THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
03/11/11 -- Vol. 29, No. 37, Whole Number 1640
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:
Longstanding Names (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Non-Repeatability of Scientific Studies (comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The Musical Instrument Museum, Phoenix, Arizona (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Comments on Liberals, Conservatives, and the Constitution
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
RANGO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
BARNEY'S VERSION (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE DESERT OF FORBIDDEN ART (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
INCEPTION (letter of comment by Art Stadlin)
THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER and TRUE GRIT (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
The Oscars, Puzzles, INCEPTION, and THE TURN OF THE SCREW
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
Puzzles (letter of comment by Tom Russell)
Dinosaurs and Birds (letter of comment by Charles Harris)
This Week's Reading (BLACKOUT and ALL CLEAR)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Longstanding Names (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
It is always strange to hear a modern name that comes from a
Biblical or historical source. You look at the names of the
apostles and see Thomas. There were people named Thomas back then.
It just seems strange. It is like reading about this council where
the Emperor Octavian met with Floyd. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Non-Repeatability of Scientific Studies (comments by
Evelyn C. Leeper)
"The Truth Wears Off" by Jonah Lehrer is subtitled, "Many results
that are rigorously proved and accepted start shrinking in later
studies." It goes on to say, for example, that there were rigorous
studies showing that drug A was effective in treating a disease.
But similar studies five years later show a third less efficiency
than was originally thought, and studies ten years later show
another one-third drop-off.
My question is, what if the results of this study also show a drop-
off in time? Shouldn't we expect that if five years in the future
we look at studies that are showing results now, a third fewer will
show a drop-off than the study shows now?
The article is available at http://tinyurl.com/void-studies).
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Musical Instrument Museum, Phoenix, Arizona (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
On our trip to Italy recently we were in an art museum and saw an
exhibit of renaissance musical instruments. I do not remember
exactly what instruments there were there. There were probably
spinets and string instruments. As I remember we got about halfway
into the small exhibit and then left for lack of real instruments.
Our next trip was to Scottsdale, Arizona, to visit family. My
mother suggested that there was a new museum in the area, the MIM.
It was the "Musical Instrument Museum". Perhaps we would like to
see that. Remembering the bland little room in the Italian museum
I had misgivings. And this title seemed rather bland itself. But
it was something to do. So that was how I ended up going Phoenix's
Musical Instrument Museum. And it would be easy to spend a whole
day at this marvelous museum.
To start with was the name. Somehow the Museum of the Musical
Instrument might have been more dignified, but there are already
two museums called The Museum of the Moving Image. Both should
probably not be called MMI. It could more properly be called The
Museum of International Music.
[There is also a virtual museum called the Museum of Musical
Instruments. -ecl]
The idea for a museum of music from all over the world could be
several decades old, but the question would be how to implement it.
One would have to have people listening to one country's music in
one location and seven feet away people would have to be listening
to music from another country. It sounds like the overall effect
would be pandemonium. There were twenty different samples of music
mixing together on the floor.
Obviously what is needed is for each person to have earphones.
When you are near the Poland section you hear Polish music. There
is a transmitter in the Poland section transmitting Polish music.
There is a transmitter in the Hungary section transmitting
Hungarian music. When you are near the Hungary section you hear
Hungarian music. Each person has a processor that decides which
transmitter is nearest. As the visitor moves from one section to
the next the Polish music does a fade-out. There is a moment of
silence then the Hungarian music fades in. It sounds as if it is
being done by a sound editor. Each visitor hears a perfectly
edited succession of music. The processors small enough for a
visitor to wear around his neck has not been available twenty years
ago.
So the visitor sees/hears exhibits of the music of perhaps 175
countries and meanwhile hears a music program perfectly edited for
just that visitor--synchronized to just what countries he is
looking at.
So much of the time spent at the MIM is in listening to music.
After a while one concentrates on hearing the music more than on
seeing the instrument on display and reading the labeling and the
signs. There are, however musical instruments collected from every
country represented which is near to every country that there is.
The museum has over 10,000 musical instruments. Most are on
display. This whole project is the brainchild of Robert Urlich, a
one time CEO of Target Corporation. The museum is privately funded
which a big chunk of the funds coming from the Target Corporation.
