THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/19/10 -- Vol. 28, No. 34, Whole Number 1585
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:
Beautiful Pulp Art (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
News of the Week (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Subversive Activities Registration Act (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
THE WOLFMAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Thrillers (letter of comment by Tim Bateman)
This Week's Reading (TRUE NAMES, DUST BOWL DIARY, HIDING THE
ELEPHANT, and AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Beautiful Pulp Art (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The IO9 site has a display of really nice pulp art magazine
covers. Artists include Frank R. Paul and a personal favorite of
mine, Virgil Finley. To tour the collection click on the icon at
the upper right that says "next >>." This site is recommended.
http://tinyurl.com/pulp-art-io
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: News of the Week (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I guess one of the big news stories of the week was about a Super
Bowl advertisement about someone who could have been aborted but
instead grew up to be in a profession where he runs into people
trying to stop them and if possible injure them, all to get a piece
of the skin of a dead animal between two wooden poles. Because he
lived he is an inspiration to our nation's youth to work and train
to run into people trying to stop them and possibly injure them and
to get a piece of the skin of a dead animal between two wooden
poles. Thank goodness he lived. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Subversive Activities Registration Act (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
South Carolina has gotten a reputation of late for being one of the
more humorous and controversial states in the Union. This was the
state that Joe Wilson was from. He was the Representative from
California who shouted at the President while the President was
making a speech to Congress. If you remember, his exact words
were, "You lie!" This is not so terribly bad. Hostilities have
gotten pretty bad in the House of Representatives and there are a
lot of Republicans who are saying that the President lies. But it
is something of a breach of decorum to interrupt a Presidential
address. Congress is not supposed to be that entertaining. It is
British Parliament and "The Daily Show" that are supposed to be the
places for humorous politics. So far the two major United States
political parties are at least according the others that much
respect if no more than that. Wilson did get a formal reproach
from the House and he apologized.
The Wilson incident did not look good. Still, it looked
considerably better than the Governor of South Carolina claiming
that he was out hiking the Appalachian Trail and could not be
reached. In fact he could be reached, but not on the Appalachian
Trail. A reporter spotted him as he was getting off a plane from
Argentina. He had been way south of the trail in Argentina with
one María Belén Chapur and they had not been hiking.
Well, once again things are strange in South Carolina. It is all
over something called the "Subversive Activities Registration Act."
The idea is that if you live in South Carolina and intend to
control or overthrow the government, you have to declare your
intentions. You have to pay a five-dollar filing fee and answer
the question, "Do you or your organization directly or indirectly
advocate, advise, teach or practice the duty or necessity of
controlling, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United
States, the state of South Carolina or any political division
thereof?" and "If yes, please outline the fundamental beliefs. If
applicable, attach a copy of the bylaws or minutes of meetings from
the last year." The form goes on to ask the filer to name all
members of their organization located in South Carolina. Oh, and
the filing fee is nice and affordable. It is only $5. That is
good because the salary for being a terrorist is not very much.
Sometimes terrorist organizations provide big financial rewards for
members of the terrorist's family who survive the terrorist, but
they clearly wanted to keep the cost of registering down to about
the price of a good hamburger.
Now the whole country is laughing at the absurdity of this law.
What seditionist or terrorists would be so stupid to register their
entire South Carolina organization? Who, after all, will pay five
dollars to announce he/she is a terrorist? Well, I personally like
to try to look at issues from a different perspective. I want to
defend the South Carolina approach.
It seems like seditious organizations are a bad thing and they
should be eliminated and not just registered. Actually not all of
the Founding Fathers felt that way. Thomas Jefferson said, "As
revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure
the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and
indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the
people." This may be a minority opinion and may have even been one
in 1803 when Jefferson said it. But Jefferson had an open mind.
Now, do I expect Al Qaeda representatives to be filling out these
forms to announce their intentions and give away their whole
organization? No, of course not. But I think that the beauty of
this plan is that it works whether the miscreants use it or not.
How is that again? Well, you may remember that at one time Al
Capone built an empire on bootlegging, prostitution, murder, and
inspiring certain episodes of "The Untouchables". You know how
much of that he was convicted of? Not very much. Not enough to
for him to be seriously inconvenienced. How was he put behind
bars? He obviously had a huge income and he was not paying income
taxes on it. Income tax evasion was not a big piece of his way of
doing business, but it was enough to put him in Federal prison.
Now suppose that the great state of South Carolina says that the
penalty for failing to file that you advocate overthrowing the
government is life imprisonment. Registered seditionists are at
least easier to watch, because they are registered. Any you find
that are unregistered, you only have to show that they advocated
the overthrowing of the government but committed the awful crime of
failing to register that intention.
I wonder if that will stand up in the Supreme Court. Probably not.
