THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/17/10 -- Vol. 29, No. 25, Whole Number 1628
Frick: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Frack: 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:
Where Horror Film Began (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Discrepancy (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Coming of the Wee Phone (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
LET ME IN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CASINO JACK (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Arsenophilic Life (letters of comment by Mike Lukacs)
BLACK SWAN, INCEPTION, SOYLENT GREEN, PIRANHA 3D, AVATAR,
Science Fiction on Television, THIS IMMORTAL,
THE DISPOSSESSED, Space Exploration and the Extinction
of the Human Race, Genetic Politics, and Rush Limbaugh
Stories (letter of comment by Taras Wolansky)
THE DIVINE COMEDY (letter of comment by Sam Long)
RED RIDING HOOD AND THE MONSTERS and ROME THEN AND NOW
(letter of comment by Kip Williams)
K. Gordon Murray and Television (letters of comment by Kip
Williams and Keith F. Lynch)
This Week's Reading (CHORALE and THE PUPPET MASTERS)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Where Horror Film Began (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A recent Open Culture Forum has a link to the entire classic
horror film THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1920):
http://tinyurl.com/void-caligari
And this is one that a shocking number of fans have not seen.
Arguably, though, this is not the earliest horror film--"where
horror film began"--but it certainly was influential.
An earlier horror film was probably "Le Manoir Du Diable" made by
George Melies in 1896. But whether that was a sincere attempt to
be frightening is a matter of opinion. You can decide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skPKmMUfP9w "Le Manoir Du Diable"
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Discrepancy (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I am having a crisis of faith. The mathematician Leopold
Kronecker said "God made the integers; all else is the work of
man." Scott Carey ("the Incredible Shrinking Man") said "To God
there is no zero." I say you cannot make the integers unless you
have a zero. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Coming of the Wee Phone (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" there is this whole
sequence that talks about a civilization that managed to get all
its useless gits to board a spaceship and get sent out into space.
Among the people who were on the spaceship of useless people the
story specifically singled out telephone sanitizers. We later
find out that the whole civilization was wiped out by a disease
contracted from an unexpectedly dirty telephone. You are left to
wonder what kinds of diseases could be spread by such an
"unexpectedly dirty telephone." Of course that was written decades
ago. Times have changed and continue to change. In another year
or so it may well be true that civilization actually could be wiped
out by dirty telephones. There is a new iPhone application being
developed in Britain that could bring about just such a nasty
future as the Guardian reports.
Apparently in Britain the Medical Research Council is one of the
sources for funding the development of a new computer chip and
phone application that is intended as a mobile testing lab for
sexually transmitted diseases that should appeal to the young and
technologically savvy.
Now if you are like me, you may be asking yourself how can a
telephone application detect sexual diseases. That is what the
chip is for. The chip takes biological samples and then plugs into
the telephone and the application can test for diseases like
herpes, Chlamydia and gonorrhea. The chip can examine the sample
and based on the chemical properties it can do its own test and put
the results into an electronic format that the iPhone--with
appropriate software loaded--can read. The chip can report on
which, if any, of these diseases is present in the sample.
Well, I have been putting it off, but I guess this article is not
really complete without me explaining how the chip gets the
biological sample. It gets it from, well, bodily fluids.
Apparently you have the subject urinate on the computer chip. I
suppose the chip has a target on it saying here is where to aim.
But then the user may not have sufficient control to prevent the
chip from getting thoroughly doused. I mean my doctor has people
do the same thing with a cup that is much larger than a computer
chip. And then the cup is picked up by someone with rubber gloves
to prevent actually touching the outside of the cup when the target
was inside. Here the target is a little tiny computer chip and the
user takes it, probably without the rubber gloves, and sticks it
into a cell phone.