You do see some red and white bull's-eyes around, the trademark of
Target Stores. Ulrich collected African art including musical
instruments. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Comments on Liberals, Conservatives, and the Constitution
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I recently read an opinion piece on Liberals, Conservatives, and
the Constitution, and I have a few comments:
"... those on the Left are far more likely than Conservatives to
invest their faith in a person, rather than in a set of
principles."
[So I might ask why is such a high proportion of the high-profile
demagogues on the Right? Where are the Left's Rush Limbaughs and
Glenn Becks? The correspondent is comparing the cream of his side
with the dregs of the other side. One could easily make the
reverse claim with every bit as much justification. -mrl]
Of course there is a group on the Left that believes in investing
their faith in a set of principles rather than a person and indeed
carries this principle to its logical conclusion. For this, they
are excoriated by the Right, including being told that because they
put their faith in a set of principles they cannot be good
Americans.
They are atheists.
If the Right is so keen on using a set of principles instead of
individuals, they should be pleased with a group that attempts to
construct a set of principles by which to live--but they're not.
(These principles might include, for example, Immanuel Kant's
"categorical imperative", John Stuart Mill's and Jeremy Bentham's
utilitarianism ["greatest good for the greatest number"], etc.)
Also....
"Conservatives tend to think of the Declaration, the Constitution,
and the Federalist Papers as the foundation of their core ideas
about the role government should play in human interactions."
My experience is that Conservatives are very fond of quoting the
Second Amendment to the Constitution (overlooking the part about "a
well regulated Militia"), and the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."). But they seem to want to ignore or minimize certain
other sections:
Article IV, Sections 1 and 2: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given
in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings
of every other State. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States." Where were these sections when the Conservatives in
Congress were so busy pushing the "Defense of Marriage Act", which
says that states are free to ignore other states' marriages? (And
for that matter, it would appear that the 10th Amendment would
prohibit the Federal government from deciding what constitutes a
marriage, since that is not delegated to it in the Constitution.)
Also the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, which seem to have
taken a particular beating in the "War on Terror".
And what about all those Conservatives in Western states who are
trying to ignore the 14th Amendment--but not by the method
prescribed in the Constitution for amending it, because that's too
complicated. No, they're just going to pass a law refusing to give
a birth certificate to anyone born in that state whom they deem
unworthy of one.
The Conservatives' response to these observations (particularly the
last) seems to be to invoke the "original intent" of the Founding
Fathers or authors of the amendments. But isn't this just placing
the individuals above the principles expressed in the documents?
[The full piece can be found at
http://www.westernfreepress.com/metablog_single.php?pb7.)
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The agents of Fate battle the force of Chance in this odd
romantic fantasy loosely based on a Philip K. Dick story. Angels
or aliens have agents on Earth to make sure that what Fate says
will happen really does. Two people who are fated not to meet do
meet by chance and fall in love. If they want to stay together
they must defeat the little men in suits and fedoras who are the
agents of fate. This is a film that nicely balances romance and
philosophy. Spoiler warning: I tell a little more of the premise
of the film and the agents than the viewer would see in the first
ten minutes. If anything it should make the film more interesting
for the viewer to know what is going on. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or
7/10
"In the mists before THE BEGINNING, Fate and Chance cast lots to
decide whose the Game should be; and he that won strode through the
mists to MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI and said: 'Now make gods for Me, for I
have won the cast and the Game is to be Mine.' Who it was that won
the cast, and whether it was Fate or whether Chance that went
through the mists before THE BEGINNING to MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI--none
knoweth."
-- Lord Dunsany (from "The Gods of Pagana")
Dunsany wrote here about the conflict of Fate and Chance. THE
ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is really about that conflict in a modern-day
setting. Free-will, chance, and fate are fairly abstract
philosophical concepts and it is hard to imagine how a film could
be built around these concepts. However, Philip K. Dick's short
story "The Adjustment Team" inspired George Nolfi to write a
screenplay that he then produced and directed. Note I said that
the Dick story "inspired" the film THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, not that
the film was based on it. The story was quite different, though it
did have some of the same ideas. For example, Nolfi's characters
are supposed to be people who are real world-beaters. One may
become the President of the United States and another, one of the
great artists of our time. Dick had a little more trust that his
reader would find the story of sufficient import even if his
characters were just commonplace middle-class types.
