THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/12/14 -- Vol. 33, No. 24, Whole Number 1836
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:
Soprano State (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Serling and Bradbury Falling-Out (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Mini-Reviews of 2014 Films (LIFE ITSELF, FORCE MAJEURE,
WHITEY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JAMES J. BULGER,
LIFE'S A BREEZE, FRONTERA, TWO FACES OF JANUARY,
THE MISSING PICTURE, JOURNEY TO THE WEST) (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
THE BABADOOK (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LOCK IN by John Scalzi (book review by Joe Karpierz)
LIFE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT by J. Craig Venter (book review
by Gregory Frederick)
Orion Launch (comments by Gregory Frederick)
Dieting (letters of comment by Gregory Benford
and Walter Meissner)
Pluto (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (LA NOVIA DE FRANKENSTEIN (THE BRIDE
OF FRANKENSTEIN)) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Soprano State (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
For a book discussion I was reading THERE IS MORE TO NEW JERSEY
THAN THE SOPRANOS. I question the title's statement not so much
for its veracity but for its profundity. Somehow I never doubted
the contention of the title. What is hard to imagine is how things
would be if the statement was false. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Serling and Bradbury Falling-Out (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Mark Zicree, author of THE TWILIGHT ZONE COMPANION tells of a
little-known disagreement between Ray Bradbury and Rod Serling with
background material on each man:
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Mini-Reviews of 2014 Films (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This is the time of year I have to watch a large number of films
for award consideration. I do not have time to write a full review
for each, but I will try to write a short paragraph for each. I
suspect few of these films will see their way to the big screen
anywhere but New York or L.A., but they should show up places like
NetFlix. These days most films you would want to see are available
somewhere.
LIFE ITSELF
I was a fan of Roger Ebert for many years. It did not hurt that he
wrote me and claimed to have read my reviews for years. He did
quote me once in one of his reviews. This is a documentary account
of the career based on his memoir of the same title. I would have
liked to like this biography and tribute to him, but it is
strangely organized. It goes back and forth from a biography to
his answering some interview questions. It came out sort of a
jumble. Still there was info of interest, but it was just not what
it could have been. Some of Ebert's words are read by a voiceover
that really sounds like Roger Ebert. There could have been more
said about Ebert's writing strategy. Rating: +1 on the -4 to +4
scale or 6/10.
FORCE MAJEURE
This is the Swedish-chosen candidate for Best Foreign Language Film
of 2014. A family of four is on a ski vacation. While sitting on
a deck having lunch there is an avalanche. The father runs to
safety while the other three stay behind. The avalanche is
harmless but the family is upset that the father's first thought
was to save himself. There are long discussions of whether he did
the wrong thing or not. Ultimately the question is whether the
family relationship has been changed forever or can it heal. The
film takes no stand on was what the father did really bad or not,
leaving to controversy to the viewer. The film is shot on video
with long, often silent, passages. The situation could have been
presented in a shorter film, but it is a film that could start
arguments. Rating: +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
WHITEY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JAMES J. BULGER
Bulger was an organized crime godfather who after years of violent
crime with apparent impunity was finally put on trial. But the
trial turned up corruption throughout American's criminal justice
system. Filmmaker Joe Berlinger's film uses interviews and talking
heads and tells a story that requires a great deal of concentration
to follow. Unfortunately we see Bulger only in photos. Rating: +1
on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
LIFE'S A BREEZE
This is an Irish comedy about a family with serious financial
problems. For his mother's birthday the main character renovates
her house, discarding his mother's mattress. He then finds out his
mother had saved nearly a million Euros and hid them in that
mattress. This starts a treasure hunt. The film is whimsical, but
it is not willing to do what it would take to make a strong social
statement and whimsy wins over any sort of a message. Rating: high
+1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
FRONTERA
One of the better films of the year. Two Mexicans slip over the
border to find work in Arizona and are present at the accidental
death of a US woman. They are accused of murder, but the victim's
husband, a former sheriff (played by Ed Harris), is not convinced
they killed his wife. The film makes a strong statement about
illegal immigrant issues including vigilantism. Rating: low +3 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
TWO FACES OF JANUARY
This film is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. She is best
known for THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY and the Ripley series. An
American tour guide meets an American family in Athens. The
husband gets into trouble, and a battle of wits ensues between the
two groups. I had no idea where the film was going, but it was
suspenseful. Polished, but the ending needed more punch. Rating:
high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
THE MISSING PICTURE
The most popular documentaries are ones that offer some kind of
novelty. For example, last year's THE ACT OF KILLING had the
perpetrators of the Indonesian killings of 1965-66 recreating their
crimes as scenes in gangster movies. THE MISSING PICTURE tells
about the bloody rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The film's
special approach is that the person who is telling of his
experiences has carved little clay dolls to portray his memories in
what are effectively dioramas. It is not clear that this is the
best way to present the material. The information is compelling
though it is done by voiceover with an unemotional monotone voice.