At least not with the current wording. I mean, lots of people
belong to an organization directly or indirectly advocating
advising the teaching or practice the duty or necessity of
controlling the government of the United States. They are called
Republicans. Still, what the heck, let's give it a try. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE WOLFMAN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Joe Johnston directs an expansion and sophistication of
the 1941 THE WOLF MAN. In story and in style this is a cold, dark
film. The script has some very nice touches but goes over the top
in the final act. In many ways it is much more a work of art than
the original film, but the original will be remembered when this
film is forgotten. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Lawrence Talbot (played by Benicio Del Toro) left palatial Talbot
Manor when his mother died and he was only six. He went to the
United States and eventually became a famous actor. Playing in
London in 1891, he gets a letter from his brother's fiancé Gwen
(Emily Blunt) that his brother has disappeared. He returns to the
brooding now-cobweb-laden manor house of his early youth, ruled
over by his father, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins). It is not clear if
the manor or Sir John is deteriorating faster. He finds his
brother is dead, apparently by either a very powerful animal
or--don't laugh, the locals certainly don't--a werewolf. He soon
discovers that there is something very powerful, very fast, and
very mean in the forest; it is indeed a werewolf, and it bites
Lawrence. Anyone who knows the original film knows somewhat where
this story is going. The screenplay is by Andrew Kevin Walker and
David Self re-telling a story suggested by the 1941 script by
prolific Curt Siodmak. [I am not kidding about prolific. Horror
fans should look at Siodmak's filmography.]
But knowing the original film does not prepare the viewer for the
dark, morbid atmosphere of director Joe Johnston's sumptuous
production. Nothing in the film is ever in brighter than half-
light. Where the low B-film budget of the first film did not allow
for very much visual style, Johnston goes overboard on the
production design. Scenes showing a normal-speed foreground
against a time-lapse sky border on the pretentious. The same moon
is gibbous and full in the same night. Gore and organs aplenty
fall from people slashed open by werewolves and only the dark
photography restrains their impact. Johnson was well aware that
the usual man in hairy makeup would not cut it. Rick Baker does
the werewolf effects including transformation so it is not
surprising that transformation scenes would stress stretchiness of
limbs, much like Baker's effects in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.
This is a werewolf who can run on two legs but for speed drops on
all fours, an interesting concept. And these werewolves are fast
and powerful, thus providing a credible threat. Even if they were
not supernatural they would be hard to kill.
The original THE WOLF MAN had a weak third act. This version of
the story bends over in the other direction having a really
melodramatic ending featuring two super-werewolves fighting in a
burning house. That is just the sort of film this is. It is
peculiar coming from Johnston who directed excellent films like THE
ROCKETEER and OCTOBER SKY. He may be excessive here, but he is a
good enough director to keep his tongue out of his cheek. This is
material that would be easily destroyed by turning it into a joke.
Speaking of the supernatural and werewolf lore, there runs through
the film a believable confusion as to how to kill a werewolf. Some
try silver bullets, and they by themselves are not enough. For one
werewolf the film borrows folklore from HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The
other werewolf in killed in a way not generally endorsed in
werewolf films, and that seems to be cheating just a bit.
Casting for this film sounded odd from the beginning. Having
Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot is a little strange for people
used to seeing Lon Chaney, Jr., in the role. But then to cast
Anthony Hopkins as his father is bizarre. They neither look nor
sound alike. Geraldine Chaplin as Maleva the Gypsy woman is a
peculiar choice. Hugo Weaving as a police inspector is a familiar
face from the "Matrix" movies and the rest of him is familiar from
the title role of V FOR VENDETTA.
Universal Studios never showed the proper respect for their
tradition of monster films. To give so many tie-in films to
Stephen Sommers demonstrates that. Sommers has never shown any
real appreciation for the original material. Joe Johnston was a
better choice for THE WOLFMAN. He is much closer to the mark. I
rate THE WOLFMAN a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0780653/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1194949-wolfman/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Thrillers (letter of comment by Tim Bateman)
In response to Mark's comments on thrillers in the 02/12/10 issue
of the MT VOID, Tim Bateman writes:
[Mark says:] "Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. This is based
on the play by Frederick Knott. If I had to hold up a murder story
as being the paragon of the genre, this has to be the film I would
choose. Why do I hold this one film is so much esteem? I guess
first it is not a mystery at all. It is really an exercise in
logic." [-mrl]
I was going to carp that a mystery is an exercise in logic, but
then realised that a mystery is one type of exercise in logic.
However, I did have one thought before that on the 'not a mystery
at all' comment, which is that this would be why Hitchcock filmed
this play. Hitch never made a whodunnit; the one whodunnit he
adapted he amended the plot so that we learn the truth about Judy
halfway through the film (VERTIGO). He did not want people wasting
their time while watching one of his films trying to work out which
character committed a crime; he wanted the audience to care about
the characters. I suspect that Hitchcock's main interest in DIAL M
FOR MURDER was convincing the audience that they wanted Wendice to
get away with his crime while simultaneously wanting his wife to be
cleared and the detective to work out what had happened. [-tb]
Mark responds:
I do not remember consciously wanting Tony Wendice to get away with
his plan. But you can still admire the intricacy of his plan how
robust it remains in spite of setbacks. You can admire an enemy
that you hope will still lose. I am reminded of the following
exchange from the film OUTBREAK. It is between two scientists
looking at a very deadly virus.
