THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
06/01/12 -- Vol. 30, No. 49, Whole Number 1704
Hero: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Sidekick: 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:
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
Life in the Fast Lane (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A History of Robots in the Movies (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
The New Yorker Science Fiction Issue, June 4 & 11
(comments by Charles Harris)
How the Film Industry Is Changing (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
NORMAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Angry Men, the Holocaust, and Marvel (letter of comments
by Kip Williams)
This Week's Reading (CIVILIZATION: THE WEST AND THE REST)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
June 14: TWELVE MONKEYS (1995), Middletown (NJ) Public Library,
discussion after
June 21: THE SWEET HEREAFTER by Russell Banks, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
July 26: SCHILD'S LADDER by Greg Egan, Old Bridge (NJ) Public
Library, 7PM
August 16: THE ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS by Francis Crick, Old Bridge
(NJ) Public Library, 7PM
September 27: CYBERIAD by Stanislaw Lem, Old Bridge (NJ) Public
Library, 7PM
October 18: THE KALAHARI TYPING SCHOOL FOR MEN by Alexander McCall
Smith, Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 7PM
November 15: TRIGGERS by Robert J. Sawyer (tentative), Old Bridge
(NJ) Public Library, 7PM (note this is the *third* Thursday)
December 20: DEATH OF A SALESMAN by Arthur Miller, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
Northern New Jersey events are listed at:
http://www.sfsnnj.com/news.html
==================================================================
TOPIC: Life in the Fast Lane (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I would like to make a prediction here. As you probably know many
states have special lanes on their highways that only cars carrying
some minimum number of people can use. With enough passengers, a
car is considered a "high-occupancy vehicle." This encourages
people to carpool and to take fewer cars, thus helping the
environment. Now states are saying they will also offer for an
optional surcharge drivers who are driving with too few passengers
to also use the HOV lane.
http://www.coloradodot.info/travel/tolling/i-25-hov-express-lanes
Now my question was how will anyone know which single-person cars
have paid the surcharge and are allowed to drive in the HOV lane?
Then I realized just where this was all going. These states will
simply charge all drivers the surcharge as part of the toll and
then all drivers will be allowed at their discretion to use the HOV
lanes. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: A History of Robots in the Movies (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
"Robots in Film" is a nice trip down memory lane. The authors have
listed every film they could think of with mechanical men in one
form or another. It is complete there with an introduction and
then 12 long parts in table form.
http://www.filmsite.org/robotsinfilm.html
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The New Yorker Science Fiction Issue, June 4 & 11 (comments
by Charles Harris)
The June 4 & 11, 2012, issue of "The New Yorker" is the Science
Fiction [and Horror] Issue.
The following articles are available to nonsubscribers at
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2012/06/04/toc_20120528:
"A Psychotronic Childhood: The B-movies Did It" by Colson Whitehead
"Olds Rocket 88, 1950" by William Gibson
"First Encounters with Aliens in Fiction" by Laura Miller
"From 'Doctor Who' to 'Community'" by Emily Nussbaum
Available only to subscribers: articles and fiction by Ray
Bradbury, Ursula K. Le Guin, Anthony Burgess, China Mieville,
Margaret Atwood, Karen Russell, Jennifer Egan, and Jonathan Lethem.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: How the Film Industry Is Changing (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Subscriber Lax Madapaty suggested that I write an article on how I
see films and how my viewing habits have changed over the years.
That got me thinking about how not just my viewing patterns have
changed but what is changing in the film industry and what is
driving the change. Here is my take:
I have to say that while I have tried to keep up with current film,
but there is a very strong economic pressure on me to see fewer
films as they come out and instead to see more on video. In my
area of New Jersey, and from what I understand in much of the
country, it is becoming an expensive hobby to keep current on film.
The basic ticket price has risen to the $10 range for adults to see
a standard 2D movie. For my wife and I to see an evening movie
just released that would cost $21 just in ticket price. For
friends of ours it would come to more than that. They would buy
popcorn and soda. I was amazed to find popcorn and a soda will
cost around $9 a person. Do you have any idea how cheap it really
is to produce a bag of popcorn? The materials are not the reason
behind the high cost of concession snacks.
