THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/20/05 -- Vol. 24, No. 30, Whole Number 1318
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.
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:
On-Line Film Critics Society Awards
The Rise of the Gladiator (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Don Juan and the Selfish Gene (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
New Orleans and Truth in Movies (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
IMMORTAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE MATADOR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (BORGES AND THE ETERNAL ORANGUTANS;
ADIOS, HEMINGWAY; and AS I LAY DYING)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: On-Line Film Critics Society Awards
The winners of the 9th Annual On-Line Film Critics Society Awards
are as follows:
Best Picture: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Best Director: David Cronenberg, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman, CAPOTE
Best Actress: Reese Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE
Best Supporting Actor: Mickey Rourke, SIN CITY
Best Supporting Actress: Maria Bello, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Best Original Screenplay: GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK,
George Clooney and Grant Heslov
Best Adapted Screenplay: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, Larry McMurty and
Diana Ossana, based on L. Annie Proulx's short story
Best Cinematography: SIN CITY, Robert Rodriguez
Best Editing: SIN CITY, Robert Rodriguez
Best Score: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, Gustavo Santaolalla
Best Documentary: GRIZZLY MAN
Best Foreign-Language Film: DOWNFALL (Germany)
Best Animated Feature: WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE
WERE-RABBIT
Breakthrough Filmmaker: Paul Haggis, CRASH
Breakthrough Performance: Owen Kline, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Rise of the Gladiator (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I saw EMPIRE, which takes a piece of (almost) real history and
makes a gladiator important in a way he would not have been.
GLADIATOR did the same. It occured to me gladiators are being
used as a device to turn films about real ancient history into
sports films to increase their appeal. It is like making a
football player the main character in a film about Watergate.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Don Juan and the Selfish Gene (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Two weeks ago I talked a little about Richard Dawkins's ideas from
THE SELFISH GENE. The suggestion is that we behave in ways that
only superficially appear to be in our best interests as
individuals. Our actions may not be in fact in our own best
interest, but in the best interest of our genes and making sure
that our genes are preserved. We can best see the distinction if
we see examples where people are willing to sacrifice their own
lives for the preservation of their genes. A parent will, if
circumstances come to that, sacrifice his or her own life in order
to protect an offspring. Sadly, history provides us with only too
many examples that this behavior is very real. A child is a
vessel containing one's genes and a means of preserving them.
Many human behaviors that otherwise do not make a lot of sense
seem explainable.
When I think about this I see the story of Don Juan as a drama of
people unknowingly struggling to preserve their genes by the best
strategy. An incident might be familiar from Mozart's opera "Don
Giovanni" or from George Bernard Shaw's "Don Juan in Hell." Dona
Ana's father comes upon Juan making love to his daughter. He
attacks Don Juan with a sword. Juan defends himself and slays
the older man. Shaw plays with this incident in "Don Juan in
Hell." I see this whole scene from the point of view of Richard
Dawkins's ideas from THE SELFISH GENE. Each person is
unknowingly following a strategy that is best for his or her own
genes.
Don Juan's life-long strategy is to put his genes into as many
different offspring as he can in the hopes that many copies of
the genes will be produced. And if the woman seems to have
physical characteristics that correlate to being particularly
good for creating children, so much the better. They make the
survival of his genes more likely. Dona Ana wants to combine her
genes with genes that will have a high probability of success.
Don Juan is virile and vigorous and that means he probably has
good genes and will pass virility and vigorousness to the next
generation. These will in turn create children who are good at
passing on genes. The genes that Dona Ana passes to a child will
have a better survival potential if they are combined with Don
Juan's genes. Both are anxious to combine their genes to create
an offspring. They just don't realize that is the reason.
Dona Ana's father, on the other hand, is less convinced that his
genes that are in his daughter would have the best chance survive
with so uncommitted a mate as Don Juan would be for her. This is
particularly true since Don Juan does not seem to have a lot of
genes in common with him. He would like his daughter with
someone who appears to already have genes like he does. He
probably wants his daughter to wed someone like him. He might,
however, more prefer to have Don Juan mixing genes with his
daughter than to have her mix with someone who looks very
different from him, say someone from another race. On the other
hand, he would not want her mixing genes with someone too closely
related. That male might have very similar genes, but too
similar a set of genes is likely to lead to sickness and fewer
copies of the genes being reproduced. He has a large stake in
what genes mix with Dona Ana's genes. Each's attitudes can be
seen as an implicit strategy for preservation of their own genes.
I guess this sort of analysis is like looking at mechanics but
looking at it close up, on the atomic level. The atoms in the
lever are bound together by forces so when outside forces push
downward at one end.... [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: New Orleans and Truth in Movies (letter of comment by Taras
Wolansky)
In response to Mark's comments on New Orleans in the 01/16/06
issue of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky wrote, "I think the phrase
you were looking for is, "If we don't rebuild New Orleans as it
was, the hurricanes will have won!" [-tw]
Mark responded, "I am sure that could not be the phrase I was
looking for. Any phrase that is not there when I need it, cannot
be relied upon and hence is not the phrase I was looking for.