The clay dolls really do not seem to do much for the narrative.
Rating +2 one the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
JOURNEY TO THE WEST
Maker of martial arts comedies Stephen Chow (SHAOLIN SOCCER, KUNG-
FU HUSTLE) tells his version of the origin of the Monkey King,
Pigsy, and the other characters of the Chinese classic PILGRIMAGE
TO THE WEST. There are plenty of monsters, plenty of kung fu
fighting, lots of offbeat gags. This version is not at all
faithful to the novel (I believe). The comedy is not really funny,
but it gives the film a light touch. The effects use CGI, but are
imaginatively done. Rating: high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
I will have more reviews in two weeks. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE BABADOOK (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A mother is driven to the edge of insanity by her seven-
year-old who insists that the monster in his storybook is really a
presence in his house. The mother does not believe in the monster,
but finds it can be horrifying whether she believes or not. This
film is a fresh combination of familiar horror elements. Mother
and child seem to be set against each other and it is hard to be
too fearful on either's behalf. First-time writer and first time
director Jennifer Kent turns in a crisp horror thriller. Rating:
+2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Amelia (played by Essie Davis) lost her husband in an automobile
accident while he was taking her to the hospital to have her baby
whom she named Samuel. Now it is nearly seven years later, and Sam
(Noah Wiseman) has suddenly become a real problem child. It all
starts when his mother reads for him a bedtime storybook called
"Mister Babadook." Mister Babadook wears a tall hat and shows
sharp-looking teeth. He is a boogieman and threatens children.
The threat of Mister Babadook starts taking over Sam's life. At
night Sam dreams about the monster and during the day he builds
weapons that he hopes will allow him to kill Mister Babadook.
Sam is becoming unmanageable wrecking the house and taking
improvised weapons to school. Amelia tries to restrain Sam, but
Sam knows she does not really love him, perhaps because of the
circumstances of his birth. Making matters worse, Amelia starts
hearing odd noises at night and is starting to believe in Mister
Babadook herself.
The idea that a child's nightmare has some reality is very common
in horror stories from Gahan Wilson cartoons to movies such as
POLTERGEIST and the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. This is
Australian screenwriter and director Jennifer Kent's first feature
film. At 95 minutes it appears to be a remake and expansion of the
10-minute film "Monster" which Kent wrote and directed in 2005.
She mixes in classic horror themes, psychological horror, a bit of
blood and a lot of yelling. To give the film a chilling feel, it
is shot primarily in shades of gray and blue.
Amelia finds she cannot sleep at night after facing the antics of
Sam so she watches TV only to find that Australian cable seems to
run nothing but sexual references or horrific scenes from films and
cartoons. There is a nice little tribute to the darker fantasies
of Georges Melies and pieces of BLACK SABBATH and the unmasking
scene from the 1925 THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. (Actually it makes
me wonder if Australian cable might not be more interesting than
cable in the United States.) Soon horror images are dominating
Amelia's mind. One thing that does not seem to work is having both
Amelia and Sam be to some extent repellent. When one threatens the
other, it is hard to work up much sympathy. (United States
airlines have discovered that people have surprisingly little
sympathy for screaming children.) And a good horror film needs a
good horrific ending to send audiences quaking into the streets.
