THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
10/18/13 -- Vol. 32, No. 16, Whole Number 1776
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Co-Editor: 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
The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.
Topics:
Nine Horror Films Under Nine Minutes Each
Merging (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Playing with Infinity (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
LIFE TRACKER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
GRAVITY (film review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE by Robert A. Heinlein (audiobook review
by Joe Karpierz)
HERE'S LOOKING AT EUCLID by Alex Bellos (book review
by Greg Frederick)
THE PRIME MINISTERS: THE PIONEERS (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (THE WORLD THAT JONES MADE, and
THE ASTRONAUT WIVES CLUB) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Nine Horror Films Under Nine Minutes Each
This is a nice collection of short films for Halloween:
http://tinyurl.com/void-9films
==================================================================
TOPIC: Merging (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I hate the idea that J. J. Abrams is taking over both STAR WARS and
STAR TREK. Somehow I think that they should be kept separate, like
Church and State. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Playing with Infinity (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I saw a reference to the Ross-Littlewood Infinity Paradox. Never
having heard of it, I thought I would share it with the MT VOID
readers. It is one of the many paradoxes dealing with infinity and
limits approaching infinity. Infinity can be very tricky and
counter-intuitive to deal with. That is what makes it fun.
Positions of objects determine how they are counted and that can
make the difference between whether there are an infinite number of
objects or none at all.
Suppose you have a bag and it has one ball in it. The ball is
labeled 0. It is 10 AM. In the 1st hour you remove the ball
labeled 0 and replace it with ten balls labeled 1 to 10. You now
have 10 balls in the bag.
In the next 1/2 hour you remove the ball labeled 1 and replace it
with ten balls labeled 11 to 20. You now have 19 balls in the bag.
In the next 1/4 hour you remove the ball labeled 2 and replace it
with ten balls labeled 21 to 30. You now have 29 balls in the bag.
In the next 1/8 hour you remove the ball labeled 3 and replace it
with ten balls labeled 31 to 40. You now have 39 balls in the bag.
In the next 1/16 hour you remove the ball labeled 4 and replace it
with ten balls labeled 41 to 50. You now have 49 balls in the bag.
[I am sorry to say you probably get the point and I have to go back
to typing everything out rather than just cutting and pasting the
previous two lines and tailoring a few numbers.]
You can see what is going on. As we get closer and closer to noon
the bag--which I forgot to say is made of infinite super-spandex
and stretches as much as we want it--will get more and more balls
in it. The question is what happens to the bag at noon. Well as
noon approaches the bag gets more and more balls in it. The super-
spandex gets tested to its ultimate limit. Pick any number of
balls--say a quintillion--and at some point there will be more
balls in the bag than that. This will be very close to noon. But
what happens at the stroke of noon?
Think about it for a moment or two. I'll wait....
Okay, you are back.
If you said you don't know the answer, that is a pretty good
answer. On one hand on each iteration the bag gets ten more balls
in it. It must have an infinite number at the end of the two
hours. But if you think about it the bag is really empty at the
end of the two hours.
Now I know some of you out there are going to doubt me. The bag
keeps getting bigger and then suddenly it is empty? Well prove me
wrong. You tell me the number of a ball that is left in the bag at
noon. Well we know it is not ball number 1. That one was removed
in the first step. Ball number 2 was removed on the 2nd step
Ball number 57 was removed on the 57th step. Every ball in the bag
gets removed from the bag some time before noon. Well an infinite
number of balls is a whole lot different from no balls at all. I
think the bag is empty, but is there anyone out there who wants to
suggest a different answer?
This reminds me a lot of the two farmers and the two birds. You
have two parallel furrows in a stretch of ground reaching to
infinity. In furrow there is a farmer. Each farmer--call them A
and B--starts at the beginning of his furrow and drops a kernel of
corn and advances each second. Each farmer is followed by a bird
determined to eat his corn. But the bird can eat only one kernel
of corn every two seconds. Bird A follows close on the heels of
farmer A and eats every other kernel of corn. Let us say the corn
kernels are labeled A1, A2, A3,... The bird eats A1, A3, A5,...