You have the chip right there so that if your date gets to a
certain stage ... well, just a certain stage ... and the evening is
ready to progress to the next stage, and you want to know if it is
safe to go to that next stage, if you know what I mean, well, you
can tell the other person that you really want to go on to the next
stage with her or him--it could be a him, but first you request
that the other person, well, wee-wee on this computer chip so you
can put it in your telephone and see if everything is okay.
Doesn't using this thing send the message, "I like you. I trust
you. But can I check to see if you are a carrier of any one of
several pernicious sexually-transmitted diseases?" That cannot be
really good technique. But then after the test is done you can
continue with what you were going to do, I guess, if you are still
in the mood and don't feel too silly for having the other person's
wee-wee in your phone.
(I tell you, dates are probably are a lot more fun than they used
to be in my wait-until-marriage day, but they are also a lot more
complicated. The only biological sample I ever asked Evelyn for
was a lock of her hair. And then I didn't have it tested. I was
satisfied if it just matched the rest of her head.)
Anyway what my point was that when you borrow somebody's telephone,
well, just be aware of what else you might be borrowing. Every
time you borrow a telephone from someone you are putting your mouth
up to commune with everyone who ever pissed on his cell phone.
See http://tinyurl.com/iphone-std-app if you don't believe me.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: LET ME IN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Being bullied in school is warping Owen's personality, but
he makes a new friend in an apparently female vampire his own age.
The two people--each troubled but for very different reasons--form
a close bond. Matt Reeves, director of CLOVERFIELD, directs a
remake of Swedish vampire film LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008) for the
newly resurrected Hammer Films. The film leaves the fans very
ambivalent. On one hand it is probably the best vampire story ever
to come from Hammer with the most interesting vampire plot. It is
certainly better than the current run of sadistic horror films.
And many are finding aspects of the remake preferable to those in
the original. But is so similar a remake so soon really a film
that is needed? Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Hammer Film Productions is once again making scary films. Hammer
is the British company that specialized in horror and science
fiction from the mid 1950s to the late 1970s. So Hammer is back or
if you prefer a modern production company has acquired the right to
use the Hammer name. Their second production is an English-
language version of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel LET THE RIGHT ONE
IN. That novel was adapted in 2008 by Tomas Alfredson into a
Swedish language film with the same title as the novel. It is
unclear why a second adaptation was needed, particularly because
the second film seems so strongly influenced by the first. But it
makes sense that Hammer would do this since they won their stripes
making English cinema versions of television shows and American
horror franchises. Frequently their television adaptations came
only a year or two after the originals were shown. Here they have
taken something of a beating from at least some of the fans because
most reviewers, including myself, were very pleased with LET THE
RIGHT ONE IN.
In Los Alamos, New Mexico, during the cold winter of 1983 Owen is
badly bullied at school and his home life is less than satisfying.
He is turning his anger toward his tormentors inward and warping
his own personality. He has dreams of violence, but he is about to
actually meet violence personified. In the courtyard of his
apartment complex he meets Abby whom he thinks is a girl his own
age, but a very strange one. She announces from the beginning that
she cannot be his friend. And she does odd things like walking
barefoot in the snow and never going to school. Against a
background of mysterious murders the two troubled young people form
a close friendship, the first Owen has known. The film follows the
story of Owen's relationship with Abby, Abby's story, and Owen's
relations with the school bullies.
Owen is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, who previously played a
pivotal role in THE ROAD. Here even before he has contact with
vampires, his red lips and a pasty face are a little bit creepy.
Chloe Moretz plays the taciturn Abby, a very different role from
that of Hit-Girl in KICK-ASS. And the fine actor Richard Jenkins
plays Abby's father.
Director Matt Reeves elects a slow and pensive pace for the film,
much like that of the previous film. To create the pervasive chill
that the original film had, it is set in a very cold New Mexico
winter. Most of the shots are shot with a dark green filter to
create a noirish and icy feel. Only in sequences of Owen and Abby
together does the screen have some warmer earth tones. Even set in
New Mexico, the film a feels much as its predecessor did that it
was shot in Sweden. The action scenes are kept dark and cryptic
with occasional flashes of CGI.