David Norris (played by Matt Damon) is a rising meteor in politics
running for the U.S. Senate seat for New York when his opponents
find a compromising photograph of him from his college days. The
picture is released just hours before the election just in time to
shock the voters into voting for his opponent. Half-heartedly he
drops into a men's room to practice his concession speech only to
find one Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) hiding there from the
building's security guards after crashing a wedding. The two like
each other immediately and the meeting inspires him to change his
entire brand of politics. The two go for each other, but that was
not how it was "supposed to be". There was a way it was "supposed
to be"? Apparently, yes. Somehow time will fall out of joint if
these two people get together. They are fated to each be
successful but separate. Who decided what their fate would be?
Well, there appears to be a sort of Secret Service for Fate. Men
in suits and pre-Kennedy-era fedoras go around warping reality in
order to work the will of Fate. While much of the film is not in
Philip K. Dick's style, there definitely gimmicks here that his
fans will approve of. Dick would probably approve of the scenes in
which a room full of bureau men like set dressers are constructing
a scene that will in minutes be someone's reality.
Just what are these men who are working to defend Fate? Do the
lovers have the free will to get together or are they just puppets
of Fate? The film has fascinating images of these non-descript men
running around the city and making changes so that the world runs
according to plan. The plan seems to be parceled out in books that
Fate's agents carry that include maps that change in real time as
if they were paper GPSs. They have secret passages through
doorways that work differently for us normal people. The ideas are
all very much like Dick would write about, but the people are
entirely different. While Fate seems to be pulling the couple
apart, Chance is apparently on their side. Coincidence works in
their favor.
Nolfi sets the story to the streets of Manhattan instead of Dick's
non-descript setting so that the non-Dickian chases would have a
more interesting background. The casting is of interest. For once
I could to see what the two lovers saw in each other. There was a
nice chemistry between Emily Blunt and Matt Damon that they may be
able to use in future films. Blunt is also an impressively good
dancer, if that was not just CGI. It is interesting to see John
Slattery of AMC's MAD MEN dressing in 1960s styles again. There is
even a pivotal role for Terrence Stamp. Nolfi has made this a nice
polished film.
This is not the Philip K. Dick story it was supposedly based on,
but it does look at engaging philosophical questions that a film
like IRON MAN would never even think of. Dick's paranoid ironies
are all nicely in place. The film still has something to offer
both genders. That makes it a good date film, I suppose. There
are few films that cover both romance and ideas as adeptly as this
freshman director. I rate THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU a +2 on the -4 to
+4 scale or 7/10. This film sort of begs comparison to INCEPTION.
In that film you followed a team of people who subliminally
manipulate others. THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is about people who are
subliminally manipulated. In a sense they are two sides of the
same plot.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/adjustment_bureau/
The original story can be found on-line at
http://tinyurl.com/leeper-adjustment-team
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: RANGO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A pet chameleon falls from a truck in the middle of the
Nevada desert. He soon finds his way to the dying Western town of
Dirt where his bragging and his lucky defeat of a predatory hawk
make him the town's new sheriff. Sadly, the town is drying up for
shortage of water. In the best Western tradition Sheriff Rango
sets out to save the town. Sight gags, film references, jokes,
action, and just plain funny storytelling follow as thick as a hail
of bullets. Director Gore Verbinski shows his animation direction
of John Logan's script is as good as his live-action direction on
films like PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. This is a smart, hip comedy
that works for adults and youngsters alike. Rating: high +2 (-4 to
+4) or 8/10
RANGO is a "funny animals" sort of animated film, but the writing
and situations are funny enough that it might turn out to be one of
the best animated films of the year.
In a world like ours (but where intelligent talking animals live
side-by-side with humans) the chameleon who comes to be called
Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) would like to be an actor. He dreams
of a life in front of a camera. Then his habitat terrarium rolls
off the back of a truck and he finds himself stranded in the dry
Mojave Desert. He wanders into the animal-run frontier town of
Dirt. Swaggering into the saloon he tries to play the part of a
Western tough guy. He brags that he killed a gang of seven outlaws
with a single bullet. In a fight with predatory hawk Rango lucks
out and kills the hawk. The townspeople now believe his bragging
and want Rango as their new sheriff--failing to tell Rango that his
predecessors named to that job may have lived to regret it ... or
not.
