THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
07/05/02 -- Vol. 21, No. 1
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Delays
On "100 Best" Lists (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
MINORITY REPORT (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
AMERICAN GODS (book review by Joe Karpierz)
WINDTALKERS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Delays
Our apologies for the delay in the June issues of the MT VOID. We
were on vacation, and there were some technical glitches in the
backup plan.
===================================================================
TOPIC: On "100 Best" Lists (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I attended the meeting of a book discussion group recently. Those
present wanted to choose their next book to be read and discussed.
One of them pulled out the Random House Modern Library list of the
"100 Best Novels." Some of you may remember that in 1998 Modern
Library made this list of the 100 best and then opened it up as a
readers' poll. The results can be found at
.
Of course when you have any public poll you run the risk of people
who have an interest in the outcome organizing other people to
vote the way they want. Actually even private polls for which you
have a fixed set of respondents have the same problem. But in
this case it was obvious that many of the votes came from special
interest groups. Of their top ten best novels, four were by Ayn
Rand and three were by L. Ron Hubbard.
In the readers' list one may note that to all appearances the
people who believe in the virtue of selfishness have managed to
arrange to have two Ayn Rand novels at the top of the list. And
the people whose claim is to the science of perfecting the mind
have decided with those perfected minds that one of the three
finest pieces of fiction in English is BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron
Hubbard. (And say, wouldn't it make an equally fine film?)
The reaction at the meeting seemed to be mild irritation and
frustration that what were probably the so-called Objectivists and
the Scientologists would corrupt the list out of what they saw as
their self-interest. But is that really true? Is there any
evidence that they did not vote sincerely? My problem is not with
the books they chose, it is with the judgment of the people
themselves. The problem I have is not with their tactics but with
their taste. It is not necessarily even that their taste is bad,
but just that it varies from my own. Organizing like-minded
people to vote and voting ones own specialized taste is not a
subversion of the intent of a poll, it is probably the intent
itself. The results are a perfectly good reflection of that
population. And it is that population that the readers' poll is
really about. The Modern Library has not given us a list of the
best 100 novels, they have given us a view of two different
populations.
If you think of their own list as "The 100 Best Books" (as chosen
by the board of the Modern Library) you are bound to end up
frustrated because you will assume either they are wrong in a lot
of their choices or you are. If you think of the list as "The
Tastes of Board of the Modern Library Editors" (as demonstrated by
their 100 favorite books) it is much easier to appreciate the list
for what it is.
This goes well beyond that top 100 list. I admit to having some
small annoyance that for so long the film that won the Hugo for
best dramatic presentation was the latest Harrison Ford
extravaganza. (Not that some did not deserve it.) The choice of
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Picture
frequently irks me, but I am starting to understand the criteria
they use. While I do not always agree with their criteria I can
accept it. That is not a slam, it is only to be expected. I
would have picked KING KONG over CAVELCADE for 1933, but I can
understand why they did not.
Film reviews go much the same way. This is something I have to
tell correspondents frequently about my reviews. When I talk
about whether a film is good or not I am talking about my tastes.
The same is true for everybody who expresses an opinion of a film
from Roger Ebert to the kid in the elevator who talks about his
favorite Let's-See-'Em-Naked or Blow-'Em-Up-Real-Good film.
On most issues I am not such a relativist. It may be hard to
find, but there is only one accurate description of reality.
Attitudes do not change reality, they only make it harder to find.
But in matters of taste and preference, it is all relativism. Bear
in mind that every poll comes down to a popularity poll. That is
the only kind they make.
What the two special interests did to the Modern Library poll,
organizing like-minded people to vote in a way that suits their
special interest, that has been a part of democracy so long nobody
would even question it. That is the way Democracy works. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: MINORITY REPORT (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Steven Spielberg adapts a story by Philip K. Dick to
create a marvelously faceted and incredibly dark vision of the
future. Murder has been eliminated by use of mutants' psychic
powers. MINORITY REPORT is fast-paced, yet still full of ideas.
This is probably a better science fiction film in a more complex
society than was BLADERUNNER (also based on a story by Philip
K. Dick). Rating: 9 (0 to 10), +3 (-4 to +4)
When most science fiction films are set in the future the approach
is simple. You have funny suits for the men, revealing fashions
for the women, throw in a funny-looking car here and there, and
show as little of the world as possible. That last part is
desperately important. Think how much explanation phrases like
"dot-com failure" would require to make it understandable to a
1950 audience. Seeing an accurate view of the world fifty-two
years from now would be confusing and demanding. Steven Spielberg
shows us a world just that far in the future and is not afraid to
make the view confusing and demanding.