While the script is much like that of the predecessor, there is one
touch that is more like old Hammer. In Hammer films there was
frequently a policeman of one sort or another investigating the
latest monster-made outrage. The newer film invents a policeman
(Elias Koteas) to follow up on clues, to bind the story together,
and to help the plot advance.
The first scene of LET ME IN has a sequence unlike anything in the
first film. Perhaps Reeves was saying that this was going to be
his own film, a promise not completely kept. Did we need a remake
of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN this soon? Probably not. But in some ways
it was not such a bad thing getting it anyway. The Swedish title
never really made sense, though it might in the novel. At no point
does there appear to be such a choice and it is not clear who the
"right one" is and the "wrong one" is. Perhaps it is just seeing a
second adaptation of the same story, or perhaps it was eliminating
the struggle with subtitles, but it was somewhat easier to
understand what was happening in more detail in LET ME IN. The new
version played up the horror a little more, but it was still modest
by current standards. The original film builds to a big climactic
scene, and I was looking forward to how Reeves did it. In the new
version it is less subtle and less memorable than in the previous
version. Overall I prefer the Swedish adaptation. While I think
that the remake is a good film all by itself, the original is a
better one. But I have to admit that that is not an easy judgment
to make. I rate LET ME IN a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
Film Credits: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/let_me_in/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: CASINO JACK (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: There is something fascinating in seeing a really
successful criminal mind doing his thing. CASINO JACK is the story
of two years in the life of pirate lobbyist Jack Abramoff--played
by Kevin Spacey. The film covers complex and greedy political
coups that Abramoff instigated, exploiting holes in the political
system and which go beyond personal dishonesty to corrupting the
entire system. It is all the viewer can do to keep up with the
staccato barrage of chicanery Abramoff attempts. Rating: high +1
(-4 to +4) or 6/10
CASINO JACK opens with its best sequence. Jack Abramoff (played by
Kevin Spacey), in full business suit, is brushing his teeth and
giving a ferocious pep talk to his image in the mirror telling the
reflection to go with his greed for his own sake and for the sake
of his family and because he can. People who do not go for the
gold any way they can--the vast majority of the world--are
mediocrities. Abramoff ranks with Harry Lime and Gordon Gecko--a
comparison that the film fan in him would not mind--but he is far
hungrier and has more passion. One more difference from Lime and
Gecko is that Jack Abramoff is, unfortunately, a real person.
Early in the film Abramoff's sleazy reign is coming to an end. The
illegalities of Abramoff's operating procedures have caught up with
him and he is put into jail. The film flashes back two years to
show how Washington's top lobbyist ended up incarcerated. The film
follows Abramoff's convoluted machinations exploiting others' greed
and weaknesses in our political system, the king of lobbyist-
centered K Street. Together with his close partner Michael Scanlon
(Barry Pepper), Abramoff works up bigger and bigger schemes. He
accepts huge sums of money to lobby for an Indian tribe going into
the casino business, steals the money and instead of using it for
their benefit buys himself a fleet of cruise ship casinos and a
pair of restaurants. He makes a disreputable alliance with
Representative Tom DeLay (Spencer Garrett) and pulls him into his
schemes. Abramoff treats his wife like he treats just about
everyone else, manipulating where he can and lying when it suits
him. He pulls into his schemes Adam Kidan (Jon Lovitz) a seedy
mattress dealer with ties to organized crime. The deals come thick
and fast. It is clearer to the viewer than it is to Abramoff that
he will eventually dig himself in too deeply.
Actor Kevin Spacey dominates the entire film with his bigger-than-
life portrait of Abramoff. For such a successful manipulator of
the powerful Abramoff seems too self-indulgent and to lack common
sense. In the middle of a serious meeting he will start quoting
film dialog in strange voices. He dotes on his collection of
photographs of himself with top Republicans. Spacey is more
credible as a thief than as an Orthodox Jew, but the character he
is playing is both. More controlled is his partner Michael
Scanlon, played by Barry Pepper. A welcome presence is the late
Maury Chaykin as a mob hood. George Hickenlooper, who previously
directed the excellent small film THE MAN FROM ELYSIAN FIELDS
(2001), helms the film with a breezy style.