Bird B is lazier. He eats B1, B2, B3, ... and falls further and
further behind the farmer. Each bird eats a kernel the same
instant so they each eat the same number of kernels of corn. But
Bird A leaves behind an infinite number of corn kernels. At the
end of 2T seconds each bird has eaten T kernels of corn. Bird A
has left behind kernels A2, A4, A6, etc so he has left behind as
many kernels as farmer A started with. In fact you can put what he
leaves in one-to-one correspondence with the number of kernels that
Farmer A started with. Bird B has eaten every kernel of corn. If
you do not believe Bird B has eaten all the kernels in his furrow,
tell me which one he leaves behind. Both birds eat the same number
of kernels at every point. Bird A is awarded an Earth Day lapel
pin. Farmer B invites his bird for Thanksgiving Dinner. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: LIFE TRACKER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A corporation claims to be able to tell precise details of
a person's future by examining the person's DNA. It is a familiar
theme in fiction, movies, and television that knowing too much
about the future can exact a heavy price. LIFE TRACKER adds a
science fantasy twist. What the film lacks in logic and scientific
plausibility it makes up for in the philosophical questions it
raises. Phoenix filmmaker Joe McClean writes and directs a
thoughtful and generally intelligent science fantasy film on a very
low budget. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Spoiler Warning: Important plot developments come early in LIFE
TRACKER. I will have to reveal some story plot points if I am to
discuss the premise of the film.
Richard "Rocko" Hutchensen of Life Tracker Limited, a bio-tech
company from Texas, announces one day that the company has a
process to analyze DNA and other biological processes and can from
it predict in some detail the future of the person donating DNA.
This service is to be offered for a price to the general public.
But there may be more of a price than most people realize.
[Sorry, I would like to make a comment here. This is an idea that
has been around for a long time and was the basis of Andrew
Niccol's film GATTACA. In fact, the idea has been thoroughly
discredited. At least currently the tide of scientific opinion is
that DNA is less effective at predicting future health than is a
study of the subject's exercise patterns, home life, and unhealthy
habits. In this film the power of the predictions is almost
magical. Perhaps the film is better thought of as a fantasy film
in which there is a magical way of seeing people's future.]
Dillon Smith (played by Barry Finnegan) is an amateur documentary
filmmaker, or he would be if he could ever finish one of his films.
On the day of the Life Tracker announcement Dillon thinks there is
a film subject here and takes his camera onto the street to
interview people about what they think of Life Tracker's claims.
Dillon discusses the issues involved with his friends Scott
Orenhauser (Matt Dallas) and Scott's attractive girlfriend Bell
Osbourn (Rebbeca Marshall).
Soon it is discovered that not all the information Life Tracker
finds is being released to its subjects. Some information, by law,
is being kept from the test subjects themselves. The United States
Government has mandated that some of the data must be kept secret.
This opens public debate. Is it good or bad to know your future?
Does the government have a right to hide from a citizen information
about him? Is there information it is dangerous even to know about
yourself?
When the public protests the secret information is released to the
subjects. Almost immediately we see why it could have been better
for everyone if the information was not revealed. Personal
relationships are heavily hit by too much knowledge.
[Sorry, let me interrupt again. The idea that a DNA test would
show precise details of a person's future is absurd. DNA could not
possibly predict that a piano would fall on you tomorrow, for
example. Identical twins have identical DNA but do not have
identical futures. LIFE TRACKER is really in the same category as
stories about all-knowing oracles or fortune-tellers. That does
not make it a bad story, but it makes it more of a fantasy.]
The story develops slowly focusing the three main characters and
specifically on Dillon's personality flaws. And the small screen
video work adds a feel of cheapness and at the same time tension,
both of which work for the tone of the film.
This is Joe McClean's first feature film, though he has made shorts
before. This film is shot very cheaply on video about people
shooting on video, and it is an example of the sort of small film
that can be made for a tiny fraction of what the big studios spend
on a film. The budget of this film is so much less than that of a
film like THE AVENGERS and there is a lot more intelligence on the
scripting.
This is a flight of fancy, in spite of the science trappings, but
after a slow start it is surprisingly effective. I rate it a +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140113/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_tracker/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: GRAVITY (film review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
In "Hard SF" the writer limits themselves to perhaps one
assumption, say a new space drive, but otherwise sticks to the
rules of science. On the near edge of Hard SF we find the techno-
thrillers like HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER where there are extrapolations
and/or alternative pasts, but no new technology or science.
