THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/23/15 -- Vol. 33, No. 30, Whole Number 1842
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 or posted 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:
The Gump Message (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Mini-Reviews of 2014 Films, Part 3 (THE CASE AGAINST 8,
BIG BAD WOLVES, THE INTERNET'S OWN BOY,
WHITE BIRD IN A BLIZZARD, THE SACRAMENT, WILD) (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
UNBROKEN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Google Cardboard (comments by Lee R. Beaumont)
GONE GIRL [SPOILERS] and Edited Films (letter of comment
by Tom Russell)
Actors (letter of comment by Kevin R)
Predictions (letter of comment by Philip Chee)
This Week's Reading (KINDRED) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Gump Message (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I am not sure that the theme of FORREST GUMP still is meaningful in
an age when chocolate boxes come with maps. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Mini-Reviews of 2014 Films, Part 3 (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
I am back with more mini-reviews of films in the process of being
released.
One of my readers brought up a good point. He asked why I have a
rating scale that goes from -4 to +4 and then do not use the whole
scale. It is very rare that I will give a rating greater than high
+2 or less than low +1. Some of these reviews may fall outside
that short interval, but this is the time of year the most
remarkable films come out. The answer is that there are some films
that really are a lot better than my high +2 films. I give
SCHINDLER'S LIST a full +4. (Actually, I think I rate it higher
than a +4.) I rate the recent LES MISERABLES a +4. I really do
not think that it would be fair to a film as powerful an experience
as LES MISERABLES was for me any less than a +4.
There really are films so incompetently made that they deserve a
-4. I rarely rate a film that is so bad that it deserves a -4, but
there are some.
THE CASE AGAINST 8
This is a surprisingly stirring documentary about California's
Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being a pairing of a man
and a woman, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which on a Federal
level denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. The court
struck down Proposition 8 and on the same day said that major
portions of the Defense of Marriage Act were unconstitutional. A
major part of the case made against each of these bills was crafted
and presented by Ted Olson. The film opens with a very impressive
sample of Olson's very clear reasoning. But the end of the film I
found myself getting excited for the decision that I (and probably
every viewer) knew was coming. HBO makes some very fine dramas and
documentaries. This may be the best documentary I have seen this
year. Rating: high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
BIG BAD WOLVES
Laurel and Hardy films used to have slapstick scenes of their
heroes getting hurt and the film makes the mixing of comedy and
pain work since the pain is somewhat cartoonish. It would not have
worked at all if the scenes of Ollie getting smashed in the nose
were done realistically. Comedy and graphic violence make an
uneasy pairing. BIG BAD WOLVES is a very dark comedy. Two men who
are basically vigilantes go after a suspected killer of little
girls. We get graphic description of what the degenerate killer
did to the girls, then later a suspect of the crime is tortured on
camera, but we do not see the parts of him being abused. Some of
the humor of this Israeli film is funny, but the film is frequently
a distinctly uncomfortable experience. Outside of the
entertainment value, this film gives a very ugly and negative
picture of Israeli police procedures. Rating: high 0 on the -4 to
+4 scale or 5/10.
THE INTERNET'S OWN BOY
In DEAD POETS SOCIETY Robin Williams criticizes plotting the rating
of a poem on a grid with artistic style on one axis and importance
of theme on the other axis. It might not be a bad way to look at a
documentary. This is a biography of Aaron Swartz who was a genius
and freedom of information activist. This documentary looks at how
he was arrested for excessive downloading of scientific papers, an
apparently legal act. The film tells the story of Swartz's life
and of the government's efforts to suppress information. The
subject matter is greatly important. The style is not very
creative. Robin Williams would have shooed it away. Rating: +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
WHITE BIRD IN A BLIZZARD
Kat Connors, played by Shailene Woodley, is seeing her family come
apart. Her mother (Eva Green of CASINO ROYALE) is poisoning the
whole family with her hatred of Kat's father. Kat is sexually
loose, but her mother is even more so. Then the mother disappears
without a trace. The police can find no clues to the
disappearance. The film is frustrating since when we find out what
happened the police would have had to be totally incompetent not to
have solved the case within hours. Rating: +1 on the -4 to +4
scale or 6/10.