But Rango probably won't have his job long. Dirt has some real
problems. Rango comes to the town just as Dirt is parceling out to
its citizenry the last few days of water. When the water source
dies the town will soon follow it, and that day is less than a week
away. Meanwhile the mayor (Ned Beatty) of the town seems to still
have big plans. He tells Rango that who controls the water
controls everything.
Okay, let me digress here. This is what THE INCREDIBLES called
"monologing." It is a major weakness in the writing. This
statement is the key to everything that is happening in the town.
In his anxiousness to make sure the viewer knows what is going on
writer John Logan has the mayor saying exactly the wrong thing to
the new sheriff. It is not hard for the viewer to figure out who
the villain has to be just by his appearance. This is virtually a
confession before Rango even knows there is chicanery going on.
And part of the chicanery is the stealing of the plot of CHINATOWN.
Another part is the counterfeiting of a cameo appearance that had
me fooled. Timothy Olyphant does a spot-on impression of another
famous actor. I found completely convincing, and I am generally
good with voices.
There were several familiar actors voicing major roles. Besides
Depp, Beatty, and Olyphant, there was Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin,
Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, Steven Root, Harry Dean Stanton, and Ray
Winstone. Animation directors seem to feel the public needs
familiar voices to appreciate the characters. I frankly doubt that
most viewers pick up on all these voices. Admittedly some of these
are very good actors. But the film industry is full of good and
deserving actors who are out of work. I personally think that it
is bad for a successful actor to accept a voice-only role that
could go to an actor less successful.
It is good that animated films are starting to be considered
acceptable for adults with or without children to see. Some of the
best writing is going into animated films. I often find myself in
theaters seeing animated films where my wife and I are the only
party without children present. Good writing should be savored and
appreciated and there was really even too much good writing for
anyone--adult or child--to take in on one viewing.
Smart, crafty, hip, and full of wit, RANGO may be one of the best
films of the year, animated or live action. I rate it a high +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rango-2011/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BARNEY'S VERSION (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is the story of Barney Panofsky, directed by Richard
J. Lewis based on a Michael Konyves's screen play based on the
novel by Mordecai Richler. Barney is a self-indulgent,
inconsiderate, alcoholic cad who somehow wins a wife who should
have known better. Paul Giamatti gives a strong, multilayered
performance of a selfish, but not uncommon man. Rosamunde Pike
plays his long-suffering wife. There is an undeniable fascination
with this man whose life we see from early twenties to his late
60s. The dialog is really good without being unrealistic. Rating:
low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
In movies and in real life some people seem to be able to get by on
a charm that does not seem visible. How often do we ask ourselves
in a movie, "What does he see in her?" "What does she see in him?"
Of course we also see people like that in the real world. Barney
Panofsky (played with real authenticity by Paul Giamatti) seems
like the last person a woman would want to be in the same room with
much less be in a lasting relationship with. Yet three women
wanted to marry Barney. Each marriage ended being a disaster, and
it was mostly because of Barney's self-obsession. The viewer too
seems to get an inexplicable fascination with this train-wreck of a
person.
The story, told in flashback, is mostly about Barney's third
marriage, though we see enough pieces of the first two marriages to
make us detest Barney. This alone should make us loathe him, but
it is not enough to break our fascination. Barney's first wife
commits suicide in large part because of his treatment of her. His
second wife (Minnie Driver) is wealthy and spoiled, but at the
wedding Barney sees a lovely woman across the room and immediately
begins courting her before the wedding reception is over. This is
Miriam (played by the stunning Rosamunde Pike) who will be the love
of his life, not that relationship does her much good. She sees
something in Harvey impossible for the viewer to understand. She
is there for the Barney who unfailingly lets her down.
BARNEY'S VERSION is a story about class as much as anything else.
Barney cannot escape his roots. Dustin Hoffman plays his best role
in a while as Barney's corrupted father Izzy Panofsky, a policeman.