Admittedly I rarely would pay a full admission price. For decades
before I retired I would see movies at weekend matinees or
occasionally early evening shows if they had a reduced charge. But
matinee tickets have risen as much as prime time tickets have. If
evening prices rise a dollar, so to matinee prices generally. All
the theaters seem to be following this policy about the same.
That situation lasted a while in my area and then a modest price
war started. One theater apparently found its demand dropping off.
They declared that each Tuesday they would pick two films and make
admissions for them $7. Our other big local multiplex started a
policy of all films $6 on Tuesdays. The first theater expanded its
Tuesday policy to all films more than a week old, but they also
advertise with discount coupons as an added inducement. But even
so it costs about $12 for the two of us to see a movie.
For comparison sake: I rent from Netflix frequently, and the
monthly fee averages out to about $1.50 per film. Snacks from my
kitchen in the next room will be under a dollar. That is $2.50 for
two people. I suppose there is also depreciation on my television.
I admit I suppose I could watch a lot of films in the theater for
what this TV cost. But I would have bought a television in any case
for PBS and to keep informed. Netflix costs about one fifth the
cost of going to a matinee.
So what is really happening and why are ticket base prices going
up? I think a number of trends are hitting the film industry at
the same time. Film production costs have gone up. Name actors
are asking bigger salaries. Many films have big special effects
budgets. 3D is not really paying for the costs to convert to the
format.
Let me say something about 3D. Many films are being shot flat and
then retro-processed to be 3D. Because of this and because the
studios are charging in the range of $3 to see a film in 3D, the
public is pushing back on the feature. People do not want to pay
extra for this dubious enhancement. But still there were industry
costs for fitting out theaters with 3D equipment. I think the film
industry's investment in 3D is turning out to be a colossal
misjudgment. But theaters are really anxious for innovation right
now and at the same time want to finance it out of the ticket
prices.
I think what is driving the urge to increase profits is the simple
desire to be more profitable, of course, but it is also something
else. There is a sort of hysteria akin to that of a mid-life
crisis, but it is attacking the film industry. The executives are
trying to get what they can because they expect bad times for it
ahead and they are worried.
What is so scary? Well, it is something that sounds like good news
at first. That news is that young children are watching less
television. From 1990 to 2010 television watching dropped noticeably
among children. It is easy to see why that is happening. It is
the computer and the Internet and social networking. This is what
CBS, NBC, and ABC are facing. Among them they used to provide the
lion's share of entertainment to the country. Now they are just
three more options for entertainment. I am reliably informed that
some of the best television ever written is on commercial TV now,
but fewer people are watching. That quality is just hearsay on my
part since I generally do not watch commercial television. That
choice is right for me and millions of other people like me. Just
like I am going to fewer movies. Kids are being attracted to other
entertainment just as much. They prefer to watch YouTube and
follow twitter than to watch television or go to movies. Now my
not watching commercial TV will not hurt the networks and film
studios much twenty years from now. But the networks and the movie
studios are planning that in two decades they will have an audience
from the twenty-somethings then who are just somethings now. And
the entertainment media are desperate to find how to get back the
missing revenue and to compete with newer forms of entertainment.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: NORMAL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Somewhere in the same category of film as BEING JOHN
MALKOVICH is NORMAL, a new comedy with fantasy elements. NORMAL is
the creation of fledgling writer/director Nicholas P. Richards.
While there are plenty of fantasy ideas to build a strong comedy
around, Richards does not give us characters we care much about.
Too many ideas go nowhere. Rating: high 0 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
Phin (played by Geno Rathbone) lent his car to the wrong person and
never got it back. Now he needs his transportation. Phin barely
earns enough to eat from his job of dressing as a gorilla and
acting as the mascot in his uncle's used car lot. His job is to
dance excitedly when he hears the proposed price of a car. (Hey,
it's better than nothing. Somebody has to wear the gorilla suits.)