GRAVITY lies in this rare class of film, and it is a most welcome
addition.
Perhaps one of the best special effects films ever made, GRAVITY
succeeds in creating the intimate feeling of a stage play with a
tiny cast written on the canvas of the vastness of space. GRAVITY
takes place in either a near-future alternative universe or in an
alternative recent past. The major locations include a Space
Shuttle servicing the Hubble telescope, the International Space
Station, and a Chinese space station. Although these are all real
places, they will not coincide in our version of reality since the
Space Shuttle has been retired prior to the construction of a
large-scale Chinese space station (a small Chinese station is
orbiting the Earth as I write this). It is, however, quite
possible to imagine an alternative past, where perhaps the Columbia
disaster did not occur, and the Shuttle was still flying until a
large Chinese station can be built. This is not our world, but it
is a tiny branch into a very plausible alternative reality. This
would place GRAVITY sometime between 2013 and 2020, but no further
into the future than that.
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, and starring Sandra Bullock as Dr.
Ryan Stone, a mission specialist, and George Clooney as veteran
astronaut Matt Kowalski, GRAVITY creates a high-tension, realistic
space adventure as has never before been done. The opening plot
device is that the Russians use a missile to destroy a de-orbiting
spy satellite, creating a chain reaction of colliding space debris
which threatens the Shuttle mission. This fictional event is based
on a combination of real recent incidents involving satellite
collisions and the testing of a Chinese anti-missile system.
Things rapidly go from bad to worse to apparent certain doom for
the astronauts, trapping them in a situation a bit reminiscent of
Asimov's classic MAROONED OFF VESTA.
I don't intend to recapitulate the tight-rope of perilous events
that ensue as Stone and Kowalski attempt to survive against
incredible odds, nor do I intend to nitpick the various small
errors and inconsistencies that some have pointed out. This is a
great film that any serious SF fan must see, and it is a beautiful
film to see in 3-D on a big screen. Bullock and Clooney both do
excellent work bringing their respective characters to life, and
Bullock's performance may be the best of her career. As a
"genius" who has apparently had only six months training for the
mission, she is extremely believable as a very capable human being
who is being pushed to the absolute limit of what is possible, and
beyond.
The film makes excellent use of space itself as a metaphor for the
loneliness of the human condition, and to illuminate the character
of both Stone and Kowalski. Stone's life has been filled with
horrific arbitrary disasters, including those that happen during
the film, but towards the end, as she faces what may be her final
moments, she realizes that one way or another, it was going to be
"a great ride." Maybe in the end this is all any of us can hope
for.
GRAVITY has already inspired a New York Times editorial to opine on
the problem of "space junk," and to the extent that there is a
propaganda message here, it is that blowing up objects in orbit can
easily lead to disaster for the entire world. One can only hope
that the movie raises public awareness of both the importance of
avoiding collisions in space, and of how dependent we have become
on our satellites.
Although Stone says at one point "I hate space," rather like with
JURASSIC PARK, this is not the message that comes off the screen.
Even as he nears death, Kowalski's voice is filled with wonder, and
you know he would not prefer to go out any other way than how he
does. The movie is suffused with a sense of both the danger and
the glory of space, but although the events portrayed are tragic,
you don't get the feeling that the space program was futile or
pointless.
I'm rating this one a high +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. For once,
Rotten Tomatoes and I agree, with GRAVITY getting a 97% rating on
the Tomatometer. This is a realistic, white-knuckle thriller with
some bad language but no sex, no violence, and no car chases.
GRAVITY is rated PG-13 but may be too intense for some.
Response to statements in Mark's Review of GRAVITY
Mark's review of GRAVITY stated:
"I am going to be nit-picky. One inaccuracy is that it is
impossible to place the setting of this story in time. There is no
Chinese space station in 2013 so it takes place some years in the
future, but also there will be no more space shuttles in space.
NASA probably is moving on to using the Space Launch System (SLS).
Undoubtedly it could have been used in this film rather than the
Space Shuttle, but SLS has as yet little audience recognition
value."
There is a Chinese space station in orbit today. It is called
Tiangong-1, and was most recently visited by a crew in June 2013 by
the Shenzhou 10 mission. It is nowhere near as large as the
Chinese station shown in GRAVITY, being only 34 feet long and 11
feet in diameter. A larger station, the Tiangong-2, is planned for
launch in 2015. A still larger module, the Tiangong-3 (60 feet
long) is planned to follow. However, the station in GRAVITY
appears to be significantly larger than the Tiangong-3, resembling
an even bigger station that the Chinese plan for the 2020s.
As I stated in my review, the best explanation of the GRAVITY back
story is that it occurs in the period 2013-2020 in a reality where
the Space Shuttle is still flying, Hubble is still being serviced,
and the Chinese space program is a bit further along than in the
real world. If the story were to take place in the real world
sometime between 2013 and 2020, there is a very remote possibility
that the SLS/MPCV would be used, but as the only two currently
planned SLS flights are for 2017 and 2021, a much more likely
prospect is that the SpaceX Dragon or the Boeing CST-100 would be
used during this period, perhaps with an extended support module.
The United States is in the process of transitioning from the
Hubble to a new telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, that
will not be human serviceable and will be in a much more remote
orbit than the Hubble. Thus, a future mission to service the
Hubble is very unlikely in the real world, and a mission to service
the JWST is almost impossible. A great deal of uncertainty
currently exists about the future of human space flight in the
United States, and especially about how and when the SLS will be
used. Many possible scenarios could be imagined as the background
to GRAVITY, but I think on the whole the film made some good
choices. [-dls]
Mark responds:
I stand corrected on the Tiangong-1. Leo Doroschenko makes a very
interesting point about the ending of the film. You can use
rot13.com to decode this:
Fgbar tbrf sebz orvat bkltra-fgneirq naq unyyhpvangvat fb onqyl
gung fur frrf Xbjnyfxv jub vf abg gurer. Naq gura fur fhqqrayl
svaqf n jnl gb trg onpx, univat rabhtu bkltra, znxvat n cresrpg
erragel ba na hapbzchgrq genwrpgbel sylvat n fcnprpensg jvgu
ynoryvat va n ynathntr fur qbrf abg xabj. Fur syvrf guvf nyy ol
urefrys, frrvat gur evpu, ornhgvshy, jnez, rnegu orarngu ure,
ynaqvat va n cresrpg cynpr, naq orvat noyr gb jnyx njnl sebz vg nyy
vagb gur jnez fhafuvar.
Gnxra yvgrenyyl guvf vf snveyl nofheq. Ohg V frr guvf nf orvat
dhvgr cbffvoyl na hcqngvat bs BPPHEERAPR NG BJY PERRX OEVQTR. Gur
svyz qbrf abg fnl vg, ohg gurer frrzf gb or cyragl bs rivqrapr gung
gung vf jung unf gb or unccravat. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE by Robert A. Heinlein (copyright 1973,
Blackstone Audio copyright 2007, 25 hours 52 minutes, narrated
by Lloyd James) (audiobook review by Joe Karpierz)
Back on June 15, I wrote a review of THRONE OF THE CRESCENT MOON as
part of my annual Hugo nominee roundup. It was two days before my
hip replacement surgery, and at the very end of that review I wrote
the following:
"I'm currently listening to Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE. I'll
review that eventually."
It's now *October* 13, and I'm sitting down to review TIME ENOUGH
FOR LOVE, nearly four months after I wrote those words. When
I said I'd review it eventually, I didn't think eventually would
mean in the fall, when I wrote those words in very late spring.
I've written elsewhen in this fine publication that I never read
much Heinlein, if any, growing up. His books were not part of my
formative SF reading. I don't know why, they just never were. I
guess because my mother, who got me hooked on this SF stuff, didn't
have any on the bookshelves in the house. I've dabbled a bit in
Heinlein since those early days, but not much. I think my first
Heinlein was FRIDAY, and then I read quite a few of his in a row
after that. Except for FRIDAY, I didn't much like any of them. I
stopped reading them for awhile, then picked up again when I
started listening to audiobooks. I really liked THE MOON IS A
HARSH MISTRESS, for example. But I was still never enthused about
Heinlein's work. And then I understood why.
I finally listened to TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE.
For Pete's sake, I just don't understand what people see in that
book. At all. Period. Case closed. I could not finish that
audiobook to save my life. Remember, I was listening to that book
back in June. I finally finished it about a week and a half ago.
Then I couldn't bring myself to sit down and review the darned
thing. I decided that it had to be done, so here we are.
There are only two things I can tell you for sure about this book:
the title, and that the main character is Lazarus Long, Robert
Heinlein's fictional alter ego through whom he preaches to us about
his philosophies on life, the universe, and everything, and I do
mean everything.
At the beginning of this entity I will loosely call a "novel", the
Senior, a.k.a. Larazus Long, has lost his will to live. He is
recovered from a flophouse, more or less, and is taken to a
facility wherein various characters attempt to convince him to
undergo rejuvenation in order to, well, continue living. He
resists, but finally gives in, as long as people will listen to his
stories.
Oh, brother. So now we fall into the life and times of Lazarus
Long, following him from planet to planet and scenario to scenario,
each one full of Heinlein's pronouncements about life, the
universe, and everything (oh, wait, I said that already),
including, what else, sex.
Eventually, Lazarus decides it's okay to keep on living, so the
story changes to a location where Long and his family live--and
those of you who have read this book know just how unusual this
situation is--and the story proceeds from there. Finally, as most
of the world knows, Long travels back to 1916, meets his family,
falls in love with his mother, and well, you know.
Look, I know I've been rambling about this--much like Heinlein
rambled in this book. I think there are some interesting things in
this book, but my complaint really, is that it's mostly a rambling
travelogue with no plot, no conflict, no climax, and no real
ending. I'm pretty sure that Heinlein basically just ran out of
things to say, so he stopped where he did. When I finished this, I
wanted to throw my iPod against the car window, but iPods are
expensive and the car is new, so I didn't. I've not been so
frustrated with a book since I don't know when.
Okay, breathe. There, much better. I'm in the process of reading
CALIBAN'S WAR by James S.A. Corey and listening to ASCENDANT SUN by
Catherine Asaro. I think I'll have much better things go say when
I finish those. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: HERE'S LOOKING AT EUCLID: A SURPRISING EXCURSION THROUGH THE
ASTONISHING WORLD OF MATH by Alex Bellos (book review by Greg
Frederick)
This review covers a book that deals with the development of math
thru the ages; though it is not strictly chronological in the order
of its topics. The reader will learn how Pythagoras probably
traveled to Egypt and could have witnessed the rope stretching
technique used by the Egyptian builders to create a right angle.
They would stretch a rope with knots that were at lengths of 3, 4
and 5 units on the rope around 3 posts with a knot at each post.
This would create an accurate right angle since lengths of 3, 4,
and 5 units create a right triangle. Also if you square 3 and 4
and add them you will get the square of 5; this process of squaring
and adding the squares is known today as the Pythagorean Theorem.
Greek mathematics was influenced by the math of the Egyptians and
others before them.
The role of Indian mathematics in creating the concept of zero is
illustrated in this book. Before this event when people counted as
the Romans did with their abacus zero was simply a placeholder. It
represented a column with nothing to count in it. But the Indians
took zero to a new level of abstraction which allowed them to
multiply by zero and understand that the result was zero also.
They treated it as a true number and not only as a placeholder.
Having a zero which can be used as a number allows for the eventual
development of more advanced mathematical ideas including negative
numbers and decimal numbers. The functional zero and other ideas
(like a better way to count the one to nine numerals) were passed
along to the neighboring Arabic culture and finally made its way to
Europe known as Arabic Numerals. Modern math would never have
gotten to the current high level of advancement if people only had
Roman Numerals and not a real zero.
Pi which is the ratio of a circles' circumference to its diameter
is discussed; Pi is an irrational and transcendental number.
Archimedes was the first to create ways to increase the accuracy of
Pi. He drew a polygon (initially a hexagon) on the inside of the
circle and a larger polygon on the outside of the circle.
Archimedes then used an early version of trigonometry to measure
the lengths of the polygons. If you make polygons with ever more
sides you can get a better estimate of the circles' circumference.
This approach dominated the way to determine Pi for 2,000 years
until Leibniz in the 1600's created a formula from his calculus
known as an infinite series which provided a way to calculate Pi.
Other infinite series which are more efficient and faster at
calculating the digits of Pi were created and with modern computers
individuals have increased the amount of known digits of Pi to 2.7
trillion places. This level of accuracy is beyond any practical
need but shows how humankind loves a challenge. Today this
exercise is also used to test the processing power of computers.
Euclid's geometry based on the book "The Elements" was the only
accepted form of this subject until mathematician's like Bernhard
Riemann in the mid 1800's introduced the world to non-Euclidean
geometry. This came about because for many years people tried to
see if the 5th axiom or postulate of Euclid's book, "The Elements"
could be derived from the other 4 postulates. This 5th postulate
roughly states that "given a line and a point not on that line
there is at most one line that goes thru the point and is parallel
to the line". It's easy to see that this is the case for Euclidean
geometry based on flat planer surfaces and straight lines. But to
truly test if the 5th postulate can be derived from the other 4
then you may question how fundamental it really is. Individuals
including Janos Bolyai, Carl Friedrich Gauss, and Riemann
investigated this and determined that if you had a non-Euclidean
surface like a sphere or saddle shape then the 5th postulate
actually has different meanings for these non-Euclidean surfaces.
A saddle shape which is a hyperbolic surface with negative
curvature would have an infinite number of lines passing thru that
point and parallel to the line. A spherical shape which has a
positive curvature has zero parallel lines thru that point. Later,
non-Euclidean geometry played a major role in Einstein's theory of
General Relativity. It's difficult to see how Einstein could have
produced such an important area of Physics without it.
There are many other fascinating topics covered in this book which
will be interesting to anyone with a curiosity about math or even
if you only want to know how magic squares of the 1500's became
Sudoku this book could be for you. [-gf]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE PRIME MINISTERS: THE PIONEERS (film review by Mark
R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In an autobiographical interview, Yehuda Avner, advisor to
four Israeli Prime Ministers, gives an inside look at the first two
Prime Ministers he served and of the politics of the country at the
time. (A sequel documentary being made will continue Avner's
account.) In what is hardly sufficient time, Avner gives the
viewer a feel for the characters and the political policies of Levi
Eshkol and Golda Meir. While the information is of definite
interest, much will already be familiar for some viewers. Co-
author and director Richard Trank makes an understandable but
serious error in having overly familiar celebrities voicing some of
the words of the Prime Ministers. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or
6/10
We recently saw the film LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER, one man's inside
look at the leaders and politics of his country during the time he
served in the White House. In many ways THE PRIME MINISTERS is a
very similar film. Yehuda Avner was an advisor to Israeli Prime
Ministers Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, and Menachem
Begin. His fluency in both English and Hebrew and his political
understanding made his services valuable at several historical
events.
The film takes the form of one long interview with Avner giving his
recollections of the major milestones of Israeli history from
before declaring independence to Golda Meir resignation after she
was accused of mishandling the nation's defense in the 1973 Yom
Kippur War. Particular attention is given to Avner's memories of
the day Israel was formed, the Pioneer Movement, and the two major
wars: the Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
Avner discusses what went on with negotiations for support with
Presidents Truman, Johnson, and Nixon. Included are not just his
observations on the major political changes, but small and personal
moments that make the politicians seem more human.
THE PRIME MINISTERS is co-written by Richard Trank (who also
directs) and Marvin Hier, the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, the Center's Museum of Tolerance, and of Moriah, the
Center's filmmaking production company. The latter produced this
film. However, the film makes a jarring stylistic error. The film
has celebrities voicing the Prime Ministers, just where actual
recordings were non-existent or not available. Levi Eshkol is
voiced by Leonard Nimoy, Golda Meir by Sandra Bullock, Yitzhak
Rabin by Michael Douglas, and Menachem Begin by Christoph Waltz.
To see Golda Meir on the screen and to hear an all too easily
visualized Sandra Bullock cast way against type pulls the viewer
right out of the narrative. Making it worse we heard Meir speak
with her real voice minutes before. It is hard to hear the two
voices as coming from the same person. And when the viewer hears
Bullock's voice it is hard not to see Bullock. Much the same goes
for the other three celebrities. Perhaps these four popular actors
add some "marquee value" to the film, but less familiar voices
might have worked much better for the film.
Director Trank's style had developed since directing last year's IT
IS NO DREAM: THE LIFE OF THEODOR HERZL. This film is has a more
engaging style and Avner's comments on history are of definite
interest.
THE PRIME MINISTERS: THE PIONEERS covers the terms of Eshkol and
Meir. Rabin and Begin do appear, but are not covered as Prime
Ministers. This is really just the first half of a two-part
documentary. Trank is working on a second part covering the terms
of Rabin and Begin. The two probably should be seen as a pair.
For now I rate the first half a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or
6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3228928/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_prime_ministers_the_pioneers/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE WORLD THAT JONES MADE by Philip K. Dick (ISBN 978-0-679-74219-
7) is another book I read in conjunction with SFF Audio. Again,
just a few comments, all from the first few pages of the book. The
narrator claims that food rationing after the war (not World War
II, but a later one) has ended extremist religious and political
views (!). Since no earlier rationing did that, this seems
unlikely. And they have food rationing but they still have
tobacco. If food is so scarce, wouldn't they use all the arable
land to grow food?
I thought it interesting that Dick has his reactionary character
saying, "we beat those Jews and atheists and Reds"--usually authors
have their characters ranting about just the atheists and Reds.
In the circus sideshow, he says, "The next freak was part human,
part animal. Somewhere along the line, inter-species mating had
occurred; the event was certainly lost on the nightmarish shadows
of the war. ... From the war had come intricate legends of man-
animal progeny, exaggerated accounts of human stock that had
degenerated, erotic tales of copulation between women and beasts."
It is interesting that these hybrids are said to be the result of
copulation between women and beasts, rather than the result of
copulation between men and beasts.
THE ASTRONAUT WIVES CLUB by Lily Koppel (ISBN 978-1-4555-0325-4)
tells the stories of the early astronauts' wives. While
enlightening at times, it suffers from the difficulty of trying to
cover 48 wives in less than three hundred pages. Koppel does
concentrate more on the "Original Seven" and the "New Nine"--not
surprising, since they were around for the longest time. Some of
the material overlaps that of THE RIGHT STUFF (at least the movie),
but occasionally points out things the movie elided. For example,
Johnson wanted Annie Glenn to meet with him in front of network
news cameras when John Glenn's flight was postponed. But her
contract with LIFE magazine (indeed, all their contracts) gave LIFE
exclusive press rights except for a very brief post-flight press
conference, so there was actually a contract to back up her refusal
to meet Johnson. And perhaps as recompense for their backing him
up in his support of Annie's refusal, John Glenn insisted that all
of the astronauts and their wives be included in any parades in his
honor.
Koppel also chooses to refer to everyone by first names most of the
time (the first reference to them in various section is by full
names, but frequently that reference is several pages earlier and
you find yourself wondering who is who. And then you realize that
this book reinforces the perception of these women as adjuncts of
their astronaut husbands, rather than as individuals. Clearly the
interest in these women is *because* of their husbands, and no
matter how much Koppel refers to Betty Friedan and feminism as
being "in the air" at the time, these wives are indeed shown as
*wives*. (This is not helped by the occasional reference to them
as "gals" or "girls".)
If referring to them only by first names is supposed to ameliorate
this, it runs into the problem of two Pats; two Marilyns; three
Barbaras; three Joans; a Betty and a Beth; a Jan, a Janet, and a
Jane; and a Sue, a Susan, and a Suzanne (plus the colloquial use of
"Susie" for the various other women in the astronauts' lives).
On the other hand, this gives a picture of life on the other side:
trying to look glamorous on their husbands' military pay because
all the extra money from LIFE magazine has gone for college funds,
coping with NASA's rules--explicit and implicit--about what they
could do and how they should act, and so on. There are some
obvious gaps--apparently Koppel was unable to interview Janet
Armstrong (who divorced Neil in 1994 but is still alive), because
all the stories about Apollo 11 are from the perspectives of Joan
Aldrin and Jane Conrad. Presumably there were others about whom
Koppel heard only second-hand, whether because of death, divorce,
age, or just plain reticence. (Of the first thirty "space
couples," twenty-three ended in divorces.)
Clearly the space programs are very different now. Maybe someone
will write a book titled THE ASTRONAUT HUSBANDS CLUB (though
somehow I doubt it). Koppel reminds us, though, that while NASA
was saying women couldn't go into space, Valentina Tereshkova
orbited the earth forty-eight times. However, Koppel also claims
that Tereshkova was pregnant at the time, which so far as I can
tell is totally false. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
If I have any beliefs about immortality,
it is that certain dogs I have known will
go to heaven, and very, very few persons.
--James Thurber