Spielberg has been accused of making manipulative and heavy-handed
films that are just a bit simplistic and spell things out for the
viewer. Certainly nobody can accuse MINORITY REPORT of being
simple. In it Spielberg has told a story more than half a century
in the future that is every bit as complicated and demanding as
being dropped into the future would be. This film is a genuine
piece of future extrapolation. Even written science fiction set
in the future does not require this degree of thought about the
future. Written science fiction does not allow the reader to put
his head into a scene and look around at the world the way a wide-
screen movie does. While some of Spielberg's future seems
altogether impossible (e.g. psychic elimination of crime), and
some seem more than fifty-two years away (cars adapted to highways
that that are vertical for long stretches), Spielberg had taken
head-on questions of where computing is going. What will
advertising be like in fifty-two years? What will language be
like?
The year is 2054. It has been six years since a murder has been
successfully committed in the Washington DC area. Why? Because
three mutant psychics, "pre-cogs" they are called, are kept in a
state of constant sleep as their minds are probed see all
potential murders before they happen. The police get this
information in time to avert the killings. But apart from the
constitutional issue of prior restraint, there is always the
question of how one knows for sure the averted crime really would
have happened. Tom Cruise plays John Alderton in the police
Department of Precrime and a firm believer in the system he
enforces. He will soon have reason to doubt the system.
Philip K. Dick raised these issues in his novelette "Minority
Report." The point of Dick's story was that knowledge of the
future changes the future so that multiple pre-cogs might see
multiple alternate futures. Apparently even Spielberg thought
that would be a tough notion to transfer to the screen so he
simplified the concept and the importance of the "minority report"
from which the film takes its name.
MINORITY REPORT is not just a summer fluff film. It is hard work
to follow everything that is going on and to pick up all the
interesting details in a world where the cartoon characters on a
cereal box actually dance and sing and store ads recognize
customers and know their purchase record on sight. MINORITY
REPORT is the most detailed creation of a future society since
BLADERUNNER, which incidentally was also based on the writings of
Dick. Here Spielberg uses the ideas of Dick, the pacing of an
Alfred Bester story, and the cynicism of Frederic Pohl and Cyril
Kornbluth. The intelligence flags only near the end with Dick's
ideas being replaced by a more cliched plotline. The payoff is
not the end of the film but a shank that is so dense with ideas.
Spielberg greatly controls the images on the screen. Scenes are
intentionally too complex to be understood on one viewing. To
create a distancing effect he turns way down the color values so
the visuals are halfway between color and monochrome. It is a
mood device and works to reasonable effect.
This is a long film that that is hard work for the viewer. It
makes few concessions to explanations. At one point a character
says "I'm tired of the future." The casual viewer may feel the
same way. Or he may just ignore the details and see this as an
action film. But action films are many and extrapolations like
this one few. I rate MINORITY REPORT a 9 on the 0 to 10 scale and
a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Minor spoiler....Minor spoiler....
Dick assumes that psychic powers are not perfectly precise and as
a result three psychics are used and what at least two see is
assumed to be true. By saying that there is a lead psychic and by
assuming she is right even when the other two disagree Spielberg
is saying it is really unimportant to have the other two. It is a
betrayal of the original concept.
Another problem, with all the effort put into detail in this film,
one very simple check was not done. There is a reference to a
poll on Tuesday, April 22, 2054. That will be a Wednesday. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: AMERICAN GODS by Neil Gaiman (William Morrow, 2001, Science
Fiction Book Club edition, 461 pp., ISBN 0-380-97365-0) (a book
review by Joe Karpierz)
There is a particular chant that is heard at numerous college
sports arenas and stadia when a supposedly superior team comes to
town only to get easily handled by the inferior home team:
Overrated. It's a one word chant, that usually sounds something
like O-ver-ra-ted.
So, what do I think of AMERICAN GODS?
O-ver-ra-ted.
As most of the folks who read my reviews know, every year when I
read and review the current crop of Hugo nominees I bemoan the
fact that my tastes and the current tastes of the section of sf
fandom that actually reads novels these days are never the same.
Sometimes I've actually read one or two of the nominees by the
time the ballot comes out, but this year I'd read a grand total of
zero of them. I actually had American Gods on my to-read stack,
so I figured that counted, sort of. I had American Gods on that
stack because of numerous highly positive reviews that I'd read
plus the recommendation of at least one fellow fan whose opinions
in these things I highly respect.
I'm going to have to have a talk with him.
I spent the entire novel wondering when something interesting was
going to happen - it never did. So now I'm asking anyone out
there who will write to me (karpierz@inil.com), "What's all the
fuss about?"
Shadow has just spent the last few years in prison, and while on
his way home to his wife's funeral (she died just as he was
getting released), he meets a name who calls himself Wednesday.
Wednesday offers Shadow a job, and Shadow accepts because there's
nothing left in his life to go back to - he might as well do
something with his newly found freedom. But of course, Shadow
has stepped into something that is much more than he thought it
would be.
There's a war brewing - a war between the gods of old and the old
country, and the new American gods, the gods of technology,
advertising, credit, entertainment, etc. For you see, the old gods
are dying out all over the world. We've all heard the story that
gods only exist because they are worshipped, have sacrifices made
to them, etc. The old gods don't want to slip away, and the new
gods want them out of the way. Wednesday and Shadow travel all
over the country recruiting reluctant old gods to the cause.
