THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
08/05/11 -- Vol. 30, No. 6, Whole Number 1661
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
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:
Announcement
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
What Does Lightning Look Like in Slow Motion?
Inter-Discipline Question (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
My Picks for Turner Classic Movies for August (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Films as Fables (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
WEST OF ZANZIBAR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE HANDS OF ORLAC (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT (letter of comment
by Daniel Kimmel)
This Week's Reading (THE 101 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE WHO
NEVER LIVED) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: Announcement
This week's MT VOID is a day early because we will be without
Internet access on tis normal publication date.
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
August 11 (Thu): PANIC IN YEAR ZERO and some associated book to be
determined, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film at 5:30PM,
discussion after film
August 25 (Thu): THE BEST AMERICAN SCIENCE AND NATURE WRITING 2009
edited by Elizabeth Kolbert, Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library,
7PM
September 8 (Thu): TBD, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film at
5:30PM, discussion after film
September 22 (Thu): THE HACKER AND THE ANTS by Rucy Rucker,
Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 7PM
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: What Does Lightning Look Like in Slow Motion?
http://i.imgur.com/3XVJO.gif
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: Inter-Discipline Question (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was watching HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 1,
preparing to see the second part. Toward the end we get to see the
symbol of the Deathly Hallows as it appears in a signature and as
it is rendered in a piece of jewelry. In the jewelry the cloak is
an equilateral triangle. In the signature it is an isosceles right
triangle sitting with its hypotenuse as the base. If the radius of
the circle is r, what is the length of the wand in jewelry and what
is it in the signature? Assume all lines are infinitesimally thin.
Okay, I will let you cheat on the cinema knowledge part of the
puzzle. You can see the symbol at
http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/images/2/23/Hallows.png
[-mrl]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: My Picks for Turner Classic Movies for August (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
[Note: all times given are Eastern Daylight Time.]
We are moving quickly through the summer, and it is time for me to
take a look at the August schedule on Turner Classic Movies and
choose what I consider the most interesting films. I have recently
talked to a kid of high school age who called himself a real film
buff. He likes all kinds of films, he said. Okay, that does
impress me at least a little. Let's give him two points. The guy
must know something about cinema. I pointed out that SEVEN DAYS IN
MAY was going to be on TV soon. Well, he said, he likes all kinds
of films, *but* he really is not keen on black-and-white films.
Oops! I take back my two points and three more. Some--probably
most--of the greatest films of all times have been in black-and-
white. Well, I hope this guy has kids who also consider themselves
big film buffs who like all kinds of films, but nothing in 2D.
They will be only interested in 3D films. That day might well
come. Well, all of the films I will recommend this month are
black-and-white. Not only that they are all silent films.
As they are frequently wont to do, Turner is taking days and
devoting each to the films of one actor. Monday, August 15, all
day from 6AM Monday to 6AM Tuesday TCM will feature films starring
Lon Chaney, Sr., the first great horror star. (The only arguably
better horror actor of the time was Conrad Veidt. He is also
getting his day Tuesday, August 16, all day from 6AM Tuesday to 6AM
Wednesday.) The films chosen are a mix of straight dramas and of
horror films. And the final five films are collaborations with
director Tod Browning. These films include the silent THE UNHOLY
THREE (1925), WEST OF ZANZIBAR (1928), and the Turner
reconstruction of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927). THE UNHOLY THREE
is basically a crime melodrama with a gimmick. The point of
interest is that is was remade just five years later because sound
had come in. Lon Chaney played the same role in both films and the
remake, directed by Jack Conway, was the only film in which Chaney
spoke. Both versions will be shown in during the Lon Chaney
marathon. I reviewed WEST OF ZANZIBAR in 1993 and that review can
be found below.
Also being shown is the Turner reconstruction of LONDON AFTER
MIDNIGHT. The film is lost, the only known copy burning in a fire
back in the 1960s, but enough still photos survive as does the
script so that Turner could piece together something like a
reconstruction complete enough to follow the story. Forrest
J. Ackerman told me that he thought that if the film ever were
found it would be a disappointment. It could not possibly live up
to its reputation. For one thing, as a vampire Chaney walks around
in a Groucho Marx posture, Ackerman said, and it would look silly
today. Personally, I am only neutral toward its remake, MARK OF
THE VAMPIRE (1935) with Bela Lugosi.