Because the intricacies of Abramoff's plots come quick and fast,
the viewer needs a good memory for names and references. The
patter comes much faster than in a film like THE HOAX. Perhaps a
clearer explanation can be found in the similarly-titled
documentary CASINO JACK AND THE UNITED STATES OF MONEY (2010)
written and directed by Alex Gibney.
The case of Jack Abramoff is a warning of what is happening to
Democracy in this country at the hands of highly paid lobbyists
with far too much power. I rate this CASINO JACK a high +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194417/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino-jack/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Arsenophilic Life (letters of comment by Mike Lukacs)
In response to Mark's article on arsenic-based life in the 12/10/10
issue of the MT VOID, Mike Lukacs writes, "NOT! It seems that
according to several other noted microbiologists the "Arsenophile
Project" had several major flaws and omissions of controls and the
"discovery" was likely more based on wishful thinking than on good
science!" [-mel]
Mark responds, "When I wrote the piece on the arsenic-based life I
had seen no published controversy.
There should be no controversy on the arsenic-loving microbe.
Culture it, grind it up, analyze the pulp and see if it has
phosphorous or arsenic. If it has phosphorous NASA should retract
the announcement. If it has arsenic, it does not matter if their
technique was faulty. It would be an arsenic-based life form even
if the process to discover it used the Tibetan Book of the Dead."
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BLACK SWAN, INCEPTION, SOYLENT GREEN, PIRANHA 3D, AVATAR,
Science Fiction on Television, THIS IMMORTAL, THE DISPOSSESSED,
Space Exploration and the Extinction of the Human Race, Genetic
Politics, and Rush Limbaugh Stories (letter of comment by Taras
Wolansky)
In response to many issues of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky writes:
I've been making mental notes about MT VOID for months, mostly
about movies. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "This is one long letter of comment so there is a
lot to respond to." -mrl]
BLACK SWAN: The first "ballet-noir" film was Ben Hecht's SPECTER
OF THE ROSE (1946), about a ballet star (Ivan Kirov) who is losing
his mind, and may have murdered his former leading lady. Usually
ballet is seen one enormous stages that dwarf the dancers. Hecht
has Kirov perform in a loft, showing for once just how high and how
far and how fast ballet dancers can move. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "As for dark ballet films, THE RED SHOES (1948) was
also dark. I think ballet films tend to be dark. Probably that is
because ballet and noirish drama are both about making heightened
emotions visual." -mrl]
I was pleased Mark downgraded INCEPTION, which I always considered
overrated. Aside from the excellent performance by Cillian Murphy,
none of the characters come to life. Indeed, I was left wondering
why we were supposed to care about what happened to the sleazy
industrial spy played by Leonardo DiCaprio. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "As for being happy about me down-rating INCEPTION,
that means very little. My ratings are one person's opinion
generally on one viewing. I think readers take the ratings too
seriously. What is important is not what I thought of the film,
but what did you think of it. Actually, I think I would have
preferred that you rated the film higher than I do. That would
have meant you had a better experience with the film and deep down
I want people to have good experiences with film. In any case I am
certainly going to see the film again. But I really don't want
people to feel that if I give a high rating to a film that it means
anything more than just that the film pleased me. I will say that
your question of why should we care about Cobb is very much the
reason I was thinking less of the film. In any case I have it on
DVD and will watch it before much longer. For the next few weeks I
am viewing 2010 films to hopefully make intelligent choices when
voting for the On-line Film Critics Society annual awards. But I
will tell you the truth. So far nothing has come close to TEMPLE
GRANDIN. Sadly that was made for HBO and I cannot vote it awards."