It is easy to see that Barney gets his boorish ways from Izzy who
is a ball of vulgarity and lust for alcohol even at his son's
wedding. His wedding gift for his son is the first gun he used in
the police force and he hands it unwrapped to his son at the posh
wedding to Barney's second wife. Barney is sort of a halfway point
between the patrician people at the wedding and his out-of-control
father. Perhaps the most touching acting comes later in a scene
between Barney and his father with Barney in a state of both
laughing and crying. Both are strong actors and each is sort of
the counterpart of the other in a different generation. It might
be interesting to see what Giamatti might do with a Ratso Rizzo
sort of role.
Roger Ebert very correctly points out the makeup in BARNEY'S
VERSION is terrific. Paul Giamatti has to be aged from a young man
to his death. The makeup not only has to be believable, it has to
tell us where we are in time because the film does jump around
somewhat. We see Barney physically corrupting as his appearance
catches up with his personality.
There is a flaw in the story, and it is about the only place where
the writing feels like it could have been improved upon. There is
a mystery that runs through the film. It is a puzzle both for the
viewer and for Barney himself. Barney never sees the solution, but
the audience does, and it feels unlikely and greatly contrived.
With that exception, this is very well written and keenly observed
material. BARNEY'S VERSION is based on a novel by Mordecai Richler
who also wrote the in some ways similar THE APPRENTICESHIP OF DUDDY
KRAVITZ. I would rate BARNEY'S VERSION a low +3 on the -4 to +4
scale or 8/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1423894/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/barneys-version/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE DESERT OF FORBIDDEN ART (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In Uzbekistan, where one would never expect to find it, is
a world-class art museum. The art is mostly all art that was
condemned and forbidden by the Soviets. THE DESERT OF FORBIDDEN
ART tells the story of how an impoverished painter Igor Savitsky
saved these artworks, hidden by the artists, and how he managed
under a Stalinist regime to create his museum as a refuge for
banned art. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Dictators can only be dictators by prohibiting free expression.
Dictatorial regimes all decree what art is allowed by the State and
not outlawed. Hitler certainly did it. The dictatorships of the
Middle East do it. And Stalin did it. Stalin demanded under pain
of severe punishments and death that artist work in the style of
Soviet Realism. Great artists had to destroy or hide their own
best work under the rule of the Stalin. Much of the great
suppressed work of those years is only visible now at the Nukus
Museum of Art, or more formally The State Art Museum of the
Republic of Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan. Right in the middle of
villages of poverty, camels, and sand is this collection of some of
the great art works of the world. The Ukrainian Igor Savitsky
created this museum with chutzpah and great personal risk.
Savitsky was born to wealth in 1915 in Kiev, but with the coming of
the Revolution his family lost all. Trained in art and archeology
he was sent in 1950 to document in painting an archeological
expedition to Khwarezm. In nearby Uzbekistan he started collecting
works of art from a local artist. These works were hidden away as
they did not follow the art rules of the Soviet State. Savitsky
was a long way from the NKVD/KGB, 1700 miles from Moscow, and felt
that allowed him a little safety. With guts and nerve he managed
to get from the Soviet State the money to build an art museum and
to collect art that the policy makers would rarely come so far to
see. In his career he collected 40,000 pieces of art, mostly
forbidden. He would travel and meet with artists and smuggle back
to Uzbekistan illegal painting representing schools like
impressionism and Russian avant-garde as well as an entirely new
school of modernism combining with Eastern traditions. Some of the
art is forbidden not for its content but because the artist was
gay, a crime under the Soviets. Savitsky would ask for the art and
be given it with no more assurance that a verbal promise to pay the
artist or the artist's family in the future. Artists were so
anxious to have their works seen that they would trust Savitsky
with some of their best work.
Tchavdar Georgiev and Amanda Pope co-wrote and co-directed the film
about the man who collected so much forgotten, ignored, and
politically incorrect art. Filming in remote and inhospitable
Uzbekistan the film was a seven-year project. Savitsky's museum
was all but forgotten until the Arts and Leisure section of the New
York Times brought the work of Gerogiev and Pope to its readership
and told the story of this obscure museum. Ben Kingsley reads from
the writings of Savitsky. Edward Asner and Sally Field read other
people writing on the subject. The story is compelling, though as
presented it is not always easy to follow. Frequently someone will
be talking about someone else, but whether it is Savitsky or an
artist that Savitsky helped is hard to keep clear.
