Goths bringing with him the
Goth queen Tamora (Jessica Lange) and her three remaining sons.
Titus has lost twenty-one sons and has only four left. He orders
the ritual execution of one of Tamora's sons as a final act of
vengeance. Chance makes Tamora the wife of the new emperor
Saturninus and she will have a gruesome revenge against Titus only
to have him exact an even sterner vengeance against him.
Julie Taymor, who adapted THE LION KING for the live stage, adapted
the play and directed with a strange visual sense that cuts across
the centuries. This is a world that combines the legions of
ancient Rome and vehicles and clothing of 1930s Fascist Italy.
Taymor's visual sense lies somewhere between Fellini's SATYRICON
and the Planet Mongo in a sort of filthy corruption of former
splendor. As Tamora's vengeance seems to involve body part--heads,
hands, tongues--so too there are body parts sculpted in stone as a
recurring theme in many of the visuals.
Taymor opens the film with the image of a child playing with toy
Roman soldiers. The boy is dragged from a modern kitchen to a
pavilion in Rome where human-sized toy soldiers march in mechanized
lock step. This maybe suggesting that the play's violent plot is
the product of a child's imagination. However she does fill the
film with a generous dose of surreal dream sequences and obscure
symbolism that would leave Shakespeare terminally confused. I
suppose she could claim that she is not making the film for HIM.
Jessica Lange, who started her career unable to fulfill even the
most demands of the damsel in distress in the 1976 KING KONG is now
one of the most talented American actresses and is now more than
equal to Shakespearean roles. Her Tamora physically evokes the
visage of a Gorgon. In spite of a few role choices of late that I
believe even she regrets, she is now back on track taking difficult
roles and doing them well. Hopkins has the reputation, but he
plays Titus entirely too blandly, falling back on some Hannibal
Lector mannerisms in the hope they evoke chills. For my money
Lange stole the film from under him. Alan Cumming is hardly
memorable as Saturninus. He may be remembered as the pen-clicking
Russian computer hacker from GOLDENEYE. Aaron, played here by
Harry Lennix, is not very believable, due more to Shakespeare's
writing than his acting. Like the Jew of Malta in Marlowe's play
he lives just to be evil. Few people see themselves as just living
to cause trouble.
TITUS is probably not going to be remembered as one of the great
Shakespeare films. It is more a novelty, a Shakespearean horror
tale. How often do we get a TITUS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or a TWELFTH
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD? I give it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and
a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. BOILER ROOM (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: This updating of WALL STREET is a
small education on how stock trading works at a
shady brokerage house. It is difficult to make
a subject as technical as stock trading
interesting and sufficiently cinematic, but
writer-director Ben Younger makes it work here.
However, beyond the interesting technical
aspects of the story there is not a whole lot
of plot here. Though there is an engaging
father-son story that was begging to be further
expanded. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to
+4)
Who wants to be a millionaire? Almost everyone wants to be rich
and most people do not want to really have to work for it. At
least that is the point of view presented to Seth (Giovanni Ribisi)
when he interviews at brokerage house J. T. Marlin. Seth is
something of a disappointment to his father (Ron Rifkin), a Federal
Judge. At about the age of 18 Seth has quit school and is running
an illegal casino out of his apartment. One of Seth's customers
recruits him to interview at brokerage house J. T. Marlin where the
cash flow is even better--a lot better. Seth finds that the
offered interview is not to sell himself to the firm, but more to
sell him on the idea of working for the Marlin. And the package
seems almost too good to be true. Give the firm three years of
very hard work and they will nearly guarantee to make him a
millionaire. Who could resist a deal like that?
Jim Young (Ben Affleck) tells the recruits he himself is 27, which
is almost over the hill in that business. It is the young people
who are the big traders. And the financial rewards are terrific.
Seth sees a chance to be successful and show his father that he has
worth. Almost immediately it seems to be a Faustian bargain. As
Seth is pulled deeper into this world he makes a visual transition.
Younger puts him in darker clothing. Dark suits, dark shirts, even
his eyes seem to darken. He begins to look like almost gothic or
vampirish. In a less than subtle manner Younger seems to be
suggesting that the life is being slowly sucked from him.
Younger shows us the world of these young kids thrown into the
world of finance. In their expensive suits and with their
expensive cars they give the appearance of respectability and of
having class. Yet over and over Younger makes the point that these
are children, and vulgar ones at that, who do not know what to do
with their money. They know the neighborhoods to buy expensive
homes but in a look inside one the house seems almost unfurnished
except with a few technical toys. There is almost nothing soft in
the house. Almost everything is plastic and electronic. When the
dealers go out to bars they behave little better than teenage
gangs. They live an existence of well-rewarded banality and
conspicuous and ill-considered consumption.
In order to make the point that the illegal trading is not a
victimless crime we also see a subplot of one investor who is hurt
by the illicit trading. Still, by concentrating too much on the
one investor the film blunts the point that there are many
investors damaged by the shady firm. The drama works best in the
subplot of the relation between Seth and his father. It is in this
relationship that the film has its most moving moments.
The film borrows heavily from both WALL STREET and GLENGARRY GLEN
ROSS, but it also works both films into the plot. Ben Affleck is
not only a young model of the ruthless Alec Baldwin character from
GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, he also quotes him. Not only is the plot
borrowed from WALL STREET, it also is the traders' favorite film.
The film also works in a romance that seems gratuitous, but just
adds one more ingredient to the mix.
The music seems mostly gangsta rock. This combines with the jerky
editing to give a sort of new wave feel. The score did not do a
lot for me but underscore the disorientation of dropping into the
new world of brokerage. (Odd trivia point: I am not sure of the
symbolism, but the opening chords of the closing credit music are
borrowed directly from a recording of the score for GODZILLA VS.
MOTHRA (1964).)
The film is at its best at what should be the hardest task,
interesting the audience in the finances and the trading and at the
same time being educational. I rate it a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale
and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
No one is compleletly unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
-- Groucho Marx