Casey Schuler: I hate this bug.
Colonel Sam Daniels: Oh, come on, Casey. You have to admire its
simplicity. It's one billionth our size and it's beating us.
Casey Schuler: So, what do you want to do, take it to dinner?
Colonel Sam Daniels: No.
Casey Schuler: What, then?
Colonel Sam Daniels: Kill it.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
TRUE NAMES by Vernor Vinge (ISBN-13 978-0-312-862077) seemed like a
great novella when it came out in 1981 (although it did not win the
Hugo, losing to Poul Anderson's "The Saturn Game"), but it has not
aged well. That is to say, it is clearly a seminal work, but it is
not a work that today's readers can read and go, "Wow! What a
great story! What great ideas!" Today, almost thirty years later,
the ideas either are commonplace or have been proved misguided. Of
course, this is probably true of most ground-breaking works.
DUST BOWL DIARY by Anne Marie Low (ISBN-10 0-8032-2854-3) is the
diary of the author from being a sophomore in high school in 1928
to becoming a teacher and then up through 1937, all during the
Depression and Dust Bowl in North Dakota. Low has filled in some
of the gaps and made some general comments as well, so its half
diary and half autobiography.
Low is fairly critical of the Roosevelt administration and most of
its programs (such as the CCC). Yet ironically, she writes of a
handyman on the farm, "Poor old Joe, still trying but increasingly
useless, helped with the barnyard chores. He was not worth what he
cost us in board, clothing, and tobacco money. Now a man like him
would have social security [sic] or some pension system. Joe had
nothing." She does not mention that Social Security was one of
Roosevelt's programs. (Then again, many of those people protesting
"socialism" in government are still perfectly happy to cash their
Social Security checks and have Medicare pay their medical bills.)
HIDING THE ELEPHANT: HOW MAGICIANS INVENTED THE IMPOSSIBLE AND
LEARNED TO DISAPPEAR by Jim Steinmeyer (ISBN-13 978-0-7967-1226-7)
is the story of the development of magic as a form of
entertainment, from the middle of the 19th century to the present
(Steinmeyer designs illusions for magicians such as David
Copperfield). He explains how many of the most famous tricks were
done, in particular the ones involving vanishings. (Most, not
surprisingly, used mirrors.) He does *not* explain how Robert
Thurston did the Marvelous Orange Tree; this was one of the tricks
shown in the film THE ILLUSIONIST, and one of the ones that many
thought could not have been done in the time of the film. But
apparently Thurston managed one almost identical. Steinmeyer's
history is not rigorous, or at any rate not what is expected. He
follows the history of the tricks and techniques rather than the
biographies of the magicians. I would have liked a few more
diagrams, and a few more explanations, but what is there is
welcome.
I assume that everyone knows the "gimmick" in AROUND THE WORLD IN
EIGHTY DAYS by Jules Verne (ISBN-13 978-0-670-86793-6) is. If not,
you may want to skip this comment. Okay, here goes. The whole
trick of how Phileas Fogg wins his wager turns on the fact that he
gains a day crossing the International Date Line, but does not
realize it until it is almost too late. The problem with this is
that it assumes that at no point during the trip *after* crossing
the International Date Line did Fogg ever have occasion to see a
newspaper or hear the date (or day of the week). Well, maybe it is
possible that with all the rapid changing of trains, which seemed
to run daily, it is conceivable that they all might be oblivious to
the day, but they were rushing to get to New York, where the
"China" was sailing for Liverpool on November 11. And they got
there on what they also thought was 11:15PM November 11, only to
discover the "China" had sailed forty-five minutes earlier. Except
of course, it is really November 10, and there is no way the ship
would have sailed a day early!
There are other inconsistencies. For example, asked what time it
is, Passepartout says it is twenty-two minutes past eleven. Fogg
says, "You are four minutes too slow. No matter; it's enough to
mention the error. Now from this moment, twenty-nine
minutes after eleven, a.m., this Wednesday, October 2nd, ..."
There is no way that it can take three minutes to say, No matter;
it's enough to mention the error. Now from this moment...."
It is also not clear why, if the "Carnatic" sails on November 14,
and "would cross the ocean in twenty-one days," Fogg was "justified
in hoping that he would reach San Francisco by the 2nd December."
It would seem that the earliest he could expect would be December
5. (In fact, he does make it by December 2, somehow.)
[Many other inconsistencies and errors are footnoted in
http://www.ibiblio.org/julesverne/books/awed%20revd%20edn.pdf.]
[-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
There was more imagination in the head
of Archimedes than in that of Homer.
-- Voltaire