This film won the Cine Golden Eagle Award, the Best Documentary
Award at Palm Beach International Film Festival, and the Audience
Award at Beijing International Film Festival. It is a remarkable
story of heroism and of defiance of tyranny. I rate it a high +2
on the -4 to +4 scale or /10. The film is in English and in
Russian with English subtitles. This film opens in New York City at
Cinema Village March 11, 2011.
A March 7, 2011, news article about the Museum can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/void-forbidden-art.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536458
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-desert-of-forbidden-art/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: INCEPTION (letter of comment by Art Stadlin)
In response to Mark's comments on INCEPTION in the 03/04/11 issue
of the MT VOID, Art Stadlin writes:
I liked your comments about INCEPTION, on second viewing. Your
insights helped me understand why I wasn't crazy about that movie
after seeing it. Yes, the special effects were awesome. Yes, the
nested dream story line made me work to follow it. And yes, until
you reminded me I had completely forgotten that Leonardo DiCaprio
was in it! I suspect that big-budget Hollywood movies tend to make
lots of "artistic" compromises in order to garner funding. I have
nothing against DiCaprio (loved him in Titanic), but INCEPTION
could have had better casting for some of the roles, including
leading man.
P.S. By the way, how do you find time to watch movies *twice*?
There are so many movies. I really don't have enough time to see
just the good ones. :-) [-as]
Mark responds:
I think we are in agreement on INCEPTION. It is a very mixed bag,
but there is enough that is positive to justify my initial rating.
It just could have been made a better film with better
characterization.
When I find time to watch movies more than once? I write about
film. Cinema and mathematics are a passion with me. A passion
finds the time to be exercised. However, I will say that I am
comfortably retired. I have considered telling the IRS that my
occupation is "wastrel." That means that my time is mostly my own.
Most of my time is given over to my hobbies. Some films I have
seen many times. The record is probably KING KONG (1933) which I
suspect I have seen several dozen times. And I still find new
things to see in it. INCEPTION I have seen only twice, but I
intend to see it more. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER and TRUE GRIT (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
In response to Mark's review of THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER in the
03/04/11 issue of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky writes:
Given the kinds of films you often review: When I read the bit
about a Jerusalem bakery worker going missing, in Mark's review of
THE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER, I immediately jumped to Sweeney-Toddish
conclusions! [-tw]
In response to Mark's review of TRUE GRIT in the 12/31/10 issue of
the MT VOID, Taras writes:
A few belated comments about the remake of TRUE GRIT: I'm not
certain--I would have to watch both films again to be sure--but my
impression is that the remake, while good and worthwhile, does not
quite equal the original.
For one thing, the original screenplay made a lot of good decisions
about how to handle the story. The remake, trying to be different,
inevitably made some inferior ones.
For another, the original was blessed with a superior cast of
supporting players.
Consider the deliciously sleazy Strother Martin as the used-horse
salesman Mattie Ross takes advantage of. There's a great scene--
missing from the remake--in which he tells Mattie he heard a little
girl fell into a well and wondered if it was she. "No, it was not
I," she answers placidly, oblivious to his malice.
Or Robert Duvall's austere take on Lucky Ned Pepper the outlaw.
The remake makes a bad call here: You suddenly wonder why the
outlaws don't take the opportunity for some horizontal
refreshment--something that never crossed your mind when Duvall was
their leader.
Matt Damon ("La Boeuf") is a better actor than Glenn Campbell--but
Campbell is perfectly cast as a genial, moon-faced oaf. When he
petulantly tells Mattie he has decided not to steal a kiss from her
after all, Campbell is more believable than Damon. (The line
should have been cut for Damon.)
Jeff Bridges is a better actor than John Wayne--but John Wayne can
play John Wayne better than Jeff Bridges can. The decision to
mumble-up Rooster Cogburn's dialog in the remake doesn't help.
When Cogburn makes his climactic speech, facing four outlaws by
himself ("I mean to kill you in one minute, Ned. Or see you hanged
in Fort Smith at Judge Parker's convenience.") the remake cuts away
from him and back again, so it's hard to make out exactly what he
said, unless you remember the 1969 movie.
