Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
09/18/20 -- Vol. 39, No. 12, Whole Number 2137
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, *mleeper@optonline.net *
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, *eleeper@optonline.net *
Sending Address: *evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
*
All material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by the
author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to *eleeper@optonline.net
*
The latest issue is at *http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm
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
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm*.
Topics:
Correction to Convention Conflicts
THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (LA BELLE ET LA BETE) (1946)
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Infomercials (letters of comment by Scott Dorsey,
Tim Merrigan, Kevin R, Dorothy J. Heydt)
A CANTERBURY TALE (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)
This Week's Reading (A STUDY IN BRIMSTONE, THE HELL-HOUND OF
THE BASKERVILLES, and MY GRAVE RITUAL)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Correction to Convention Conflicts
In the comments on convention conflicts in the 09/04/20 issue of
the MT VOID, I mis-attributed, "Mind you, I thought Con Jose back
in 2002 were taking the piss when they scheduled two panels about
Buffy in consecutive timeslots--at opposite ends of a very large
convention centre." I attributed it to Tim Merrigan, but Paul
Dormer writes, "That was me, responding to Tim." -[pd]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Capsule: The image of THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954) is
imprinted on our cultural psychology perhaps only surpassed by the
visages of King Kong, Frankenstein's creature, and Godzilla. The
creature himself is an icon more recognizable than any number of
screen monsters that have appeared in the 20th-century. The
science of the script is laughably problematic, but does not seem
much of a flaw. What is remembered is a short sequence with Julie
Adams swimming on the surface while unknown to her the creature is
swimming a symmetric dance. This is certainly one of the most
fondly remembered of the science fiction films of the 1950s. It
probably is not for the script, which frankly is flawed, but some
the visual images work well in the film. Still the film is a
classic.
Cast: Julie Adams, Richard Carlson, Richard Denning.
Dir: Jack Arnold.
A scientist doing research on the Amazon finds a fossil hand of
some strange creature that is part amphibian but still very
humanlike. He goes off to show other scientists what once lived in
the Brazilian Amazon. Unbeknownst to him there are fresher
specimens around and the real thing is extremely nasty. An
expedition to recover more of the fossil at first meets with
failure until the site of the search is moved to the nearby Black
Lagoon. There the expedition finds itself prey to the title
creature. Actually the creature does seem to stray from the
lagoon, since that is where we first see him, but most of the time
is lagoon seems to be where you find him and he is anxious to
defend this soggy turf.
The film has two basic conflicts. Obviously there is the creature
against the humans. And then there is a conflict of the success-
oriented scientist against the curiosity-oriented scientist, but
the script of the rivalry of the two scientists is cliched. The
characters are one-dimensional and the plot reduces the title
character to little more than just an angry bear besieging the
expedition. There is one advantage there, the creature is of a
believable strength. He is stronger than a human, but not absurdly
so. The is a more believable creature than the living tank in
ALIEN. The one touch that makes the creature interesting is his
fascination with Kay (played by Julie Adams), the female lead
actress, even though that makes little biological sense. The
creature would be attracted to a gill-woman. There is the
remarkable "underwater ballet" where Kay swims on the surface and
the creature swims under her does have a sort of eroticism. Also
making little biological sense is the crossing of an amphibian with
something so human-shaped. They are really pushing convergent
evolution particularly making the creature attracted to Kay.
Consider how many more people know what the creature looks like and
how few can picture the Martians from WAR OF THE WORLDS. Does the
writer think he himself could be attracted to a female gorilla, no
matter how cute?
But where the film gets its real class is in the quality of its
cinematography. Unlike Jack Arnold's It Came from Outer Space, the
shots are remarkably well-composed. While it is a little less true
of the underwater photography over which there was less control,
the majority of frames could stand by themselves as stills. It is
hard to balance that sense of composition with the demands of 3D
photography. The visual sense of this film is really the main
reason the film is so fondly remembered. The best touch of the
film is that look of the creature makes it one of the most
memorable monsters of the 1950s. On the other hand pieces of the
dialogue are awkward and the little science lectures that often
even get the science very wrong.
Obviously this monster is one that has struck some chord in the
audience that goes far beyond the film. This film gets a +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
Turner Classic Movies is running this in both September (September
26, 2:00 AM) and October (October 12, 2:00 PM). [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (LA BELLE ET LA BETE) (1946) (comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Jean Cocteau combines elements of the Cinderella story with the
Beauty and the Beast story, namely the two mean sisters (in this
case, full sisters rather than stepsisters) who spend their time
dressing up and putting on airs while Belle scrubs the floor.