It is not really there.
THE BABADOOK (shouldn't it be titled MISTER BABADOOK?) is often
very professionally executed and has a nice sense of atmosphere,
but the story just does not have enough fresh ideas to make it a
classic. I rate THE BABADOOK +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2321549/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_babadook/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: LOCK IN by John Scalzi (copyright 2014, Tor, $24.99, 336pp,
ISBN 978-0-7653-7586-5) (excerpt from the Duel Fish Codices: a book
review by Joe Karpierz)
John Scalzi has become mandatory reading for me. I can't quite pin
down when exactly that happened. It could be after I read OLD
MAN'S WAR or any of its sequels. It could be because I'm
entertained by his blog, Whatever, and am interested in what he has
to say in whatever medium he has to say it. It also could be
because he's a nice guy. I sat on a panel with him at Capricon
several years ago, and chatted with him at breakfast one morning in
the green room at that same convention. It could be any or all of
those things.
Or it could be the fact that I like his writing. He has a clear,
clean writing style. He is direct and to the point. His previous
book, REDSHIRTS, won him a Best Novel Hugo. It may not have been
the best novel released in 2013, but since the Hugos are really
just a popularity contest, it's clear that he entertained a lot of
people with that book. He's also unambiguous about his writing.
He has told fans more than once that he strives to write commercial
fiction that will entertain the masses. He's not out there to
change the face of the field. And as near as I can tell, he's
never done so. And that's okay. We have enough authors that are
trying to do that.
The good news is that LOCK IN, his latest novel, contributes to
Scalzi's consistency. The bad news, in my opinion, is that it
really is nothing special, unlike OLD MAN'S WAR or REDSHIRTS. Oh,
it's entertaining all right. Snappy and witty dialog, fast moving
story, plenty of action, political intrigue, and a satisfying
resolution to the story. So what's not to like?
The story takes place in the near future. A virus has caused a
large portion of the population to be "locked in". They are
perfectly aware of everything going on around them, but they are
completely immobile. They can't use their bodies as at all. They
either use Integrators, which allows them to take over the body of
a person who "survived" the lock in virus and has a brain that will
allow it, or they use a "threep", a robot body, named in the honor
of some robot of a movie back in the 1970s (if you can't figure
that one out, let's go out for a beer sometime and talk about this
little thing called Star Wars :-)).
So, there's the background. What's going on is that funding for
the folks affected by the virus has been provided by the government
pretty much since the original outbreak. That funding is being cut
off because the Hadens, as they are called--victims of Haden's
Syndrome--are becoming their own class of citizen, and the
government feels that they no longer need to be favored. A good
portion of the money that was provided was going toward a project
to find away to cure people of Haden's Syndrome and bring them back
into "normal" society. That revocation of funding is at the heart
of the story, which is really a police procedural in which a
version of the good cop/bad cop scenario plays out, with rookie FBI
agent Chris Shane being paired with Agent Leslie Vann, who has an
interesting past. There are all sorts of twists and turns as the
pair investigate bombings, murders, and financial string pulling in
an effort to discover who is behind the murders and why.
One of the subplots in the book is the question of whether Hadens
need to be cured of their disease or whether they should be allowed
to live their lives the way they are. The initial Hadens came down
with the virus after they were born, and many had already lived a
good portion of their lives. They knew what it was like to not be
a Haden. Later victims of the virus were young, or even born that
way, and thus really didn't have the perspective of having use of
their own bodies. They *liked* being a Haden. They didn't see
being given use of their bodies as a cure so much as having
something taken away from them. They are, in can be argued, a new
and/or different species of human being.
This idea, which parallels similar things going on in our real
world today, is well worth exploring in a novel. It's a great idea
that Scalzi introduced. However, I think that it warrants a bigger
part of whatever (see what I did there?) novel it's in, and this is
where I think that Scalzi's writing style failed--to a point--here.