Mine may not have been as pretty a phrase, but it was right there
when the chips were down." [-mrl]
Taras then agreed, saying, "Strictly speaking, the phrase you're
looking for can't be the phrase that's there when you need it.
If the phrase is there when you need it, obviously you can't be
looking for it." [-tw]
And Mark added, "The phrases one looks for are the shy, hard-to-
get phrases. I am frequently looking for my glasses, but they
are there when I need them. :-)" [-mrl]
Taras also wrote, "Be extremely cautious about granting
evidentiary value to a movie, no matter how convincing it seems.
If a movie tells you something you didn't already know, always
assume it's false. And if it tells you something you did already
know, go back and double-check your information! I'm thinking of
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK in particular, though this applies to
THE CONSTANT and SYRIANA as well. Many reviewers have pointed
out that Murrow is built up at the expense of many other critics
of McCarthy, including some who had spoken out years earlier;
that Murrow's "warts and more warts" profile of McCarthy was
dishonest; that (as Clooney himself has admitted) some or most of
the people McCarthy went after really were what he said they
were." [-tw]
Mark responds, "Actually I would not assume the information is
false. I just assume that the assertion has been made but is
unproved." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: IMMORTAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In 2095 New York the Egyptian God Horus possesses a male
human in order to procreate with a female alien. A "Métal
Hurlant" sort of story is wedded to "Métal Hurlant" sort of
visual images. The visuals may be temporarily very impressive,
but the film really offers very little in story value. When it
is all over I think we are supposed to feel we have seen
something momentous, but I don't think we know exactly what. It
is rare that a film offers so much to see and so little to think
about. We look at a CGI world made of ones and zeros watching a
story made mostly of zeroes. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10
I have to get this down quick. If I wait an hour, I think I will
have forgotten most of this movie I saw. It is slipping away
even as I write. I know I am not going to remember the film for
long. I guess that is ironic for a film called IMMORTAL. But
take my word for it there is nothing very immortal about
IMMORTAL. These days the lines between animated and live action
film are falling away. IMMORTAL is mostly animated, though some
of the main characters are live-action. Everything but these
characters is generated in a computer, much like SKY CAPTAIN AND
THE WORLD OF TOMORROW and SIN CITY. And visually this film may
even be in their league. Though the visual images may be a
little on the pretentious side the imagination of New York City
in 2095 is frequently very beautiful and surreal. Images are
plucked from many different time periods. But that is about all
that is nice. Certainly the plot is not going to sell the film,
if I can remember it.
The film is a French-Italian-British co-production based on a
graphic novel by Serbian cartoonist Enki Bilal. Bilal wrote and
directed this film. It seems like an elaborate chapter of HEAVY
METAL. It has a sort of comic book plot with paper-thin
characters.
A pyramid appears over New York City and materializing out of the
side comes the Egyptian god Horus. Horus has the head of a hawk
and the body of a Greek god (if that is not mixing my metaphors).
He can make himself all hawk, but he cannot make himself all
human. Unfortunately he needs to be all human for his mission,
so he possesses Alcide Nikopol. Now I believe Nikopol is a
continuing Bilal character. Here Nikopol is played by Thomas
Kretschmann, who went on to play Captain Englehorn in the recent
KING KONG. Why does Horus need to be all human? He needs to
procreate with a beautiful alien woman who has blue scales for
hair and who has turned up mysteriously in New York City. This
woman does not know her origins as is being treated by a
psychiatrist or psychologist or something played by Charlotte
Rampling.
The background world is where most of IMMORTAL'S interest comes
from. Images and animation are the point of the film. There is,
in this world, a popular movement protesting eugenics. I am not
sure even that makes sense. People might protest actions done in
the name of eugenics but are unlikely to protest eugenics itself.
It is similar to the fact people might protest actions done in
the name of security but are unlikely to protest security itself.
Other ideas thrown into the mix almost as throwaways seem to come
from a Philip K. Dick sort of paranoia. This is a world where
bathroom fixtures talk, but seem to do so in their own language
so it does you no good, even if you could image a good that
talking bathroom fixtures could render. Details are clever and
funny at times, but it does not make up for the fact that the
story is slow and tedious and there is no reason to care about
the characters. This is all working toward some cosmic event
that is taking place, but what that event is really is a
MacGuffin.
This mostly animated film wants to be a unique and surreal
experience, but Bilal needed to worry more about the story. I
rate IMMORTAL a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10.
(Available on DVD.)