And for those with a taste for more silent horror, Turner is also
showing two great films from silent film director Robert Weine.
One is the father of all horror films and the film that spawned the
German Expressionist film movement, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI
(1919). They will also show the first film adaptation of Maurice
Renard's HANDS OF ORLAK (1924). Both films were directed by Weine
and starred silent film's other great horror actor Conrad Veidt. A
review of HANDS OF ORLAK can also be found below.
Here is the schedule of Chaney and Veidt films:
Monday August 15 (Lon Chaney films not directed by Tod Browning)
6:00 AM Ace of Hearts, The (1921)
7:30 AM Unholy Three, The (1930)
9:00 AM Oliver Twist (1922)
11:00 AM He Who Gets Slapped (1924)
12:15 PM Monster, The (1925)
1:45 PM Tell It To The Marines (1926)
3:30 PM Mockery (1927)
4:45 PM Mr. Wu (1927)
6:30 PM Laugh, Clown, Laugh (1928)
8:00 PM Hunchback of Notre Dame, The (1923)
10:00 PM Phantom of the Opera, The (1925)
Tuesday, August 16 (Lon Chaney films directed by Tod Browning)
12:00 AM Unholy Three, The (1925)
1:30 AM Unknown, The (1927)
2:30 AM West of Zanzibar (1928)
3:45 AM Where East Is East (1929)
5:00 AM London After Midnight (1927)
Wednesday, August 24 Conrad Veidt films
6:00 AM Above Suspicion (1943)
7:45 AM Contraband (1940)
9:30 AM All Through The Night (1942)
11:30 AM Jew Suss (1934)
1:15 PM Spy In Black, The (1939)
2:45 PM Whistling In The Dark (1941)
4:15 PM Escape (1940)
6:00 PM Woman's Face, A (1941)
8:00 PM Hands of Orlac, The (1925) (directed by Robert
Wiene)
9:45 PM Thief of Bagdad, The (1940)
11:45 PM Casablanca (1942)
Thursday, August 25 More Conrad Veidt films
1:45 AM Nazi Agent (1942)
3:15 AM Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, The (1919) (directed by
Robert Wiene)
4:30 AM Dark Journey (1937)
Reviews of the two films may be found below. [-mrl]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: Films as Fables (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
There is an interesting genre of films which I call "fables"
(although "magical realism" might be appropriate for at least some
of them). What do I mean by a fable? It's a story which is just
slightly askew--everything is heightened and intensified. And
there is usually a magical character (leprechaun, genii, fairy
godmother, etc.) who carries the story along. Three excellent ones
come to mind; I'd love to hear of more.
The best known of the three is THE INVENTION OF LYING, where
everything is the same as our world, except there is no lying--
until Ricky Gervais invents it. In general I find the characters
that Ricky Gervais plays too annoying to watch, but here he plays
it more or less straight and is very good.
A lesser-known one is JOE VS. THE VOLCANO, with Tom Hanks and Meg
Ryan. (I know--it's hard to believe there is a Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan
film as little-known as this one. In all the Tom Hanks
retrospectives, it just gets skipped.) As I said, everything here
is just slightly intensified. Joe's job is just a tad too
depressing, the people he meets are all a bit over the top (of
whatever their personality is), the coincidences are a bit too
unlikely, and so on.
And the last is INTERSTATE 60. Again, everything is just a bit
magnified, a bit stronger, a bit stranger. This is harder to
describe than the other two; let's just say it is a very strange
road trip movie.
In written fiction, these might also be called slipstream, though
that term is probably even less defined than fable or magical
realism. But whatever they are, one aspect seems to be that they
do not get much attention. I suppose the problem is that they are
"weird" enough to turn off the mainstream crowd, but not
fantastical enough to be marketed to the fantasy crowd. In any
case, these are three little-known films you should seek out.
[-ecl]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (film review by
Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The final Harry Potter film has Harry and friends
searching out the last of the Voldemort Horcruxes for his final
confrontation with Voldemort. If you don't know what I just said I
recommend you bail out right now. The last Harry Potter film is a
very substantial fantasy film, perhaps even beyond the level of one
of the LORD OF THE RINGS films. With one major omission the series
comes to a satisfying and frequently spectacular conclusion.
Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Someone asked the question, "I have not seen any of the previous
Harry Potter films and not read the books. However I hear that the
last half of the last story is really very good. Will I get
anything out of seeing just the last film?" I can answer with a
resounding "No." One virtue a film may or may not have is that it
stands by itself. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2
completely lacks this virtue. I have seen *all* the Harry Potter
films and read the first book. But I have a poor memory for
technical terms and invented names. Last year I saw PART 1 and sat
watching it very much lost. So in order to enjoy PART 2, I watched
PART 1 on DVD the previous day and followed the plot in Wikipedia,
frequently stopping and following links to figure out who such-and-
such is and what this-and-that is. It helped a lot, but I am not
sure I always understood what was being said. Take with a grain of
salt any factual statement in this review that slips out about the
plot.
The Harry Potter books adapted to the screen has constituted a
massive effort over a decade amassing something in the range of
twenty hours of filmed story, considerably longer than the total of
THE LORD OF THE RINGS. The Potter series has been British drama's
equivalent of the space program. Of major British or Irish actors
everyone but Sean Bean is in the film someplace. (Perhaps Sean
wasn't checking his phone messages.) While the series started out
as a series of children's books, the character of Potter, the
sophistication of the stories, the books' readership, and the films
all grew up together. In the latest film Potter is quite
acceptable as an adult film hero. The problems he, Hermione, and
Ron are working out are on an adult level. Many are problems bred
of fantasy situations, yes, but many are the sort of interpersonal
problems that would keep adults interested. Harry is old enough
that he can credibly handle adult problems. Early in the series
one had the feeling that the problems that Harry faced were stacked
to fall apart easily. The rules of Quidditch seemed contrived so
that it would be easy for a freshman to come in and immediately
become a most valuable player. Not that it really helped the
series to have the hero be an incidental sport hero. In the new
film Harry has some really complex and difficult tasks.
There are some problems in the story. The very biggest is that
this should have been--among other things--Voldemort's film. This
is the final confrontation between Harry and the evil lord. This
was where we could expect to learn what Voldemort's story was. Why
was he this incarnation of evil? What made him this way? What was
his goal? In short, what is his motivation? Instead we leave the
series never knowing the wizard who is perhaps the most important
character in the series. Through eight films he is the reason why
everybody is doing what they are doing. So who is this Voldemort?
Minor spoiler: I still don't know. On the other hand, we learn
considerably more about the motivations of the perennial red
herring Severus Snape who at last becomes a character of some
interest. Speaking of things I still do not know, most of my
memories of Hogwart's are of the hallways choked with young
magicians and stairwells that disintegrate and reintegrate as
needed. At Hogwart's you seem to see the staff and only one class
of students. It is almost like they admit students of about the
same age, and then wait until they are all adults before bringing
in the next batch. The fighting we see in this film might have had
a very different tenor if there were young students running around.
We are never told where all the current students are. In the last
few episodes there has been the suggestion that Hermione and Ron
are a bit of a number. This is true in spite of the fact that they
seem to have no screen chemistry together. What does Hermione see
in Ron? I still don't know.
David Yates, who directed the three previous Potter films, again
directs. He is largely known for his television work but is doing
good things for the Potter series. The production work, designed
by Stuart Craig who has created the look of all the Potter films as
well as films like THE ENGLISH PATIENT and SHADOWLANDS, has a
quality finish to it. Cinematography is by Eduardo Serra who
specializes in half-lighting as in the forest in DEFIANCE and the
beautiful work he did for THE GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARRING. An
expert in handling half-light is extremely important for this film
as the film had conflicting requirements. Because of the dark tone
of the story it needed screen images to match. At the same time it
had to be releasable in high-quality 3D. 3D does not do well with
dark scenes. The glasses make it look murky. I will not say that
it was not a problem with PART 2, but it generally was well
handled.
The loose ends of the Harry Potter series finally knit together in
a spectacular and at times profound conclusion the series that
involves and resurrects just about every important character in the
previous films. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2
requires familiarity with the people and things of the series, but
it will satisfy most of the fans, or at least those who do not care
to know much about Voldemort. In any case, I rate the film a high
+2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/
What others are saying: http://tinyurl.com/void-rt-potter-dh2
[-mrl]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: WEST OF ZANZIBAR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
[This review first appeared in the MT VOID 07/16/93.]