Much like the idea of a gender-neutral society in Ann Leckie's
ANCILLARY JUSTICE, Scalzi doesn't spend enough time on it. He
wants to write a story that is commercial and entertaining, and if
he can work in some current events and issues, so much the better,
but in my mind that aspect fails because he doesn't investigate it
enough.
And that's why this book just doesn't rise to the level of some of
Scalzi's other works. It tries to put one too many ideas into a
novel that is otherwise intended to be an entertaining police
procedural. Well, in my opinion, anyway--take that for what its
worth. I just wasn't enthused about LOCK IN. It was not a bad
book by any means. It just could have been so much better. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: LIFE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: FROM THE DOUBLE HELIX TO THE
DAWN OF DIGITAL LIFE by J. Craig Venter (book review by Gregory
Frederick)
The author of this book is a world-renowned scientist who has led a
team of scientists and engineers in developing the technology to
sequence the human genome and to create the first synthetic life
form which was a self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell. Craig
Venter begins the book summarizing the history of biological
research at the cellular level, which starts as far back as Robert
Hooke 's microscopic investigation of cork in the 1600 's. Hooke
discovered that cork is made up of individual cells and later it
was determined that cells are the basic structure for all of life.
Proteins were initially considered to be the source of genetic
information that controlled an organism. But after Watson and
Crick determined the molecular structure of the double helix
molecule known as DNA that idea was rejected in favor of
chromosomes and DNA.
The creation of a synthetic bacteria cell pioneered by Venter's
team involved synthesizing DNA by modifying existing DNA and
cloning it in a host cell then transplanting that new DNA from one
species of microbe to another species of microbe. This process is
made even more difficult when utilizing bacteria because bacteria
are prokaryote life forms. Prokaryotes lack a distinct membrane
bound nucleus. The DNA is extremely difficult to find in these
cells. Venter's company has sequenced the genes of many influenza
viruses which have occurred since 2005. And now this data can be
used to better predict the next strain of infectious and dangerous
flu virus. Using major advances in synthetic biology, cell based
manufacturing and digital to biological conversion; Venter's
company in conjunction with Novartis a company that manufactures
flu vaccines have reduced new flu vaccine production from 35 days
to 5 days. The author also states that it should be possible in
the near future to put a robotically controlled genome-sequencing
unit on a roving Mars robot for example. The robot sequencer could
read the DNA of microbes existing there and even from preserved DNA
from past life. This way we could learn about life on another
planet without the cost and inherit dangers of transporting a
sample back to the Earth.
This book presents a very detailed and technical explanation of the
advances in synthetic genomics and gene sequencing. [-gf]
Mark adds:
This is pretty amazing stuff. Our local library book discussion
group read the book back in April. Evelyn discusses it in issue
1805: http://leepers.us/mtvoid/VOID0509.htm.
Venter talks about what happens when this is connected to 3D
printing so you can effectively beam bacteria to where they can be
studied. Some pretty amazing stuff. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Orion Launch (comments by Gregory Frederick)
NASA is trying to launch their first new deep space spacecraft
since Apollo today. But it looks like wind and valve problems
could delay the launch till later in the week. This new Orion
capsule can travel to the Moon, an asteroid parked in lunar orbit
or eventually Mars. It can sustain astronauts far longer in space
then an Apollo capsule and is larger (can carry 4-6 astronauts)
plus it has the modern electronics of the 21st century. Also it is
reusable; it has silicon tiles on it like the shuttle had.
I have read where Orion would have a living module attached to it
for astronauts to inhabit for the six-month travel time to Mars.
Orion would be the taxi to take astronauts from the Earth to the
module and then back to the Earth. To land on Mars a Mars lander
(similar to the lunar lander but better) would need to be created.