WILD
This film opens with Cheryl (Reese Witherspoon) atop a large rock
hill, her footwear destroyed. The film follows her on what seems a
terribly misguided 1000-mile hike alone along the Pacific Coast
Trail. As she goes she considers her life--mismanaged to this
point. She and the viewer piece together her checkered back-story
through flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks). It is the
story of how she finds redemption in walking and reflection. The
same idea was better handled in THE WAY (2010). Rating: high +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: UNBROKEN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is the true story of Louis Zamperini, who was an
Olympic champion runner before WWII and whose plane crashed in the
Pacific during the war. After an incredible 47 days surviving on
the water he was picked up by Japanese troops and taken to a
detention camp. UNBROKEN tells the story how he was tested in
multiple hellish circumstances. Angelina Jolie directs with a
screenplay from, among others, the Coen Brothers, but she fails to
make Zamperini three-dimensional. Where the film needs oomph it
just does not grasp the viewer. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
The title UNBROKEN refers to Louis Zamperini (played by Jack
O'Connell), who seemed to be unbreakable. Bullied as a little boy
who could not follow rules he gets his life in order by putting
everything into his running, breaking a speed record at the 1938
Olympics. From there he went into the World War II military, and
had his plane crash under him into the ocean. And spent the rest
of the war in Japanese prison camps.
This film of Zamperini's life is oddly structured. It begins on a
bombing run over water from which Zamperini got back to base
unharmed. During this run he thinks about his life to that point.
He remembers his past and how he went from being an "at risk" kid
to being an Olympic runner who wins the gold at the 1938 Summer
Olympics in Berlin. It is a later run in a bomber in which the
plane crashes and Zamperini organizes the other two survivors who
share a double inflatable raft. Zamperini seems to have read the
manual and knows what to do to catch food and to keep his fellows
alive. He was on the water a grueling 47 days. From there he was
"rescued," if that is the word, and was sent to multiple Japanese
prisoner of war camps.
We are about at the midpoint of the 137-minute film and just
getting to the primary story of the film, how Zamperini survives in
the camps. Life would be bad enough if he were a typical POW.
Perhaps because of his Olympic status, he is chosen for especially
sadistic abuse by a malignant Japanese corporal who gives all the
worst treatment to Zamperini.
The only place where this film generates any real excitement for
its characters are the earlier scenes of aerial combat. In a
season of too many superhero films, it should have been a welcome
relief to have a film that was a true story from history. Sadly
UNBROKEN's main character is just a bit too much of a human super-
hero. He knows what to do in just about any emergency. And
whatever trial is put before him, it may cause him a lot of pain to
do it, but he will always survive and prevail. He may be seriously
hurt by what is done to him, but he is a very fast healer.
One punishment strangely involves every prisoner in the camp
punching Zamperini in the face. One rather suspects that this
would be and was intended to be tantamount to a death sentence. In
the film it may have rearranged his face a bit, but when next we
see him he is ready for action again. Any feeling sorry for the
character is pointless since the script will bail Zamperini out of
whatever fate brings him. And it does not hurt that he has an
inspirational aphorism or two from his brother to set his mind at
ease. He just has to remember "if you can take it, you can make
it" or "a moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory." There just
does not seem to be enough of a person there and too much of a
demigod for the viewer to build much empathy for or to be inspired
by. The best scenes in the film have the characters figuring how
they can save themselves. But the whole second half of the film
has powerless characters simply being acted upon.
Director Angelina Jolie needs to work a little more on making her
characters human and believable. I rate UNBROKEN a high +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809398/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/unbroken_2014/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Google Cardboard (comments by Lee R. Beaumont)
Lee Beaumont writes:
I am having fun exploring virtual reality with the newly available
Google cardboard device.
Google cardboard is a fold-out cardboard mount that positions a
smartphone in front of your face. Lenses focus your left eye on
the left half of the smartphone screen, and the right eye on the
right half of the smartphone screen. Virtual reality applications,
or 3D-movies in this split screen format can be viewed in 3D. The
smartphone accelerometer senses head position, allowing the user to
look around virtual environments.
Instructions for building your own from cardboard, a pair of
lenses, and some simple craft suppliers are freely available. I
purchased the "Cardboard Classic" from KnoxLabs for $18.95,
shipping included. Downloading the "Cardboard" app from Google
Play onto your Android will provide several demos.
I own an iPhone, so the experience is different. My iPhone 5S fits
well in the viewer, and a few apps are available. Perhaps the most
impressive is the "Dive City Rollercoaster" which takes you on a
virtual roller-coaster ride in a futuristic city. It's fun to look
around, up, and down throughout the ride.
Perhaps the low cost of this device will jumpstart the availability
of 3D content for individual viewing. The split screen format is
ideal for 3D, it solves the problems of combining and then
separating the right and left eye images. Perhaps 3D theatrical
releases, such as Avatar, will soon become available in this 3D
format. I notice that several 3D trailers are available on
YouTube, but they are not in this split-screen format. Perhaps
this will change soon. In any event, this simple device allows
exploration of personal virtual reality technologies even before
the oculus rift becomes available. [-lrb]
==================================================================
TOPIC: GONE GIRL [SPOILERS] and Edited Films (letter of comment by
Tom Russell)
In response to Mark's "Top Ten Films of 2014" in the 01/09/15 issue
of the MT VOID, Tom Russell writes:
We (my wife and I) don't subscribe to cable TV. We get the "basic"
channels over-the-air. For several years now, "digital." Which
means our wireless router blocks PBS, channel 13. (We have
switched back to a wired configuration.) And FOX, channel 5,
reception is poor.
For TV viewing we go to our local library, check out what DVDs are
available. Anything on the "recent acquisitions" shelf? If
nothing there we select perhaps four or five random
DVDs from the regular shelves, trying to recall whether we had seen
those movies before.
Recently we brought home THE WOLF OF WALL STREET and before that, A
MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST. Neither did we watch for even a
half hour before giving up in disgust.
[SPOILERS]
We watched GONE GIRL through to the end. It was simply awful (I
couldn't watch some parts) but the good reviews and the plot twists
had us hooked. We wound up paying close attention so we wouldn't
loose track of what "day" it was. I kept hoping for explanations:
She bought a car for cash (to conceal her identity) but doesn't
Missouri require license plates? Wouldn't the coroner wonder about
water in her lungs if she was supposedly bludgeoned to death? The
whole ending was a disappointment. The gratuitous sex was
especially offensive. No awards from me.
[END SPOILERS]
Two movies we did enjoy recently: THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY and the
silly but fun movie CHEF. Not offensive. No gruesome murders.
(But JOURNEY had a distressing start.) Not R-rated.
We also watched AMADEUS recently on PBS. Great movie. PBS sadly
goes overboard toward the other direction: Even though it is an
adult-oriented network, they showed an "edited for television"
version of AMADEUS (no boobs, not even the one hilarious use of a
four-letter word.)
So my thought is: Here's a business opportunity: sell "edited for
television" versions of movies. I might have given an edited-for-
TV version of GONE GIRL a passing grade. [-tlr]
Mark responds:
I did like GONE GIRL. But I can see why some people did not.
Overall I think the film was well-liked. It is a portrait of a
very extreme relationship and a lot unexpected happens. I like
several of your other selections. I am surprised you were not at
least mildly bothered by the pig at the beginning of CHEF. I think
the filmmakers wanted the audience to know that cuisine can be,
well ... unsavory. A lot of it is about eating real animals.
There have been some experiments with reediting and bowdlerizing
film. But I doubt if it would work today for legal reasons. [-
mrl]
Evelyn adds:
There have been three variants on the "sell edited movies" idea.
The first, which was an edited version of the movie copied to
another VHS tape (or later burned to DVD), was ruled as copyright
infringement because of the fact that the edited version was "fixed
in a tangible medium of expression" (e.g., a VHS tape). This had
been the business model of CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, and Play It
Clean Video.
The second is to provide programming that edits a streaming
presentation (or a DVD, one presumes) in real-time. This is
explicitly allowed by the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act,
but requires special playback equipment. This is used by
ClearPlay, which allows only subscriptions, not purchases of films.
And there is the third model, which is to re-sell tapes and DVDs
that had been edited by the studios themselves for prisons,
airlines, etc. This is used by Swank, who says, "These edited
films reduce excessive language, nudity, violence and sexual
situations while still providing the same great movie
entertainment. Because the studio completes the editing at the
time of production, the film's spirit and fundamental nature are
not affected."
And of course the fourth model (or perhaps the zeroeth) is to rent
only G-, PG-, and PG-13-rated films, or perhaps to see why the R-
rated films got their R rating. For example, I tend to stay away
from graphic violence, but "language including sexual references,
and for teen drug and alcohol use" in BOYHOOD is not going to make
me avoid it. (Don't forget, these days even showing people smoking
tobacco in a film can get you an R rating!) [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Actors (letter of comment by Kevin R)
In response to Mark's question about voice impressions in the
01/16/15 issue of the MT VOID, Kevin R writes:
The way this question was asked, I wasn't going to get the answer.
I know it is fashionable to call thespians "actor" nowadays, but
Kate Hepburn was an ACTRESS. [-kr]
Mark replies:
Hi Kevin,
I appreciate your comment, but I am going to have to stand tough on
this one.
That Kate Hepburn was an actress is not in question. We both agree
she was an actress. I interpret your argument to say it is wrong
to call her an "actor." And I would claim that by the definition
of "actor" she was one. The dictionary does not bring gender into
the definition of actor. The Oxford English Dictionary, by the
way, says, "'Actor' was used at first for both sexes." It is
calling them actresses that is the more recent revision. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Predictions (letter of comment by Philip Chee)
In response to Dale Skran's links to predictions in the 01/16/15
issue of the MT VOID, Philip Chee writes:
[Re: "The U.S. Navy deployed a functional laser weapon."]
I hear that they are also deploying electromagnetic rail-guns.
[Re: "A double amputee received two mind-controlled arms."]
http://tinyurl.com/void-power-glove: "Next time someone tells you
that Nintendo's Power Glove accessory was a flop, point them to
Dillon Markey, an animator who works on projects like Cartoon
Network's 'Robot Chicken'. Markey has been using a modified Power
Glove for more than a year now, using it to help him control the
devices and software he needs to get the right shot."
See? The Power Glove wasn't a failure, it was just ahead of its
time! Yeah, that's it--26 years ahead of its time. [-pc]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
KINDRED by Octavia Butler (ISBN 978-0-807-08369-7) has a premise
similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs's "Mars" series and Richard
Matheson's BID TIME RETURN: a protagonist from the present gets
pulled to somewhere or somewhen else by the sheer power of mind.
In the Matheson and the Burroughs, it is entirely the protagonist's
will; in KINDRED, Dana's transportation is sometimes due to her
will, but sometimes due to that of Rufus.
What Mark noted, though, is that although KINDRED is almost
invariably called science fiction (when it is not an African-
American proto-slave narrative), it is really fantasy. The
Matheson is generally called fantasy, and the Burroughs may get a
pass because it does take place on Mars.
(Wikipedia says "While most of Butler's work is classified as
science-fiction", making one think it may categorize this as
fantasy, they go on with "KINDRED crosses disciplinary boundaries
and so is often shelved under literature or African-American
literature." It does note, however, that Butler herself called it
"a kind of grim fantasy.")
What is also notable is that in an era when African-American
science fiction authors were fairly scarce (and female African-
American authors comprised pretty much entirely of Octavia Butler),
this novel became one of the few novels of the fantastic that
gained widespread popularity as the subject of book discussion
groups and school reading lists.
The book itself is considered to fall into the "realistic" (or at
least "non-romantic") category of slave narratives, although Butler
admits that she realized that she needed to sanitize slavery at
least somewhat, or no one would read the book. Still, it is a much
stronger picture of the evils of slavery than many of the books
preceding it had been (it was published in 1979). For a long time,
books about the South and slavery tended either to romanticize it
(think GONE WITH THE WIND), or avoided being too graphic in their
descriptions. While KINDRED is probably not as graphic as a novel
today might be, it was still much more explicit than most popular
novels had been.
One noticeable flaw is the opening/ending, which is a classic
teleportation issue, yet given no rational cause. Why that time
and no others? It seems to be there merely to provide a physical
manifestation of Dana's emotional state. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I found there was only one way to look thin:
hang out with fat people.
--Rodney Dangerfield