Most people who are fans of horror films--and who know a little
something of the history of the horror film--respect the name of
Lon Chaney. Chaney is the best-remembered horror actor of the
silent era, at least for his silent work. (Karloff, of course, had
his share of horror parts in the silent era, but he is remembered
much more for his sound roles.) Chaney is the American horror actor
most associated with the silent era. But oddly, his current
reputation is based for all but a few horror fans on only two roles
and a few stills from other films. It is relatively easy to find
opportunity to see THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923) and THE
PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925). But how many of us have seen SHADOWS
(1922), A BLIND BARGAIN (1922), THE TRAP (1922), or THE SHOCK
(1923)? Films like LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927) appear to be
totally lost. Most of his other roles require some effort to find.
Resurrected for Turner cable television is one of his more
interesting efforts, Tod Browning's WEST OF ZANZIBAR.
Browning is best remembered as the director of the 1930 film
DRACULA, and is a bit less well-remembered for FREAKS (1932), but
he has a number of interesting films to his credit. He did several
previous films with Chaney including THE UNHOLY THREE (1925), THE
BLACKBIRD (1926), THE ROAD TO MANDALAY (1926), and the lost and
legendary LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927). He is also remembered for
three sound era films: DRACULA of course, MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, his
1935 remake of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT with Bela Lugosi and Lionel
Barrymore, and his 1936 DEVIL DOLL, again with Barrymore.
The story of WEST OF ZANZIBAR opens in a London music hall. Phroso
the Magician (played by Chaney) is a popular attraction,
particularly when he performs the illusion of turning a skeleton
into his beautiful wife. However, his wife is more interested in
Crane, an ivory trader played by a young and handsome Lionel
Barrymore. Phroso gets into a fight with Crane only to have his
back broken. The magician has lost both his wife and the use of his
legs in one evening. Some years later, Phroso's wife returns from
Africa, dying and with Crane's baby. Phroso decides to take revenge
on Crane and his daughter. Flash forward eighteen years and Phroso
is no more, but in his place is the vengeful mystery man called
Dead-Legs. In a cannibal village in the title location, Dead-Legs
is hatching a plot to destroy Crane. Using his stage magic to
control the superstitious natives, he has Crane's daughter brought
to his jungle outpost. There he begins to exact his revenge.
Admittedly, WEST OF ZANZIBAR has a plot that is a bit simplistic
and the twists in that plot telegraph themselves well in advance of
actually occurring. This makes it difficult to say this is actually
a good film by modern standards. But the macabre jungle melodrama
is told with more than a little style and the resulting film is
surprisingly enjoyable as an artifact.
We see here two of Chaney's claimed thousand faces. Phroso the
Magician's stage make-up is obviously played for a laugh, with
Chaney even borrowing a gesture or two from Charlie Chaplin. Out of
the stage make-up he looks very normal. But Dead-Legs is something
very different, something reptilian. His head is shaved so he looks
nearly hairless. Out of his wheelchair, he slithers his way lizard-
like across the floor not unlike a serpent. [-mrl]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: THE HANDS OF ORLAC (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
[This review first appeared in the MT VOID 07/16/93; another review
appeared in the 09/26/08 issue.]
It is one of the unfortunate characteristics of film that visual
images slow down the story-telling. It takes the camera a lot
longer to show you images that can be described in less time. Of
course, to describe a scene fully one picture is worth a thousand
words, but rarely is it necessarily to describe a scene fully in
telling a story. Silent film is even slower at telling a story,
since a much higher proportion of the story is told by visual
images. For this reason, silent films will often be more simple
stories than sound films of equivalent length, though they can be
just as much or even more atmospheric. The whole story of THE HANDS
OF ORLAC (1924) could well be told in six or seven sentences--
including plot twists I will not reveal.
THE HANDS OF ORLAC reunites THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI director
and its star. Robert Weine directs the vastly under-appreciated
horror actor Conrad Veidt in this adaptation of Maurice Renard's
novel. The story should be familiar to any who have seen the three
other film versions including MAD LOVE (1935), HANDS OF ORLAC
(a.k.a. HANDS OF A STRANGLER) (1960), and HANDS OF A STRANGER
(1962). Paul Orlac is a great concert pianist who loses his own
hands in a train wreck. In their place, a surgeon grafts the hands
of a guillotined knife murderer, Vasseur. To Orlac's horror the
hands seem to desire to return to their career of crime. It is an
idea that would be used many times in film, but this was the first
and perhaps the most stylish use of the idea.