NASA is considering a new propulsion method for a Mars manned
mission. A solar-powered ion drive is being considered for this
mission. The NASA Dawn spacecraft that visited Vesta (an asteroid
in the asteroid belt) has such a drive today. [-gf]
Mark replies:
Advances really new and different have been slow in coming, at
least so it seems from the public. This is the first imagination
stretcher in quite a while. I hope the public keeps it in mind.
We were at Huntsville Space and Rocket Center about 15 months ago
and they were touting a new rocket coming from NASA. I guess it
must have been Orion. [-mrl]
Greg answers:
Orion is the new space capsule that was launched last Friday and it
used a Delta 4 rocket as its booster. But the next launch of the
Orion space capsule in either 2017 or 2018 will use the space
launch system (SLS) rocket. The SLS will be flexible so more
stages and more powerful solid rockets (attached on the sides of
the main stack) can be added to it as needed. The SLS will be the
most powerful rocket built by humans when it is in operation. NASA
is still building the SLS at this time. To put the payloads into
space needed for a lunar mission, an asteroid rendezvous or Mars
mission NASA must have the SLS. The 2017 or 2018 flight of Orion
will orbit the Moon. [-gf]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Dieting (letters of comment by Gregory Benford and Walter
Meissner)
In response to Mark's comments about dieting in the 12/05/14 issue
of the MT VOID, Gregory Benford writes:
There's no evidence that calorie restriction benefits human
lifespan. None. The chimp studies showed the calorie restriction
made chimps irritable, have fewer illnesses, yet lived no longer.
Animals benefit at the level of ~5% from calorie restriction, but
humans don't. The lowest mortality rates (& longer longevity) in
humans rise with Body Mass Index BMI from age 50 on, so higher BMI
in later ages enhances lifespan.
Pretty clear results, counter to decades of received wisdom. [-gb]
Walter Meissner writes:
I think the gist of this was ...
In the younger years ... it is better to be a bit underweight
(calorie restriction) as this slows down the metabolism, results in
slower cell division which increase the life span.
In the older years ... it is better to be a bit overweight (well-
fed) as this provides more of a reserve in combating diseases and
the aging mechanism. This increases the survivability when
encountering adverse health conditions.
Whether under or over weight, cellular function is better when the
proper gets exactly what it needs in terms of nutrition. Life span
can vary (+/- 10 years) depending on lifestyle and nutrition.
Determining exactly what constitutes good nutrition is actually not
that easy. There are a lot of red herrings out there when it comes
to good nutritional advice.
NOTE: The cells can divide about 120 times before they self-
destruct due to the mechanism of the telomeres (the twist ties that
keeps the ends of DNA together) that get shorter with each cell
division. At some point the DNA unravels and cellular function is
disrupted. Each cell divides about once a year, based on the
metabolic rate, i.e. the slower it is, the fewer cells divisions
there are. Also, neurons and certain other structures do not
divide regularly. The theoretical maximum life span is about 120
years assuming a slower metabolic rate with cell division occurring
greater than once a year. This is generally achieved by a calorie-
restricted diet. A few people in current times have reached that
age.
Also, when one is in a calorie-restricted diet (or intermittently
fasting) the cells' behavior is on the defensive which improves
cellular function and life span.
"This is because it takes about six to eight hours for your body to
metabolize your glycogen stores; after that you start to shift to
burning fat. However, if you are replenishing your glycogen by
eating every eight hours (or sooner), you make it far more
difficult for your body to use your fat stores as fuel."
Here are some links on intermittent fasting.
KetogenicDiet: Ketosis: Metabolic Flexibility in Action:
http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/ketosis.html
Mercola: What the Science Says About Intermittent Fasting:
http://tinyurl.com/void-mercola
"Calorie restriction without malnutrition has been shown to work in
a variety of species, among them yeast, fish, rodents and dogs to
decelerate the biological aging process, resulting in longer
maintenance of youthful health and an increase in both median and
maximum lifespan."
Here is a link on calorie restriction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
If one is really starving due to the lack of food, then the life
span decreases dramatically. [-wm]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Pluto (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Probably not in response to Joseph Major and Mark's comments on
Pluto in the 12/05/14 issue of the MT VOID, XKCD ran the following:
http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1458.