Phin gets an offer of a one-time job. He will be paid $2500 to act
as courier to deliver a mysterious package. The job starts badly
when he breaks the zipper on the gorilla suit and has to wear it
from the neck down all day on his courier job. Things go from bad
to worse when the car he borrows breaks down. From there one bad
break follows another and soon Phin finds himself in a sort of
parallel universe he did not even know existed.
Writer/director Nicholas P. Richards has a reasonably deft hand at
dialog, but is not so deft at plotting. There are some interesting
ideas in the screenplay, but most seem to be just throwaways that
do little to enhance the minimal plot. References to Scrabble seem
to be dropped into the film as a repeating gag with no apparent
payoff. The film has an acceptable first act, a really interesting
second act, but then everything that has been gained is lost on a
slight and minimal third act. Most of the ideas seem to be just
stretching the film to feature length rather than changing the main
line of the story. NORMAL seems to be reaching to be another BEING
JOHN MALKOVICH, but needed to do more with its fantasy premises.
Geno Rathbone as the main character has the least screen presence
of any actor in the film. Emmi Chen as a traveling companion has
the appearance of a young Shirley MacLaine. But when Rathbone
shares the screen with a radiant Erin Breen he almost seems to
disappear from view.
Nicholas P. Richards who wrote and directed NORMAL began his career
in music but switched to video and filmmaking in general. This is
his first film directing, though he wrote and acted in the science
fiction film GREEN EYES FOR ANASTICE. Here he simply did not give
us compelling enough reason to care about his characters and what
trials they have. When the biggest mystery of the film is
answered, the result is just not very exciting. Even the title has
little to do with the plot. I rate NORMAL a high 0 on the -4 to +4
scale or 5/10. I could easily believe that better things will come
from Richards, but he is not there yet.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2369157/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Angry Men, the Holocaust, and Marvel (letter of comment by
Kip Williams)
In response to Mark's comments about TWELVE ANGRY MEN in the
05/18/12 issue of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:
And here I thought you were going to tell us Fox News is changing
their name to TWELVE ANGRY MEN. [-kw]
In response to Mark's comments on Holocaust films in the same
issue, Kip writes:
Isn't one major reason the United States is more interested in the
Nazis and their Holocaust the fact that the United States was
involved? If it had all been someone else fighting them, Hollywood
might have paid some small attention to it, but not have been as
fascinated for as long or as many films. Remember: It's all about
US. ("Two Ohioans Feared Lost in Massive Japan Quake") [-kw]
Mark replies:
On the Holocaust the dirty secret is that the United States was
involved on the dark side until very late in the war. The State
Department wanted to give as little aid as possible to Jewish
refugees. We had our own internment camps for many of the refugees
who has come this far.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId005182
http://tinyurl.com/void-oswego
The United States only changed sides on the Holocaust when it was
impossible to not liberate the camps. So if that is involvement,
the United States was involved. But since then (and perhaps
because those policies ended up looking so bad), the United States
has intervened in other Holocausts, and those are not so often in
the public eye. How much do you really hear about the 1995 Serbian
ethnic cleansing? The United States was certainly involved there
restoring peace. There are actually several films about the
Rwandan genocide and there the United States stood by. I think
here it is not really all about us. It is all about catching
people's imagination and empathy. [-mrl]
In response to Mark's comments on Marvel comics and films in the
same issue, Kip writes:
(The Stan Lee story was my own, and I'm apparently still the only
one telling it, a decade or thereabouts on since I scribbled it
down.)
I watched THOR on DVD yesterday and enjoyed it more than I
expected. The parts outside of Asgard were the most interesting,
but even Asgard woke up once in a while. Stan Lee's cameo came
early on, so I didn't have to keep watching for The Man. Sarah was
at school for most of the time I was watching, so she didn't get to
see it with me. Otherwise I'd pass on her opinion as well. The
movie sets up Loki for us--it's his origin story, in many ways.