One thing I liked about the remake was that, for a modern Western,
it had only a touch of political correctness. Indeed, both heroes
are Confederate veterans; though what percentage of the audience
understood the reference to La Boeuf serving in the Army of
Northern Virginia and Rooster Cogburn riding with Quantrill is
debatable.
Just how ignorant are modern audiences? As I was leaving the
theater, a gaggle of twenty-somethings--perhaps three or four
couples--who had gone to see the movie together puzzled over why
the middle-aged Mattie Ross gives the sharp side of her tongue to
that old outlaw who didn't get up out of his chair, near the end of
the film. Raised in an age of handicap privilege, one of the young
women speculated it must be because Mattie is missing an arm!
[-tw]
Mark replies:
I can appreciate your problems with the new TRUE GRIT. I don't
happen to agree. Where the two films are different, and there is
much, the new version is closer to the book. There is too much of
John Wayne in Rooster Cogburn in the original and Jeff Bridges does
not seem to me to be remotely trying to be like the John Wayne
character. The ending of the John Wayne version is intended to
showcase Wayne and is very different from the ending in the book
and the second film. I am not sure that the differences in the two
film versions are enough to justify a new film, but I liked the
Coen Brothers version a lot. And where the two films differed I
personally preferred the newer version.
You talk about people not well-grounded in history. I am reminded
that several years ago a fiction book came out about the Civil War
(I think it was TRAVELLER by Richard Adams, a story told from the
point of view of Robert E. Lee's horse). One reviewer in a fanzine
(I think) complained that the book introduces a character but then
never expands or tells you who the character is. The reviewer
complained you never find out who this guy is or much about him.
His name in the book is Grant. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Oscars, Puzzles, INCEPTION, and THE TURN OF THE SCREW
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to Evelyn's comment on the Oscars in the 03/04/11 issue
of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes, "I am totally pleased to see
that Shaun Tan won an Oscar for his work. Now I am going to have
to see "The Lost Thing". Congratulations, Shaun!" [-jp]
In response to the puzzle solution in the same issue, John writes,
"While I find the solutions to last week's puzzle interesting, I
must admit to shaking my head at how some of your readers solved
the puzzle. Programming computers takes all the fun out something
like this for me. Using an Anagram Dictionary is permissable, I
think, and I really am astonished at all the solutions. And
[Susan's] closing comment that they are all "Scrabble-legal" takes
the cake. Oh! BAKE-CAKE-DAKE-EAKE-FAKE-GAKE-HAKE... Never mind."
[-jp]
In response to Mark's comments on INCEPTION in the same issue, John
writes, "Valerie and I loved INCEPTION, too. We didn't find it
very hard to follow at all--must be because we have jiant branez--
and really liked how well it was put together. Leonardo DeCaprio
definitely turned in a fine performance, and visually, a very
interesting movie. Overall, a good one, which I think stands a
very good chance at winning the Best Dramatic Presentation, long-
form Hogu--er, I mean, Hugo." [-jp]
And John concludes, "FYI: this week's reading for me is Henry
James' THE TURN OF THE SCREW. I haven't read it in something like
35 years, so why not?" [-jp]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Puzzles (letter of comment by Tom Russell)
In response to all the comments on the puzzles, Tom Russell writes:
Thanks for putting my little word puzzles in MT VOID. Good to see
some more answers. Especially to the four-letter-word puzzles.
And yes, perhaps thin king readers will disc over the scar city (or
not) of words like these. [-tlr]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Dinosaurs and Birds (letter of comment by Charles Harris)
In response to Evelyn's comments on WANDERING LANDS AND ANIMALS in
the 03/04/11 issue of the MT VOID, Charles Harris writes:
[You said, "Why] did all of the dinosaurs die out at the end of
Cretaceous
history? Why did not some of them survive, as did their close
cousins the crocodilians?" All? What about the birds? [-csh]
Evelyn replies:
I don't think of birds as dinosaurs, but as the descendents of
dinosaurs. One major difference (admittedly disputed) is that
dinosaurs were ectothermic and birds are endothermic. I will also
cite Wikipedia: "From the point of view of cladistics, birds are
dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not
include birds." [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I have always been a fan of Connie Willis, and I have always liked
time travel novels, which is why my reaction to her latest work is
not just disappointment, but annoyance and aggravation.