(The URL is for the web site that provides commentary for each XKCD
comic.)
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I am busy working my way through the BFI series of film books, and
while most of the ones I am interested in are available via inter-
library loan, a couple were not. THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was one
of them, but (not surprisingly) was rather pricy on the used
market. However, the Spanish edition was considerably cheaper, so
I bought that. LA NOVIA DE FRANKENSTEIN (THE BRIDE OF
FRANKENSTEIN) by Alberto Manguel (translated by Gabriela
Ventureira) (ISBN 978-84-9784-095-X) was not, alas, translated by
Manguel himself, but one hopes he at least vetted the translation.
In any case, the Spanish is very straightforward and quite easy to
read, which was a relief after the "academic writing" in some of
the volumes.
[Wikipedia lists Manguel as "an Argentine-born Canadian
anthologist, translator, essayist, novelist and editor." I know
him as the author of the DICTIONARY OF IMAGINARY PLACES and the
editor of the "Black Water" anthologies. -mrl]
As is usual, I take copious notes when reading a book in Spanish
and--lucky you!--you get to read then! (You are lucky--the book is
only about ninety pages long.)
Manguel first saw THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN when he was ten years
old (in 1958) as part of a Sunday matinee triple feature in the
local Buenos Aires 1930s movie palace. The other two films were
FRANKENSTEIN and ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (at least
that is what I am assuming ABBOTT Y COSTELLO CONTRA LOS FANTASMAS
is--and yes, it is *los* fantasmas, although it is misspelled
"ABBOT", the first of many annoying typos in this edition).
Strangely, the IMDB says that while ABBOTT Y COSTELLO CONTRA LOS
FANTASMAS is the title for ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN in
Spain and Mexico, the Argentinean title was ABBOTT AND COSTELLO
CONTRA FRANKENSTEIN!
Anyway, even though he had never seen a Frankenstein movie before,
he still had the "Platonic form" of Karloff as the Monster in his
mind. However, he (and his friends) had no real fear in connection
with the film, because everything in that Mitteleurope rural film
was so alien to their life in the city considered the Paris of
South America. Manguel also says he prefers the term ""terror" to
"horror" in describing these films (as did Boris Karloff himself),
in that terror expands the soul, while horror contracts it.
(Perhaps a better way of expressing this in English is that one
would feel terror in the face of a force such as a tsunami, but
horror at a basement full of bugs.)
The Monster has a gigantic form, exceeding normal bounds, and is
also the result of a gigantic imagination, exceeding normal
(societal) bounds, on the part of its creator. (Manguel tends to
refer to the creation as "el monstruo [de Frankenstein]" rather
than "la creacion [de Frankenstein]".)
Manguel gives a brief history of Universal Studios and James Whale.
After serving in WWI, Whale returned with an antipathy towards any
authority, and a sense of "camp". He was also a snob (the Spanish
for which is "esnob"!), and dismissed Karloff as merely a "truck
driver" (which indeed Karloff had been, but still...).
Although THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was conceived by Universal as a
continuation of the story, Whale never saw it as a sequel. Hence
while the first film was tragic in tone, the second was pathetic in
tone and even "grotesquely comical" at times. And while most of
the principal actors were either carry-overs from the first film or
under contract to Universal, Whale's sense of camp insisted on
adding Una O'Connor and Ernest Theisiger. (When Theisiger was
asked what about World War I made the biggest impression on him, he
said, "The noise, my dear.")
As far as editing, Whale felt that the real editing should happen
ahead of time, in the script and its shooting directions, rather
than afterwards. But it still had to pass through the "menacing
hands of the censors." The first film was made in 1931, before
there was industry censorship. There were some cuts made on a
state (or perhaps even local) level, but even the drowning of Maria
was not cut from all prints until the film was re-released in 1937.