Most of the faces that are familiar from THE AVENGERS who appear
here are in pretty briefly, with the exception of the scientist
that's all through the more recent picture. On to CAPTAIN AMERICA
and IRON MAN 2. [-kw]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
On occasion I have been asked why I sometimes include more minutiae
or a more detailed analysis about a work than people may want to
read. The answer is that I am using this column as a sort of
literary diary for myself, rather than something strictly written
for an external audience. If I have a new insight on some work
that I have discussed at length already, I will include it because
I want to remember it, rather than because I think that my audience
is that interested in it. So feel free to skip anything you find
boring. (Actually, I am assuming you are doing this already. This
is why you will probably have to keep doing this.)
CIVILIZATION: THE WEST AND THE REST by Niall Ferguson (ISBN 978-1-
59420-305-3) has somewhat more content than WHERE GOOD IDEAS COME
FROM, but only because of a lot of what seems to be "scattershot
history." Ferguson compares traffic on the Thames and the Yangzi
in the year 1420, describes how the Ottoman Empire was at the gates
of Vienna in 1683, and so on. While all of his examples help
demonstrate his premise, he never ties them together as a
continuous thread.
Ferguson's premise is that the rise of the West over the last six
hundred years can be attributed to six factors (or "killer apps",
as he calls them):
- Competition
- Science
- Medicine
- Laws of Property
- Consumerism
- Work Ethic
For example, in 1400 China had an advanced and stable civilization
while Europe was a hodge-podge of small backward kingdoms in
constant conflict with each other (and their neighbors). The
prediction at the time would have been that China would continue to
be the leading civilization, but Ferguson says it was the very
turmoil that Europe was in that caused it to surpass China. This
is not exactly a new idea of course; one need only consider Harry
Lime's quote from THE THIRD MAN: "In Italy for thirty years under
the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but
they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.
In Switzerland they had brotherly love--they had five hundred years
of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo
clock." Isaac Asimov claimed much the same thing in THE END OF
ETERNITY, and Harry Turtledove uses it as an important element in
his "Worldwar" series.
Each of the six factors supposedly gets a chapter, but the chapters
do not necessarily stay on topic. The most extreme example is
probably the chapter "Medicine", which devotes only eight out of
its fifty-five pages to talking about medicine, and even those are
more about public health in the sense of clean water, a working
sewer system, etc., than what we think of as medicine. The other
forty-seven pages are a long description of the various forms of
colonialism and slavery practiced by the various European powers,
e.g., in Ibero-American colonies slaves had more rights and could
more easily buy their freedom than in Anglo-American colonies.
This chapter also contains eight pages on the French Revolution.
Talking about the (Protestant[*]) work ethic, Johnson describes how
much more religious the United States is than Europe. His example
is Springfield, Missouri, with 400 Christian churches ( 1 for every
1000 people), including 122 Baptist churches, 36 Methodist
churches, 25 Churches of Christ, and 15 Churches of God. He
compares this to Europe, with its state-endorsed and supported
religions, and notes, "In religion as in business, state monopolies
are inefficient." Ironically, then, he proceeds to talk about how
all this American religiosity is more a consumer-driven one, where
churches compete more on entertainment potential than on
theological or doctrinal differences.
[*] Johnson talks about how this work ethic was attributed to
Protestants by Max Weber (the originator of the concept). Weber
seemed to work at willfully disregarding the evidence of Jewish or
Catholic entrepreneurs. For example, of the Jews he wrote, "The
Jews stood on the side of the politically and speculatively
oriented adventurous capitalism; their ethos was ... that of pariah
capitalism. Only Puritanism carried the ethos of the rational
organization of capital and labour." This is, so far as I can
tell, proof by assertion. Johnson notes that if one looks at
successful CEOs, it appears that Jews outperform Protestants. I
suspect you would find that Mormons (who are not Protestants, not
deriving from the Martin Luther Reformation) do well also.
[Perhaps if Weber is right about Jewish CEOs having a better
success rate it is from the same phenomenon as referred to in the
THIRD MAN quote earlier in this article. -mrl]
In fact, the work ethic is probably driven as much by a combination
of competition, laws of property, and consumerism as by any
religious fervor. Similarly, medicine is really a subset of
science. But six "killer apps" is a better number than four, at
least in terms of dividing a book into chapters. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Parents are the last people on earth who ought
to have children.
--Samuel Butler