While they're busy recruiting, the new gods are out there standing
in their way, trying to sabotage their effort, and mocking them
all the way. The story builds to a climax, as both sets of gods
race to the place of battle, anticipating bloodshed and slaughter.
But the climactic battle, such as it is, cheats the reader. There
is no tension or suspense along the way, nothing to hold the
reader's attention. Well, *my* attention, anyway. I'm not going
to say I was bored by this book, because it certainly was
intricate and complex enough. I'll have to admit that Gaiman tied
everything up very nicely, leaving no loose ends by the time the
novel ended. However, this book just wasn't interesting to me at
all. Shadow was not a compelling and interesting character, and
since we find out who Wednesday really is early on the book, that
mystery is not there for much of the book at all.
So I really don't recommend this book at all. I felt like it
wasted my time. Hopefully the rest of this year's crop of
nominees will be better. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: WINDTALKERS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: John Woo's WINDTALKERS is inspired by the true story of
Navaho code talkers in World War II. It is an attempt to make a
standard "minority in the military" war film with Woo's brand of
violence. The real code talkers deserved a better tribute. This
disappointing film is a perfect example of a good history story
avoided. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), high 0 (-4 to +4)
Adam Beach plays Ben Yahzee, a Navaho Marine who was trained to be
a code talker. Nicholas Cage plays John Enders a Marine with a
badly and painfully injured ear and survivors' guilt. Enders is
assigned to guard Yahzee's code. His highest priority is to keep
the code out of Japanese hands even if it means killing Yahzee.
His fear of the possibility of having to kill Yahzee he hides with
a blanket of affected distaste for Yahzee. Together they go
through the battle of Saipan and each discovers the other's
mettle.
OK. First things first.
1) The Navaho code talkers are heroes. In addition they really
were cheated of much of the honor they deserved. I am not arguing
that.
2) I would like for them and for all Navaho to like this picture.
3) I would like there to be a good film about the Navaho code
talkers contribution to the Pacific war.
4) This is not that film.
There is a very standard "minority in the military" plot. The
members of the minority join the unit. They are mistrusted a
little by all, but especially by one particular bigot. In the
heat of battle they go beyond the call of duty to protect even the
bigot. In the end they have won the respect of their doubters and
have proven themselves. In the 1950s it was a very moving plot.
More recently we have seen it in THE TUSKEEGEE AIRMEN and MEN OF
HONOR. When WINDTALKERS claims to be based on a true story they
mean that there were really Navaho code talkers. And they really
made an important contribution. The filmmakers have told the
standard plot with code talkers as the minority. WINDTALKERS is
an attempt to use John Woo's stylized violence in a standard
"object lesson" war film plot. The code talkers were the chosen
by the filmmaker as the fungible minority.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN opened the way to show battle more
realistically in film including that it be more violent. It seems
to make sense to have John Woo direct since his films are known
for their melodramatic plots and their staccato violence episodes.
The problem is that his films are the wrong sort of violence for a
realistic war film. For example it is dramatic to have an
explosion with an actor spring-boarding in the foreground to look
like he was caught in the explosion. A soldier may have even seen
it happening once in his career. In this film it is used many
times to dress up explosions. Merely making a battle scene more
violent does not make it more realistic.
The story is based on historical fact. During World War II the
most useful encryption technique for tactical use in the field was
Navaho Code Talk. It was a double code, one level of which used
the Navaho language, one of the most difficult languages in the
world to learn. There were in the world only about 24 non-Navahos
who knew the language and none of them were fighting for the
Japanese. Navahos developed the code and could be taught it
quickly. For anyone else it was useless gibberish. The Japanese
could (and did) capture Navahos, but if they didn't know the other
half of the code, even under torture they could not decode it.
Messages in the code could be sent over open radio channels
without the possibility of eavesdropping or forging. The story of
Navaho code talking is fascinating, but unfortunately it still
remains to be told in a film.
There are some notable inaccuracies in the film. The pairing of a
Navaho with a particular Marine partner, central to the plot of
WINDTALKERS, is a fiction according to the actual Navaho veterans.
Certainly there was nobody who acted as a bodyguard. While
"windtalkers" may sound better than "code talkers" there was a lot
more wind talkers than code talkers. "Wind talk" is a literal
translation of the Navaho word for radio. If the word "wind
talkers" was used it would merely be any radio operator.
John Woo superficially glosses over what should have been the most
interesting parts of his story to get to cliched drama and
stylized violence. He was the wrong director to tell the story of
these heroes. I give his film a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high
+0 on the -4 to +4 scale. (Much of the historical information in
this review is based on the History Channel program "History vs.
Hollywood: Windtalkers".) [-mrl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
It's useful that there should be Gods, so let's
believe there are.
-- Ovid
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ztNCyD/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/