But with THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, Whale had to deal with Joseph
Breen, who objected to any comparison of Dr. Frankenstein with God,
any suggestion of the Creature having a physical relationship, and
the use of the word "female". Later Breen added even more
objections, but Whale managed to preserve most of his original
conception.
[One learns the most interesting idioms reading other languages.
As translated into Spanish, Whale manages to preserve his original
concept "contra viento y marea"--"against wind and flood," or as we
would say, "come hell or high water." What is surprising is how
similar the idioms are.]
Manguel points out that the text prologue to THE BRIDE OF
FRANKENSTEIN (called, by the way, only BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN on the
title card of the film itself, but THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN in all
other materials) credits the original story, written by Mary
Shelley in 1816, hence it permits us "to fix the year, to determine
the epoch) of the story. And the dramatic prologue with Mary
Shelley, Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron fixes it as well--yet
clearly the first film took place over a hundred years after 1816,
and the second must take place even later (my observation, not
Manguel's). One could argue, I suppose, that she is telling a
science fiction story set a hundred years in the future, but
clearly her book is no such thing.
Manguel quotes Graham Greene as saying he hates this sort of scene,
where one character says of another to a third something like, "You
see that man over there? The world will hear much from him, mark
my words. His name is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart." Nevertheless, we
get this sort of introduction to who these people are, and in the
process Byron says that Mary has "created a Frankenstein," thereby
conflating the creation with the creator. [Actually, given that
many critiques of the novel indicate that one of Dr. Frankenstein's
major failings is in abandoning what is effectively a son, calling
the creation "Frankenstein" is perhaps not entirely incorrect.]
Later Praetorius does the same thing.
The purpose of the prologue, however, is not to set the date, or to
tell the audience things that they already knew. It was, rather, a
sop to the censors who objected to the "blasphemy" of the first
film. By making THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN explicitly a fictional
story told by Mary Shelley, this apparently removed the taint of
blasphemy, at least enough to soothe the censors.
Manguel describes the Monster's face is the opposite of that of
another screen icon, Greta Garbo. Where Garbo was beatifically and
angelically empty, the Monster is subhuman and demoniacally full--
Manguel compares him to the portrait of Dorian Gray or to Mr. Hyde.
There are conflicting stories of how Karloff was originally
"discovered," but at any rate, Whale decided his face was the
perfect base for his conception of the Monster. One problem,
however, was that Karloff's eyes were too bright and intelligent
("comprensivo"), so wax caps were added to his eyelids to give them
that half-closed look.
Jack Pierce takes credit for the look of the "crown, as if it were
a lid," but the script actually describes it as looking like the
lid of a box, so Pierce's story of how he spent a lot of time
deciding that was the right look for the Monster seems perhaps a
bit ... embellished. Neither were the bolts in the neck Pierce's
idea--Karoly Grosz (the Universal Studios artist, not the Hungarian
politician) drew them in a sketch in 1931.
When the Monster kills the old man in the mill, Manguel says, it is
no accident, but premeditated. The Monster, he says, adopted the
fate of the marginalized in adopting the impression that society
has of him. He is seen as a rampaging monster, so he becomes one.
[A bit of language synchronicity here: Manguel refers to the deaths
being observed by a "buho"--a horned owl. "Buho" is also a Spanish
word for hermit, and a hermit later figures importantly in the
film!]
The campiness of Minnie's (Una O'Connor's) screams, Manguel claims,
jars us from seeing the deaths from the point of view of the
victims to seeing them from that of the Monster. (I think he
attributes this to the unrealistic nature of Minnie's screams--we
no longer take the film as realistic or "serious.) In response to
Minnie's screams--"or rather, shrieks"--saying the Monster is
alive, Manguel describes her as a "comical Cassandra." Henry's
placement on the table mirrors that of the Monster's during his
creation in the first film, and there is this mirroring throughout
(Mary Shelley and the Monster's bride being played by the same
actress, both Henry and the Monster desiring a bride, and so on).