-mrl]
I also felt the premise of the film [INCEPTION] was bogus, though
it wasn't until some time later that I put it into words. We can
accept the method of entering a dream as the SF premise of the
story. However, when the same device is used within a dream, it's
not actually being used: it's merely a dream, a figment of
somebody's imagination. In other words, it need not behave like
the "real" device. No laws apply to it. Except one: the film's
idea that time moves faster and faster, the farther down the
"layers" of dreams one goes, is neurologically impossible. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "You say in INCEPTION that "the film's idea that
time moves faster and faster, the farther down the "layers" of
dreams one goes, is neurologically impossible." I thought it was
an artificial touch and probably not accurate to what really
happens in dream states. I have never even experienced a dream
within a dream, much less dreams with more levels. But I do not
see what actually makes it impossible." -mrl]
SOYLENT GREEN: Mark's comment that the film seems more plausible
now than in 1973 has it backwards. Forty years ago, the viewer
could accept the notion that New York City would deteriorate that
far over the next fifty years. But now there's only about ten
years left to go--and the "population bomb" fizzled decades ago.
At an East Coast con a few years ago, I got the chance to ask Harry
Harrison how he got 21st century New York so totally wrong, in his
novel, MAKE ROOM! MAKE ROOM!, the basis for SOYLENT GREEN. I
figured he would say something about how he had too much faith in
population cranks like Paul Ehrlich. But instead, he merely
laughed and said his book was "pure propaganda" (his exact words).
Propaganda, that is, for population control.
It's a truism that SF is not about the future, but the present;
which I've always amended as, the author's view of the present.
But, if Harrison is to be believed, his book did not even reflect
his real views. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "You are saying that for SOYLENT GREEN to
be accurate the world would have to follow its timetable starting
in 1973. You might as well say that Wells was wrong in his
prediction the atomic bomb because he had it coming in the early
part of the 20th century. When I say it is plausible I just meant
that we could be headed toward this sort of future, regardless of
the timetable. I know you are a skeptic of Global Warming. But
this is very plausibly a world that could result from warming.
Climate can change very quickly if something like ocean streams are
diverted. We could get to a world where food production drops off
rapidly and what food was left would become very valuable. The
future is a random walk, but this certainly seems close to future
we might have even if Harrison was writing propaganda. Harrison
was just taking trends and extrapolating to the world that would
result. Why does it surprise you that Harrison said he was writing
propaganda? Wikipedia defines propaganda as "a form of
communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a
community toward some cause or position." Isn't any "if this goes
on" story propaganda? Nobody thinks the less of Ray Bradbury or
FAHRENHEIT 451 because he is trying to be convincing about trends
that bothered him. Did Harrison say that he was not sincere in his
concerns?" -mrl]
A gay friend who likes schlock horror recommended PIRANHA 3D to me,
thinking I'd enjoy the 3D T&A. I didn't, though. I'm a science
fiction fan: I demand a certain level of plausibility. No woman
born ever looked like that (except maybe in zero G); nor do I find
it attractive. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "I'm sorry. You say "A gay friend who likes
schlock horror recommended PIRANHA 3D." It is hard to imagine a
friend would actually recommend that particular film to you and
still be a friend. I am not sure which unclothed woman you are
referring to. There were at least dozens if not hundreds if memory
serves. And I agree the 3D was terrible. It looked like something
from a Viewmaster." -mrl]
The synthetic 3D also produced some bizarre landscapes, with 3D
parallax on distant mountains, as if our eyes were 20 feet apart.
By contrast, AVATAR played fair: when the hero and his girlfriend
are flying at a distance, the image is 2D, as I discovered when I
experimented with the 3D glasses while watching the film.
Of course, that I was fooling around with my 3D glasses while
watching AVATAR doesn't say anything very good about the film!
Recently a relative asked me to take her to see it, in the
(slightly) extended version.