Cocteau conveys the magical atmosphere with simple in-camera trick.
Candles light themselves by the trick of being blown out and then
having the film run backwards. Sculptures come to life by having
actors' faces covered in a gray(?) make-up to match the rest of the
stonework. (Having the film in black and white makes this easier.)
When Belle travels through the hallway with windows, the actress is
on a wheeled dolly that is pulled smoothly so that she appears to
float through.
As is common, the Beast is too magnificent to be horrible. One can
argue that a fearsome beast can be magnificent--consider the lion--
but it still makes him a bit less beastly. Belle describes him as
ugly, but he is not. Quasimodo is ugly in most (all?) the film
versions in large part because of his asymmetry, but the Beast does
not have that flaw.
On the other hand, Avenant is handsome, but turns out to be a
louse. So Cocteau gives her the best of both worlds: the Beast's
appearance is changed to that of Avenant, while the (dead) Avenant
takes on the appearance of the Beast. All in all, this is an
incredibly lookist film (and story).
And then the Beast tells Belle they are going to fly to his kingdom
where she will find her father (who was ailing just a few days
earlier) and her sisters will serve her, and then they rise up into
the sky (heavens?) with billowing cape, and clouds, and everything
else that makes them look like Renaissance angels. Is Cocteau
trying to signal that they are dead and the Beast's kingdom is in
Heaven?
It is not clear at what point the Beast decides not to kill Belle.
Is it when Belle's father first mentions a daughter and the Beast
wants companionship more than vengeance? Or is it when he first
sees her?
Why does the Beast lap up water from the pond? He is perfectly
capable of drinking from a cup.
A technical note: The subtitles on the version I saw were
incomplete--not every line was translated--and often I would catch
a nuance in the French missing from the English. From example,
Belle uses the verb "sortir" to the Beast, "Sortie," which is
translated, "Go." But "sortir" has the meaning of "exit" or
"leave". In this case Belle is specifically telling him to leave
her room, not just to go in general. (When the horse is told to
go, that is just "Va!" the imperative of "aller".) [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Infomercials (letters of comment by Scott Dorsey, Tim
Merrigan, Kevin R, Dorothy J. Heydt)
In response to Mark's comments on infomercials in the 09/11/20
issue of the MT VOID, Scott Dorsey writes:
Infomercials were more than half a century old back in 1990, and
are rapidly approaching the century mark. Here is an exciting
radio program from 1933:
*http://www.panix.com/~kludge/radio17.mp3
http://www.panix.com/~kludge/radio17.mp3*
Fidelity here is not great, and the band is a little bit on the
loose side, but the product does exactly what they claim. [-sd]
Tim Merrigan adds:
Until sometime in the late 50s or early 60s it was not uncommon for
variety and similar shows to incorporate commercials into the
programming. That sounds like this is more of that than that the
programming is specifically designed to promote the product. So,
I'm not sure it qualifies as an infomercial. If this is an
infomercial, so was the Texaco Star Theater. [-tm]
Kevin R writes:
I remember the cast of "The Beverly Hillbillies" appearing in
Kellogg's Corn Flakes spots:
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqgrlpYxYF4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqgrlpYxYF4*
The SUPERMAN TV cast flogged them, too. Of course, on the radio,
The Man of Tomorrow was sponsored by Kellogg's Pep.
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQYmqYC2sjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQYmqYC2sjY*
... and introducing Sugar Smacks:
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbeXrLzZW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbeXrLzZW8*
Captain Marvel hung out with Mr Tawny, but Kal-El was pals with
Tony!:
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHqzDQLT-iY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHqzDQLT-iY*
Dorothy J. Heydt adds:
And I remember whoeveritwas played Tom Corbett, Space Cadet,
flogging Wheaties.
Also, meeting the studio audience after the show (which was
broadcast live), and answering questions about space and science
and stuff. Which the actor could not have been expected to know;
so they stood him in front of a curtain with a plug in his ear, and
Willy Ley on the other side with a microphone.
/google
Frankie Thomas was his name.