This is emphasized by Minnie's scream of "He's alive!" when Henry's
hand moves; the phrase recurs a third time when the Bride comes to
life. Manguel notes that in all three cases, it is the movement of
the right hand that signals life, and says this hand is
traditionally linked with the heart and the "vital energy." (It
is?)
Manguel says that Clive is the most "envarado" of the cast--I think
this probably means "wooden." At any rate, he elaborates that
Clive seems to have only one facial expression for everything from
exaltation to fear, and this wasn't helped by the fact that he torn
the ligaments in his knees in a fall and spent a lot of the film
seated or on crutches. Luckily, Henry is really a secondary
character, with Karloff turning in the best performance of his
career (in Manguel's opinion), and rest of the picture really
belonging to "the unforgettable Bride and the infamous Doctor
Praetorius."
When Minnie opens the door to Pretorius, she says his name seven
times in "the next few seconds" (the translation inexplicably says
"the next two seconds," which I'm sure is physically impossible).
Manguel likens this to a medieval invocation of the Devil. Where
Mary Shelley drew inspiration from Milton's "Paradise Lost", Whale
drew from Goethe's "Faust". (Is that true, or is it rather than
the screenwriter, William Hurlbut added the Faustian subtext?)
Manguel points out the emphasis on the four classical elements in
Whale's "Frankenstein" films. The Monster is constructed of parts
taken from the earth, and brought to life by lightning taken from
the air. The Monster is first threatened with fire, then comes to
see it as a friend. (One could also see the lightning as a form of
fire.) The Monster (accidentally) drowns his first victim, is
frightened by his reflection in the water, and finds another victim
by the water.
Manguel also notes that while Shelley explains (albeit poorly) how
the Monster learns to speak and read, in the films he seems to
understand some words and sentences, particularly from the hermit,
before we see him learn them. The hermit offers him bread and
wine, the traditional substances of Communion. (The hermit could,
after all, have offered water.) Though Manguel does not say this
explicitly, this would appear to be what makes the Monster a full
member of the human community, what (definitively) gives him a
soul. Certainly he appears to have human attributes before this,
but this might reinforce that for believers. How this got past the
censors is not clear.
Though the hermit and Monster are perfectly content in the cottage,
the villagers will not leave this "unnatural" pair alone. Manguel
draws a connection between this and the treatment of gay couples in
the 1930s, since he feels that it must have been one made by Whale
(as a gay man in the 1930s).
Of the director of cinematography, Manguel writes, "[John J.]
Mescall, who worked better when he was drunk, photographed the
laboratory full of equipment and the fantastic operation from all
possible angles with a tilted camera [Dutch angles]..." This sort
of angled shot was first used in THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI and
then widely in other German Expressionist films. It also showed up
in THE THIRD MAN and the "Batman" television series and 1966 movie.
Manguel sees the Frankenstein myth as carrying through a huge
swatch of literature and film: Doctor Moreau, the scientist in THE
FLY, the Tin Man of Oz, the replicants of BLADE RUNNER, the
dreaming man of Jorge Luis Borges's "The Circular Ruins", and the
Terminator, as well as descended from the myths of Adam,
Prometheus. and the Golem. But he also sees it as a metaphor for
cinema: just as Frankenstein pieced together inanimate parts and
gave them life, so does a filmmaker piece together still
photographs and make them move--or at least make them appear to
move.
Although he sees Shelley's creation as descended from the myths of
Adam, Prometheus, and the Golem, he says that before the creation,
all the monsters of literature either began born as monsters, or
were not originally monsters, but were normal creatures transformed
into monsters. Only with the creation of Shelley did we have
something artificially created of parts of other creatures, so it
began neither inherently evil nor inherently normal.
And indeed, our perception of the Monster itself has changed over
time. For example, Manguel says, "in the Kenneth Branagh version
he is more a victim than a rebel." (And would are more likely to
says "the Monster himself" than "the Monster itself.") [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Success is the ability to go from one failure to
another with no loss of enthusiasm.
--Sir Winston Churchill