I found that for about two-thirds of the way the film held up to a
second viewing pretty well. But by the last third the pretty
landscapes have worn out their welcome. It was hard to sit through
the sheer imbecility of the conclusion: cavalry charges in the
jungle! Why there is a ground attack at all is never explained--
and what happened to all the missiles the mercenaries had before,
that took down the *big* tree so easily?
I tried to identify the "additional scenes", and I did catch at
least one: the peculiar scene in which our hero kills a large
herbivore. Peculiar because in an earlier scene much fuss
(borrowed from the 1992 LAST OF THE MOHICANS) was made over the
self-defense killing of some wolf-like predators, while here no
apologies to the animal spirits appear to be necessary.
Some dialog seemed to be missing from this version of the film.
Then I realized I was remembering dialog I had made up myself while
watching the film the first time: little wisecracks and character
bits that might have enlivened the clunk, clunk, clunk of James
Cameron's script but didn't. [-tw]
[Mark responds, "You know, Taras, we have our political
disagreements from time to time, but I think we both hated the
politically correct last chapter of AVATAR. Cameron was not taking
any chances that we would pick the wrong side to sympathize with.
It was not very subtle." -mrl]
Sci-Fi TV: Amanda Tapping of STARGATE SG-1 and SANCTUARY is an
English-born Canadian actress, not an American.
What makes STARGATE: UNIVERSE a favorite of mine is that, for the
most part, the story lines do not rely on "villains". Instead,
people realistically disagree about the best course to follow, and
sometimes distrust each other (especially civilians and military).
[-tw]
Book Reviews [THIS IMMORTAL]: "It's almost as if [Roger] Zelazny
was a much more serious writer before he penned the Amber books."
To which we old-timers reply, "Well, duh!" [-tw]
THE DISPOSSESSED: I've always suspected that it seemed intuitively
right to Ursula LeGuin that the communist society of Anarres should
be poor, but she didn't know why. [-tw]
[Space Exploration and the Extinction of the Human Race:] "Mankind
may be dooming mankind, but the universe as a whole [as seen by
science] is not." Cosmology predicts a universe that will
eventually cease to support life of any kind, even if we avoid
destroying ourselves. [-tw]
Genetic Politics: If political orientation is inborn, how do we
account for changes in political orientation, like Robert Heinlein
or Ronald Reagan? Usually from Left to Right; remember the famous
quote: "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but
if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head." [-tw]
[Mark responds, "Political inclination is not inborn, I suggest
could be an influence. As for genetic politics, I probably get
lots of urges from my genes that I learn to ignore and/or override.
We all do, I think. Xenophobia could very well be a genetic urge.
Genetic urges are possibly an influence, but not predestination."
-mrl]
Of course, Reagan often insisted his political views remained the
same, while the political spectrum moved left--and, indeed, old-
fashioned patriotic leftists eventually ended up on the Right, as
"neo-conservatives".
P.S.: Strange Rush Limbaugh Stories: He really did use the example
of a "Hindu shrine" at the Pearl Harbor Memorial, but it should
have been obvious--it was to me--he meant to say "Shinto". He has
since admitted that, according to the left-wing site, Media
Matters.
At NASFic a member of the concom (whose name I tactfully omit) told
me an even stranger Limbaugh story--and he claimed to have seen
this himself! When Limbaugh was guest-hosting the "Tonight Show"
in the early Nineties, he was heckled by the audience. The
audience was cleared, and for the rest of the week Limbaugh hosted
the "Tonight Show" sans audience.
I expressed grave doubts about NBC letting anyone get away with
something like that. Also, the story sounded like a very garbled
version of something I knew had actually occurred. That evening, I
did some poking around the Net. When next I ran into this
individual, I told him Rush Limbaugh has *never* hosted the
"Tonight Show"; indeed, he's been a guest only once or twice.
What this individual had misremembered was a PBS "Frontline"
documentary about Limbaugh, which included footage from an unsold
talk show pilot. The taping was disrupted by a young man in the
audience, his face twisted with hate (as I recall). Limbaugh
attempted to talk to him, one on one, but in the end the producers
opted to clear the audience. [-tw]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE DIVINE COMEDY (letter of comment by Sam Long)
In response to Evelyn's comments on Dante's "Inferno" in the
12/10/10 issue of the MT VOID, Sam Long writes, "Have you read
Dorothy L. Sayers's translation of the Divine Comedy? It's worth a
look, and she provides copious notes. Sayers died before she
finished "Paradise"; it was completed by her friend and associate
Barbara Reynolds, I believe. Check it out." [-sl]
Evelyn replies, "No, I haven't. I'm assuming the Penguin editions
of this will have all the notes?" [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: RED RIDING HOOD AND THE MONSTERS and ROME THEN AND NOW
(letter of comment by Kip Williams)
In response to Mark's comments on RED RIDING HOOD AND THE MONSTERS
in the 12/10/10 issue of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:
By a coincidence, I was just watching part of the movie you
referred to as RED RIDING HOOD AND THE MONSTERS, taken off of
YouTube. It seems to be a sequel to the original LITTLE RED RIDING
HOOD that I saw clips of on "Reel Wild Cinema" and possibly of a
Tom Thumb movie whose existence I can only deduce from clues in the
present video. The girl's dubbed voice seems downright operatic,
but it goes with her strangely adult-like face.
By another coincidence, I had pulled out my book of overlays of
ancient Rome a night or two ago. I also have one of Pompeii, and
one of the Holy Land in which there are no unpainted spots anywhere
in the transparencies whatever. I may have one on miscellaneous
vanished glories as well. The Rome volume had an ancestor that I
used to look at from time to time, a softcover book that was almost
a pamphlet, called "Roma Antiqua", which had black and white photos
with overlays. I remember pulling the overlays away and putting
them back, chanting "This is what it used to look like, this is
what it looks like now." I had a tough time comprehending some
details like much newer doors that had been built on ancient walls.
I'd love to find a copy of that book. Mom's is doubtless long gone
now. [-kw]
==================================================================
TOPIC: K. Gordon Murray and Television (letters of comment by Kip
Williams and Keith F. Lynch)
In response to Mark's comments on "The Wonder World of K. Gordon
Murray" in the 12/10/10 issue of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:
Well, hell. I set the DVR for "The Wonder World of K. Gordon
Murray" and it recorded SANTA CLAUS, which I already have and
didn't need again. Most annoying. One sets the DVR by going right
to the show and clicking on the name, and it shows you the name,
and that's supposed to be that. Of course, no machine can keep up
with the unstable programming wonder that is the Turner
organization. I tried to set for the Monkees' HEAD one time, and
gave myself a half hour of slack at both ends, and still only got
45 minutes of the movie.
At times like this, I miss SPN, a very dull cable service that
showed ancient movies, punctuated by the same ads over and over--
ads for cheap late-night TV products, like K-Tel and Ronco only
less exciting. Sometimes they showed Wheeler and Woolsey movies,
which was my main interest in their offerings.
The thing I miss, though, is that their schedule was sacred to
them. If they said they were showing something from 11:17 to 1:03,
I could set my timer for 11:16 to 1:04 and I'd have the whole movie
plus a minute of extra ads at each end.
Alas, they're past tense now. One day the ads metastasized and took
over. I looked at the tape of a movie I'd just recorded, and it was
nothing but pitchmen shilling worthless garbage of the same sort
that had been in all the ads. A number was shown on screen.
Operators stood by.
It was the birth of the Home Shopping Network, aka the Revolving
Jewelry Channel. Just like watching Televangelists, except instead
of miracles, they were shilling for shoddy knockoff merchandise.
[-kw]
Evelyn forwards this comment from someone on a B-movie list she and
Mark are on:
"'The Wonderful World of K. Gordon Murray' was pulled from TCM at
the request of the documentary's producer. Apparently, there is a
rights issue with some of the clips used. This has happened in the
past whenever anyone tries to officially release these movies or
even use clips. The producer says the full version (TCM was going
to show a shorter version) will be released in the spring of 2011
and that TCM has been offered the opportunity to show it at that
time. Of course, all of this depends on whether the rights issues
can be resolved."
Keith F. Lynch responds:
People will get the worst TV they're still willing to watch. Ten
minutes of ads per hour? Let's try cranking it up to fifteen. To
twenty. People are still watching? Let's try thirty. Let's fire
the writers and have viewers send in videos of their dog getting
its nose stuck in a milk bottle instead. Let's change our schedule
without notice; if we delay the show by 45 minutes, the loyal
viewers will watch more commercials as they sit patiently waiting
for the show to start. People are willing to pay cable companies
for worse shows with more commercials than they used to watch for
free? Great! Let's see if we can raise the price and lower the
cable's reliability. Let's see if we can advertise one price for
cable service but charge a much higher one thanks to "taxes and
fees." Let's see if we can charge extra for "pay-per-view."
What, some people are still watching free over-the-air TV? Can't
have that. Let's lobby Congress to "improve" free over-the-air TV
by making it impossible to pick up any but the strongest and
clearest signals. No more graceful degradation -- if reception
isn't absolutely perfect you get nothing but frozen silent blocks
or more likely nothing at all.
As I've mentioned, I used the digital TV transition as an excuse to
get rid of my TV set. I almost never watched it anyway.
["A number was shown on screen. Operators stood by."] They're too
cheap to buy them chairs. :-)
["It was the birth of the Home Shopping Network, aka the Revolving
Jewelry Channel."] This is incomprehensible to me. Why would
anyone buy jewelry, of all things, sight unseen? And no, even the
best TV image doesn't suffice to distinguish between the Hope
Diamond and a random piece of colored plastic found in the trash.
[-kfl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
CHORALE by Barry N. Malzberg (ISBN 0-385-13138-0) is set in a
future in which time travel of a sort has been invented. I say "of
a sort" because while people go back in time, they go back to
occupy the place of famous people, or perhaps just take over their
bodies temporarily--the exact details are a bit fuzzy. So, for
example, our first-person narrator goes back to be Beethoven and
make sure that all nine of his symphonies are written as recorded,
etc. The reason for all this is that the government has been
convinced by a scientist that it must do everything it can to keep
the past stable, or the present will fall apart. In this regard it
is a bit like Poul Anderson's "Time Patrol", except that there is
no evidence that anything would happen if they did nothing. As
Malzberg writes (in 1978): "The Department, in short, proved its
success only by the *failure* of catastrophe; it justified its
existence by making nothing happen at all, and even in the most
mindless of bureaucracies this is not a position which can be held
indefinitely." [page 33]
This is particularly timely, because I had just been mentioning THE
PUPPET MASTERS by Robert A. Heinlein (ISBN 978-1-439-13376-7) in
connection with recent events:
"'Schedule Bare Back' was to be the first phase of 'Operation
Parasite.' The idea was that everybody--*everybody*--was to peel
to the waist and stay peeled, until all titans were spotted and
killed. Oh, women could have halter strings across their backs; a
parasite could not hide under a bra string." [Chapter XIII]
"We were complying with Schedule Bare Back; we had not heard of
'Schedule Sun Tan.' Two cops stopped us as we got out. 'Stand
Still!' one of them ordered. 'Don't make any sudden moves. ...
Now ... off with those pants, buddy.' I did not move quickly
enough. He barked, 'Make it snappy! Two have been shot trying to
escape already today; you may be the third.'" [Chapter XXIII]
As W. H. Auden might have said, about the Department of Homeland
Security they were never wrong, The Old Masters. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
An apology for the Devil: it must be remembered
that we have heard one side of the case. God
has written all the books.
-- Samuel Butler