BLACKOUT by Connie Willis (ISBN 978-0-553-80319-8) and ALL CLEAR by
Connie Willis (ISBN 978-0-553-80767-7) are two halves of a single
book. It totals over a thousand pages, so I suppose I should not
be surprised that Spectra decided to split it in two, but that does
not mean I am not annoyed about it. It is perfectly possible to
publish a book that long, or even longer (LES MISERABLES by Victor
Hugo and THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO by Alexandre Dumas come to
mind). But I will grant it is unusual. What really annoys me is
that neither volume has any indication on it that it is not a whole
novel. Nothing on the jacket of BLACKOUT indicates that for $26,
you are getting half a novel. The cover of ALL CLEAR merely says
that Connie Willis is the "Nebula and Hugo Award-Winning Author of
BLACKOUT," but since BLACKOUT describes her as "Nebula and Hugo
Award-Winning Author of DOOMSDAY BOOK" that does not indicate much.
It is true that the front jacket flap copy of ALL CLEAR implies the
possibility, but even that could be read as indicating this is a
sequel, not the second half of the novel.
But what about the novel itself? It is set in Willis's "time-
traveling historians" universe, only this time there are three time
travelers, each going to observe a different aspect of World War II
in England. Having three main characters is part of why it is so
long, but it also seems very padded out. I know Willis loves
everything about England, and London, and the Blitz, but do we
really need a six-page tour of St. Paul's including a long analysis
of the paintings there? Do we need a subplot about amateur
dramatics that, if excerpted, would be almost novel-length in
itself? And there are also a lot of plot contrivances that seem
designed to stretch the plot out (e.g. the Hodbins, whom Willis
tries to justify, but far too much time is spent on them).
But even more than that padding, structurally it reminded me of the
film IMPOSTER. IMPOSTER was originally a short film (forty-five
minutes). To make it a feature-length film, the filmmakers just
cut it in the middle and inserted a half-hour chase sequence.
Similarly, after setting up the premise, Willis inserts a lot of
sequences each consisting of:
- there may be a way to contact Oxford at X
- someone travels to X, with their path given in great detail
- they have problems/dangers on the trip
- it doesn't pan out
- they return, with their path given in great detail
- they have problems/dangers on the return trip
- everyone talks about what this means
(Other reviewers have commented that Willis seems to have forgotten
the rule that you put only 10% of your research explicitly into
your novel. After she has figured out what Underground route to
take somewhere, she includes all the lines and changes. If she
knows which buildings were hit on a given night, she mentions them
all. When she finds out how people cleaned wool coats, she
includes that in detail as well.)
In addition, I think that Willis loses track of what she's written.
One character is wondering why the retrieval team cannot find her
by checking all the boarding house and help wanted ads; she has
apparently forgotten that she found both her room and her job
through word of mouth before they ever got listed. And the
characters keep waiting for the retrieval teams without really
wondering why they have to wait. It's true that at one point one
character seems to realize briefly that even if the team takes a
long time to realize there is a problem, they should still be able
to show up at the right time--after all, it's time travel. But
most of the time all of them keep thinking that the teams have been
delayed. And there are also other instances where aspects of time
travel do not seem well thought out.
And the ending is, well, disappointing. It seems designed to
emphasize the "lesson" Willis wants to convey, but I think it
actually does the reverse. (I will try to be vague here, but let
me give a SPOILER warning.) Willis seems to want to promote the
"Tide of History" theory by saying that everyone is a "Great Man",
but to do so, she postulates a Stapledonian universe controlled by
something beyond all the individuals. Far from making the
individuals great, she makes them pawns. (END SPOILER)
The basic plot of BLACKOUT/ALL CLEAR has interest, and any small
section is written reasonably well. But the whole is too big and
too diffuse. It seems to have gotten away from Willis, and she is
apparently too successful a novelist for an editor to tell her that
the book needed to be shortened because it was too long. In fact,
I suspect the editor may have encouraged her to write more to make
it long enough for two volumes--hence the feeling of padding. I
like the details of life in Britain during World War II, but I
would rather have it in a real-life diary than padded out with a
time-travel story.
(The ISBNs given are for the hardback editions, since ALL CLEAR is
not available in paperback as I write this.) [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions,
but they are not entitled to their own facts.
--attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan