@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 05/14/99 -- Vol. 17, No. 46

       Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
       Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
       HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
       HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
       Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
       second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
       201-447-3652 for details.  The Denver Area Science Fiction
       Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
       Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.

       ===================================================================

       1. Correction: It is the native  Tasmanians,  not  the  native  New
       Zealanders who were the subject of the only successful genocide.

       ===================================================================

       2. I like to watch the old comedies from the 1940s.  You learn  all
       sorts  of  interesting  things.   I  like  films  by directors like
       Preston Sturges and Frank Capra.  I was watching THE GREAT  MCGINTY
       by Sturges.  This is the story of the rise and fall of McGinty from
       a cheap crook to the corrupt Governor of  his  state  and  back  to
       nothing.   Brian Donlevy was in the title role but his sidekick was
       William Demarest.  At one point Demarest is reading  the  newspaper
       and  looks  up  and  says, "They're always talking about graft, but
       they forget if it wasn't for graft you'd get a  very  low  type  of
       people in politics.  Men without ambition.  Jellyfish!"

       Suddenly it occurred to me that I knew that argument.  Where had  I
       heard  that  before?   Then it hit me.  We own stock in a number of
       companies.  That means when the time for  the  annual  shareholders
       meetings  come  around  we get a stack of annual reports with their
       proxy  booklets.   These  are   by   and   large   fairly   serious
       publications.   But  just  like most newspapers have funny pages so
       that there is one fun section to read, so these annual reports also
       have one silly section.  The fun part of an annual report is in the
       proxy booklet.  I love to read the shareholder proposals.  This  is
       where the shareholders get a voice in how the company is run.  What
       kind of a voice is it?  As little a voice as the board of directors
       can  arrange.   Each  shareholder proposal is followed by a section
       that says, "Your Board of Directors  recommends  you  vote  AGAINST
       this  proposal."   And  then  they give some sort of usually feeble
       argument as to why they do not want shareholders to vote yes.

       The proposal is something like it should be company policy  not  to
       employ  slave  labor  to  produce  their  product.   The  board  of
       directors recommends that shareholders vote  against  the  proposal
       because,  well,  gosh,  we  never  would consider using slave labor
       because we are all good people who rarely even whip our servants if
       they  don't  deserve it.  But they never explain why if that is the
       case they do not want to make it official policy.  But  because  of
       this  they  recommend  that  the  shareholders  vote  AGAINST  this
       proposal.  What they do not add but leave implied is that they also
       recommend that the traitor who made this proposal be cut into small
       pieces and fed to weasels.

       Now the law says that in any election the parties  involved  cannot
       put  campaign  ads too near the polling place because it is unfair.
       Boards of directors are bound by no rules of  fairness  whatsoever.
       Around  every single shareholder proposal they put a flashing frame
       that effectively says "Dumb Idea."

       But what about the graft quote?  Well over the course of the  1990s
       directors  and  executive  salaries  and  benefits went from bad to
       worse to obscene in the first half of the decade.   They  continued
       the  trend  in the second half of the decade, but I cannot describe
       it because my thesaurus ran out of nasty adjectives.  So  to  every
       company  comes  someone  who  says  in  a shareholder proposal that
       executive salaries  should  be  capped  before  they  bankrupt  the
       company.  And the response is always the same.  It is basically the
       graft argument from THE GREAT MCGINTY.  In order to compete in  the
       ever-changing  market  we need the best leadership for our company.
       That means having a competitive rewards system so we  do  not  lose
       our  best  to  other  companies.   (Nobody  suggests  that employee
       salaries be competitive, by the way.)  Never  mind  the  fact  that
       these   clods  running  the  company  can  have  lost  billions  in
       disastrous acquisitions and other  stupid  decisions.   Never  mind
       that  if  given  a  choice  nobody familiar with their track record
       would trust them to organize the feeding times  of  a  gerbil.   We
       have  to  keep throwing bundles of money at them for fear they will
       become dissatisfied and (gasp) make their disastrous decisions  for
       another company.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       3. "eXistenZ" (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: Reality comes  in  layers  as  a  game
                 world is the gateway to more game worlds within
                 still more game worlds.  David Cronenberg's new
                 film   is   not  for  all  tastes,  but  it  is
                 whimsical,  witty,  and  weird.   The  Canadian
                 director plays with themes of electronic games,
                 mutation, religious fatwas, and some just plain
                 weird  stuff.   This is a film that is kinky in
                 many ways and some have nothing to do with sex.
                 Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4)

       While there is much in "eXistenZ" that harkens back to  VIDEODROME,
       the film is new and fresh.  It is a big night for Antenna Research,
       a leading virtual-reality game company.  They are  ready  to  start
       the  last  round  of  tests  for  their  new  reality-bending  game
       eXistenZ.   They  do  not  want  to  say  what  makes  eXistenZ  so
       different,   but it is a distinct step beyond other virtual reality
       games that also tap directly into the nervous system through  jacks
       in the base of the spine.  eXistenZ is something of a breakthrough.
       It is so new that the demo of eXistenZ will be done by the inventor
       of  eXistenZ,  the queen of game designers Allegra Geller (Jennifer
       Jason Leigh).  But something is wrong.  The competition has  gotten
       an  agent  into  the crowd and he nearly assassinates Geller with a
       strange handgun made of living matter.  Ted Pikul (Jude  Law),  who
       is  providing  security,  takes Allegra to safety at a local motel.
       But Allegra has to test her eXistenZ gamepod, containing  the  only
       complete version of the game.  (It is worth in the tens of millions
       of dollars and she keeps the only  copy  in  her  pocket.   Right.)
       That  means she needs a playing partner.  But Ted does not have the
       jack at the base of his spine and is less than anxious to get  one.
       Luckily  there is a local gas station attendant (deliciously played
       by Willem Defoe) who installs jacks as a sideline.  And for  Ted  a
       strange new world is about to open.

       David Cronenberg makes some  of  the  most  bizarre  films  of  any
       popular  filmmaker.   What is remarkable is that the more his films
       get strange the more he crosses over to a mainstream audience.   It
       was not enough that he had the weird alien medical instruments that
       he had in DEAD RINGERS, here he takes things  a  step  further  and
       makes  all  the  machinery  of  the  games,  the  game pods and the
       connecting cables, out of organic material.  One does not  so  much
       flip  a  switch as massage and caress it.  Connections are not made
       by cables but by umbilical  cords.   Cronenberg  comes  dangerously
       close  to alienating his viewer by disgusting him.  But ingeniously
       he keeps the tone just light and freakily  witty  enough  that  the
       viewer  happily  goes  along for the ride.  But the wit is never so
       over the top to turn the "eXistenZ" into a farce.  When I  saw  the
       film  the  audience  seemed  to  be  enjoying  the  film immensely.
       Cronenberg's problems are  not  with  his  audience  but  with  his
       financial  backers.   Reportedly  the major studios that could have
       financed "eXistenZ" found the plot to be  "too  non-linear."   They
       were  absolutely  right  that  as the plot goes skin-diving through
       layers of reality things do get a bit complex, but that is much  of
       the  fun  of  the  film.  The non-linearity works for the film, not
       against it.

       Early in her career I found Jennifer Jason Leigh's roles to  be  an
       irritating  combination  of  ingenue  and counter-culture.  She was
       sort of the Homecoming Queen with a gun from  Julie  Brown's  song.
       But  as  her  collection  of  offbeat  characters  increases  I  am
       beginning to appreciate what an accomplished character actress  she
       has  become.   Here  she  gives a well-balanced performance that is
       generally perfect for the Cronenberg material.  Jude Law of GATTACA
       and   MIDNIGHT   IN   THE   GARDEN  OF  GOOD  AND  EVIL  plays  the
       understandably bewildered protagonist pulled  into  the  worlds  of
       reality switching and being implanted with strange impulses.  Along
       for the ride are Ian Holm with a thick accent.  Also present is Don
       McKellar,  the actor who seems to be as ubiquitous in Canadian film
       these days as Denholm Elliot was at one time in British film.

       "eXistenZ" is nearly as complex as the current THE MATRIX,  but  it
       has  real  characters and a plot involving three-dimensional people
       with motivations rather than with martial  arts  skills.   For  the
       right  audience  the film is a kick.  I rate the film an 8 on the 0
       to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       4. THE MUMMY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: The 1932 horror classic THE MUMMY  may
                 have  been  the inspiration for this tongue-in-
                 cheek  adventure  romp,  but  there  is  little
                 horror  here.   This  is  really more a fantasy
                 adventure  with  a  supernatural  super-villain
                 than a horror film.  As adventure-fantasy films
                 go, this one is not too bad and Brendan  Fraser
                 is  a dashing legionnaire turned mummy fighter.
                 The dish tastes okay, but it  was  not  what  I
                 ordered.   Rating:  6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4).
                 Some non-spoiler comments about the  historical
                 accuracy  of  THE  MUMMY (1999) follow the main
                 text.

       I am not old enough to have seen the original release of the  Boris
       Karloff  THE  MUMMY  (1932).   I  caught  it on television as I was
       growing up, and it is a cherished memory.  This  concept  was  that
       mysterious ancient magic was still powerful and you have to respect
       ancient strange gods and their mysterious curses.  There was a real
       sense  of wonder in the great old film and in the idea it was based
       upon, the idea that there was a degree of  truth  in  the  ages-old
       religion  that  inspired  the  great  stone enigmas of Egypt.  Karl
       Freund's film, often deemed slow by today's teens, was not actually
       slow  but hypnotic.  Its unspoken premise was that the universe was
       full of possibilities, including nasty ones that  Isis  and  Osiris
       and  Anubis  were  as  powerful  as any gods, and they only for now
       chose to slumber.

       Today we live in the age of "Buffy the  Vampire  Slayer,"  and  our
       teens  have  the  answer  to all that.  They know that in those old
       movies the reason that people had all that  trouble  with  mystical
       forces  is  that  they  did not know martial arts.  If you run into
       particularly nasty magic from the age of the pyramids, all that  is
       really  necessary  is  that you kick a little harder.  All that old
       awe stuff was stupid.  So for this audience a mummy movie  needs  a
       lot  of  action and Indiana Jones style thrills and funny jokes and
       special effects.  That really is what we have gotten.

       The new version of  THE  MUMMY  begins  with  an  extended  opening
       sequence  showing the origin of the living Mummy told as we tell it
       in the 1990s.  As much as the film in general does,  this  sequence
       mixes blessing and curse.  There is a beautiful computer animation,
       if somewhat obviously  animation,  of  an  ancient  Egyptian  city.
       While somewhat idealized it looks fairly close to being done with a
       high degree of historical accuracy.  This is followed by scenes  of
       Imhotep  (Arnold  Vosloo),  here  a  high  priest of Osiris fooling
       around with Pharaoh's wife Ankhesenamun. The latter is dressed in a
       sort of fishnet outfit.  Let us say that historical accuracy is not
       uniformly distributed.  Of course, the lovers  are  discovered  and
       Pharaoh  is  roughly  as  forgiving as one would expect of a living
       god.  Imhotep is sentenced  to  be  mummified  alive,  to  be  made
       immortal,  and to suffer an eternity of living death in his tomb in
       Hamunaptra, a treasure city and sacred burial site.

       Flash  forward  to  1921  and  we  find  American  adventurer  Rick
       O'Connell  (Brendan  Fraser) is fighting with French Foreign Legion
       when he runs across the  ruins  of  what  might  be  the  legendary
       Hamunaptra.  From there the general flow of the plot is obvious and
       not unlike a hyped-up version of THE MUMMY'S HAND.  O'Connell  gets
       involved  with  Evelyn  Carnarvon  (Rachel Weisz) the daughter of a
       famous explorer.  Two groups of people end up trying  to  find  the
       riches  of  Hamunaptra  and  a third group is trying to protect the
       city and its secrets.  The secrets include an  immortal  mummy  who
       when  raised  needs to collect living organs to adopt into his body
       and recreate himself whole.

       Adrian Biddle's cinematography captures a big  adventure  feel  and
       spectacle that is unusual for traditionally low-budget mummy films.
       Here, at least in the early parts of  the  film  there  is  a  good
       adventuresome  look for the film.  While Jerry Goldsmith's score is
       not one of his better works and does not make itself memorable,  at
       least  it  underscores the action well.  There are certain dramatic
       problems with the film.  Some  tension  is  created  as  the  mummy
       becomes  more  and more complete by virtue of the organs he steals.
       But when he is complete, he just looks like  Arnold  Vosloo  again.
       It is something of a letdown; Vosloo is no Boris Karloff.

       This new THE MUMMY is a comedy that does well what current films do
       well,  but it completely fails to do well what 1932 films did well.
       In short, in spite of the title, this just is not  THE  MUMMY.   On
       leaving the theater I felt like chanting, "Show me THE MUMMY!  Show
       me THE MUMMY!"  This experience rates a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale  and
       a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

       Relevant historical information:

       1. The  real  Imhotep  lived  around  2980  B.C.E.   Imhotep,  very
       probably  one  of  history's great geniuses, was a physician and an
       architect.  He  invented  step  pyramids  for  the  Pharaoh  Zoser,
       leading  the way for true pyramids.  However, he probably would not
       also have been a priest of Osiris as the film portrayed  him.   The
       real  Ankhesenamun  lived  around  1375  B.C.E  and was the wife of
       Tutankhamun.  Naturally Imhotep and Ankhesenamun  never  met,  much
       less  had a great love.  The time difference is roughly the same as
       if it was suggested that Attila the Hun had an illicit affair  with
       Meryl Streep.

       2. The descendents of the original Egyptians are portrayed  in  the
       film as Moslem; they would much more likely be Coptic Christians.

       3. Though unstated, Evelyn's father is clearly intended to be  Lord
       Carnarvon,  who  in  1923  would  be  pivotal  in  Howard  Carter's
       discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb.  Lady Elizabeth Carnarvon's  death
       in  1929  was  one  of  those  linked  to  the  supposed  curse  on
       Tutankhamun's tomb.

       4. Books with pages were invented in China and did not make  it  to
       places like Egypt until something like the 4th Century C.E.  [-mrl]

                                          Mark Leeper
                                          HO 1J-621 732-817-5619
                                          mleeper@lucent.com

            To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked
            at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
                                          -- George Santayana