Under Weine's direction, Veidt's acting is very effective as a man
almost being dragged around by his own hands. Veidt's face shows
increasing madness as the film progresses. Perhaps the most
effective image of the film shows a crazed Veidt, a mad look on his
face, as his half-clenched hand, filmed in the foreground, seems to
be leading or even dragging him. Beyond this the film has a
gratuitously Gothic feel, the camera making much of taking place in
a cavernous old house with its huge bullet-shaped doorways. It is a
style that would later be imitated by Universal Studios in their
30s horror cycle.
More could be done with this story, as Karl Freund's MAD LOVE would
prove. Still, the film has enough of its share of effective images
to make it worth seeking out. [-mrl]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT (letter of comment by Daniel
Kimmel)
In response to Mark's comments on COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT in
the 07/22/11 issue of the MT VOID, Dan Kimmel wrote:
I'm looking forward to the rest of Mark's reassessment of COLOSSUS:
THE FORBIN PROJECT and am hoping he'll address what I consider one
of the major issues of the film. When I teach SF film and show it,
it usually disturbs the class because the day *isn't* saved. It's
an unusual Hollywood film that ends on a down note. So I then ask
the students whether Colossus has, indeed, failed? What was it
programmed to do? Prevent war and keep America safe. Isn't that
exactly what it has done? Hasn't it *fulfilled* its task? This is
not like HAL going crazy (so to speak) in "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY."
This is a computer doing what it was designed to do with unexpected
consequences. [-dk]
=========================
=========================
=================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE 101 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE WHO NEVER LIVED: HOW CHARACTERS OF
FICTION, MYTH, LEGENDS, TELEVISION, AND MOVIES HAVE SHAPED OUR
SOCIETY, CHANGED OUR BEHAVIOR, AND SET THE COURSE OF HISTORY by
Allan Lazar, Dan Karlan & Jeremy Salter (ISBN 978-0-061-13221-6)
has an interesting premise, but does not quite follow through. A
more accurate title might be "The 101 Most Recognized People Who
Never Lived". Helen of Troy is certainly widely known, but how
much has she influenced society? Buck is even less influential--
and not even a person. (He is the dog in Jack London's CALL OF THE
WILD.)
Lazar claims the authors "dropped all of the essays [they] had
written about religious characters, and then includes The Wandering
Jew, Lilith, and several Greek and Roman gods. He claims to have
"cut out all the real people except Siegfried, Saint Nick, and King
Arthur," but then includes Saint Valentine and Smokey Bear (another
non-person). They also include HAL 9000. In short, it is a very
subjective list of 101 entities, most of which are fictional, some
of which are real people, and some of which are not even people.
This is more accurately a set of essays about cultural icons, and a
fairly superficial one at that.
For example, they claim the first series of Godzilla movies ran
from 1962 to 1989 and the second series from 1991 to 1995, and that
"several Godzilla movies [were] made in the United States in the
1990s. The first series ends in 1975, the second runs from 1984 to
1995, the third series runs from 1999 to 2004, and only one
Godzilla movie was made in the United States (in 1998). And the
list of cultural influences of The Wandering Jew does not list A
CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ. (They also comment, "The United States
has never had a president or vice-president or secretary of state
Joe," but the book was written in 2006, so this is understandable.)
However, Lazar et al's comments on Cinderella are very much in line
with Mark's comments in the 07/08/11 issue of the MT VOID. They
write, "[A] fairy godmother provides her with elegant clothes so
that she can attract the eye of the prince, who happens to be
looking for a girl to marry. Decked out in her finery, Cinderella
gets his attention at a ball where she is nothing but a
clotheshorse. She has earned nothing. She deserves nothing,
except perhaps back wages at home. And yet, she gets the prince to
marry her. This is not the lesson we should teach our children.
There are more important values than good looks, fine clothes, and
expensive trappings--intelligence, independence, self-esteem,
responsibility, and self-motivation--none of which characterize
Cinderella. Let's drop the Cinderella mentality and introduce our
children to the genuine values in life--namely, they have to earn
their rewards." [-ecl]
=========================
=========================
=================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
If people do not believe that mathematics is simple,
it is only because they do not realize how complicated
life is.
- John von Neumann