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE MATADOR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A strange pair, a bland salesman (Greg Kinnear) and a
hired assassin (Pierce Brosnan) form a sort of bond (no pun
intended). After meeting the assassin in a Mexican bar, the
salesman feels fascination and repulsion for the stranger who has
come into his life. This film is not so much a thriller as a
comedy of bad manners. Action is kept to a minimum, but the
conversation is what is interesting. The film written and
directed by Richard Shepard is a pleasant minor film that seems
to be getting some major attention. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4)
or 6/10
Clint Eastwood's recent films have been trying to put a bullet in
his Man with No Name. His more recent film like UNFORGIVEN and
MILLION DOLLAR BABY have had strong anti-violence themes,
negative on his the sort of character he had played time and
again. Pierce Brosnan may have been doing something similar,
creating secret agents who are less appealing than his James
Bond. In THE TAILOR OF PANAMA he played Andy Osnard, a sleazy
agent. Now he is playing Julian Noble, a formerly successful
assassin who has lost his edge.
Greg Kinnear plays mild salesman Danny Wright who had recently
had some hard knocks. On a business visit to Mexico City things
are not going well and he decides to retreat to a bar to lick his
wounds. There he has a conversation with an irritating customer,
Julian Noble (Brosnan). Wright opens up to Noble about some
downturns in his life and Noble can respond only with an off-
color joke. It is not a very good start to a relationship.
Things get worse later when the man admits to being a
professional assassin, albeit one who has been faltering of late.
Is this guy playing mind games or is he serious? Wright is at
first fascinated, but this is not a man who he wants to let into
his life. That may not be a choice Wright will allow him. Does
he have more games planned or is he being really telling about
his profession? Why would an assassin tell a stranger about his
work?
Noble is not at all the James Bond type. Where Bond is suave,
Noble is oblivious and uncouth. He is a child in a man's body
and he really likes his deadly work. Wright is bemused,
astounded, and mesmerized by this man both bigger and smaller
than life.
In the second act Noble shows up at Wright's home several months
later and Wright's wife (Hope Davis) finds she has exactly the
same ambivalence to the killer that her husband had.
This is not really a thriller at all but a comedy of dialog and
personality. The whole story could almost have been done as a
stage play on a limited number of sets. The two men are really
opposites. Kinnear is the reserved straight man and Brosnan is
overflowing with too much personality. Shepard examines the
appeal of the amoral life and some of the philosophy of matadors
and other professional killers. One is never quite sure what
point all this is making and ending is a bit of a letdown.
I cannot be as enthusiastic as many of the critics are, but this
is certainly at least an original film. I rate it a high +1 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
This was my week for Latin American mysteries with a literary
subject.
BORGES AND THE ETERNAL ORANGUTANS by Luis Fernando Verissimo
(translated by Margaret Jull Costa, ISBN 0-8112-1592-X) is both a
tribute to Jorge Luis Borges and a murder mystery. Vogelstein
(the narrator) goes to a conference about Edgar Allan Poe, held
in Buenos Aires. Also attending are Joachim Rotkopf (who has a
theory about Poe as an inspiration of European literature),
Xavier Urquiza (who thinks the theory is garbage), Oliver Johnson
(who has another theory about Poe, Lovecraft, and the
Necronomicon), a mysterious Japanese scholar, and Jorge Luis
Borges himself. The solution of the murder mystery uses a lot of
Borgesian techniques, and is so well-constructed that as soon as
I finished the novel I went back and read it a second time. And
everything still holds together. The clues are there, some
muted, some so obvious that I was kicking myself that I did not
get them. And even things that might seem like errors turn out
not to be. I got this through inter-library loan, but I am
definitely going to buy a copy.
ADIOS, HEMINGWAY by Leonardo Padura Fuentes (translated by John
King, ISBN 1-84195-642-2) is a murder mystery set in present-day
Cuba, though the murder took place over forty years ago. The
police have unearthed a body on the former estate (and now
museum) of Ernest Hemingway, and Padura Fuentes interweaves two
threads to tell the story. The main character in the present is
Mario Conde, an ex-cop asked to investigate the murder; the main
character in the past is, not surprisingly, Hemingway. (Padura
Fuentes has written a series of books featuring Conde.) These is
a lot more emphasis on the Cubans around Hemingway than one has
seen before, but there is still enough about Hemingway to make
the reader completely dislike him. I doubt that was Padura
Fuentes's goal; his characters agree that Hemingway was not a
good person. but they seem readier to forgive him than most
readers may be. This is a good choice for those who like
"bibliomysteries", though nowhere near as good as BORGES AND THE
ETERNAL ORANGUTANS.
I always write about the books I finish, so it is probably only
fair that once in a while I mention a book I have started but
could not finish. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner (ISBN 0-
679-73225-X) is one of those. I know it is a classic. I know it
is on high school summer reading lists. But I found it
uninvolving and, to some extent, unreadable. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The bigger the information media,
the less courage and freedom they allow.
Bigness means weakness.
-- Eric Sevareid