.... and IMDB also had a line with the same series title and "in
development." No other information. Dear me. [-djh]
And Evelyn adds:
If you watch old television shows from the 1950s (in specific,
"Meet The Goldbergs"), you will see commercials worked into the
plot. (As Raphael A. Riccio writes in an Amazon review, "The early
episodes also included Molly pitching various products such as
coffee, vitamins and knives in ads that were cleverly worked into
the beginning of the script.") Today's product placement is merely
visual (so far as I can tell), but back then Molly Goldberg
actually told everyone about the benefits of Sanka. [-ecl]
Paul Dormer writes:
I watch live baseball on BT Sports in the UK and it would appear
that baseball coverage still does incorporate commercials into the
commentary. But it seems BT are not allowed to show these. So you
hear a couple of words of the ad and then suddenly the screen
blanks to the BT Sports logo, hold music is played, and then they
cut back to the game.
Not sure why they have to do this. It's not as if I'm like to try
and buy something being advertised when the nearest place I could
is over 3000 miles away. [-pd]
Jay E. Morris responds:
I know sports commentators will often be hyping other network shows
during the game. Perhaps it's BT not wanting to have mentioned
shows not available? Or on another network? [-jem]
Paul answers:
I recorded last night's Sunday night game and I've just been
watching it. It's not the commentators doing it, it's an actual
short ad interpolated in the middle of the commentary - not a full
ad break. They didn't cut away in time for a couple, so I did see
the start of an ad for Grubhub, who I don't believe deliver round
my way. The other was for some offer with T-Mobile.
Certainly on the NFL coverage on Sky, you're always getting ads for
upcoming shows, some of which are even shown over here (but not at
the time and day advertised). [-pd]
And Jay says:
Oh, those. I think it's because they don't want to go to a full
commercial break but it's time to earn some money. No idea on
those. [-jem]
Kevin R adds:
Other live broadcasts have done this. As early as 1926, Bulova
produced its first radio commercial. "At the tone, its 8 PM, B-U-L-
O-V-A Bulova watch time." I used to hear a version of this on New
York radio decades later. That was likely all-news WCBS (880 AM)
or WINS (1010 wins New York!)
The in-game, mid-commentary ad is known as a "drop-in." Baseball
and other live sports don't have "hard breaks" requiring action to
stop and ads shown. A baseball half inning can have a side set
down in as little as three pitches, or the team at the plate could
"bat around." The NY Times explained the drop-in, here:
*https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/sports/baseball/radio
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/sports/baseball/radio*-
broadcasts-balance-baseball-with-advertising.html
[Two years ago the Mets moved to WCBS radio, when the Yankees took
over WFAN (formerly WNBC).] [-kr]
[This is a long continuation of this discussion of commercials in
live sports at
*https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.fandom/c/C7CZI-OFCVI
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.fandom/c/C7CZI-OFCVI*.
You may need a Google (free) account to read it. -ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A CANTERBURY TALE (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)
Incidentally, have you ever seen the film A CANTERBURY TALE? It's
very little to do with Chaucer, a wartime piece from Powell and
Pressburger about three people thrown together by circumstance on
the way to Canterbury, and a man who puts glue in women's hair. A
curious film, but worth watching. It was on TV recently and I saw
it again. [-pd]
Evelyn responds:
I saw it back in 2011, but don't recall it very well. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I have been reading G. S. Denning's stories of "Warlock Holmes";
there are five volumes, but I have only the first three: A STUDY IN
BRIMSTONE (Titan, ISBN 978-1-7832-9971-3), THE HELL-HOUND OF THE
BASKERVILLES (Titan, ISBN 978-1-7832-9973-7), and MY GRAVE RITUAL
(Titan, ISBN 978-1-7832-9975-1). These retell Sherlock Holmes
stories making Watson the brains and Holmes a warlock with magical
powers, Groggson an ogre and Lestrade a vampire. Not surprisingly,
these are laced with humor. ("They await their master's summons,
lying dormant in some faraway land--a land of gray skies and
shattered hopes, where no man ever smiles. Philadelphia, I seem to
recall.")
They are not great literature, but they are amusing enough for
Sherlock Holmes fans; other readers will not get the references and
re-workings. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
*mleeper@optonline.net *
I never want to hear another bad word about cultural
practices of the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Celts etc
now that we have "a pyrotechnical celebration of fetal
genitalia burned down 100k acres in 2020" in our
history books.
--G. Willow Wilson