@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society Club Notice - 1/6/89 -- Vol. 7, No. 28 MEETINGS UPCOMING: Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are on Wednesdays at noon. LZ meetings are in LZ 2R-158. _D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C 01/11 LZ: (canceled) 01/18 MT: "Space Colonies in Fact and Fiction" (video) (MT 3K-402) 02/01 LZ: BETWEEN THE STROKES OF NIGHT by Charles Sheffield (parallel universes) 02/08 MT: "Cyberpunk" (room TBA) 02/22 LZ: SPHERE by Michael Crichton _D_A_T_E _E_X_T_E_R_N_A_L _M_E_E_T_I_N_G_S/_C_O_N_V_E_N_T_I_O_N_S/_E_T_C. 01/10 Bell Labs Star Trek in the 20th Century Club: Love, Sex, Marriage, and Parenthood (Film and Discussion) 6:30 PM, LZ 2D-305 (Tuesday) 01/14 Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: Martha Marshall (editor, Atheneum Books) (phone 201-933-2724 for details) 01/21 New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA (phone 201-432-5965 for details) 03/10/89 LUNACON. Tarrytown NY. GoH: Roger Zelazny; AGoH: Ron Walotsky; -03/12/89 EGoh: David Hartwell; FGoH: David Kyle. Info: Lunacon, Box 338, New York NY 10150; (609) 261-8316. 05/05/89 CONTRAPTION. MI. GoH: Mike Resnick; FGoHs: Mark & Evelyn Leeper. -05/07/89 Info: Diana Harlan Stein, 1325 Key West, Troy MI 48083. 08/31/89 NOREASCON III (47th World SF Con). MA. GoHs: Andre Norton, Ian & Betty -09/04/89 Ballantine; FGoH: The Stranger Club. Info: Noreascon Three, Box 46, MIT Branch P.O., Cambridge, MA 02139. HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 834-1563 mtuxo!jetzt LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell LZ 1B-306 576-6106 mtuxo!jrrt MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3E-433 957-5619 mtgzz!leeper HO Librarian: Tim Schroeder HO 3M-420 949-5866 homxb!tps LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 576-6142 lzfme!lfl MT Librarian: Will Harmon MT 3C-406 957-5128 mtgzz!wch Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 957-2070 mtgzy!ecl All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted. 1. In the 1970s Hollywood had two directors who could be counted on THE MT VOID Page 2 to make funny films: Woody Allen and Mel brooks. And while neither is making funny movies any more, they have left an undeniable legacy. On THursday, January 12, at 7 PM, the Leeperhouse fest will show a vintage film from the early careers of each. Vintage Comedy BANANAS (1971) dir. by Woody Allen THE TWELVE CHAIRS (1970) dir. by Mel Brooks BANANAS was the high point of Allen's wackiness. Allen plays an all-American schnook who gets involved with a Latin American revolution. Look for a small role played by Sylvester Stallone and a cameo appearance by J. Edgar Hoover. Virtually anything I could tell you about this one would ruin a gag, so enough said. THE TWELVE CHAIRS, made between _T_h_e _P_r_o_d_u_c_e_r_s and _B_l_a_z_i_n_g _S_a_d_d_l_e_s, is perhaps Brooks' least seen and least remembered comedy. It is not a bad film either--Maltin rates it three stars; so does Scheuer. Ron Moody and Frank Langella star as two scoundrels in post-Revolutionary Russia who team up to find a fortune in jewelry hidden in one of a dispersed set of chairs. Dom DeLuise plays a rival antique hunter in one of the few roles in which I think he is actually funny. 2. Yes, you can get free books! The following books are available for the asking *if you review them for the MT VOID*. Let me (Evelyn Leeper) know if you're interested: Anderson, Poul Rebel Worlds Asimov, Isaac Cosmic Knights Asimov, Isaac Mythical Beasties Asimov, Isaac Spells Belden, David Children of Arable Brunner, John Shockwave Rider Clayton, Jo Bait of Dreams Clayton, Jo Star Hunters Coney, Michael G. Fang the Gnome Friesner, Esther Elf Defense Hughes, Zach Dark Side Kurtz, Katherine Bishop's Heir Lanier, Sterling E. Hiero's Journey Major, H. M. Alien Trace & Time Twister (two-book set) Pratchett, Terry Equal Rites Pratchett, Terry Light Fantastic Rawn, Melanie Dragon Prince Ruse, Gary Alan Morlac: Quest of Green Magician Young, Robert F. Vizier's Second Daughter 3. The following is the description of the next Bell Labs Star Trek in the 20th Century Club meeting: THE MT VOID Page 3 In the Star Trek episode "The Apple" the Enterprise visited a planet where the inhabitants had been baby-sat by a computer for centuries. There was no sickness, no jealousy, and no social and technological progress. Captain Kirk and company, however, brought "the apple" into this planet-wide "Garden of Eden" by destroying the computer and releasing the inhabitants to the freedom of love, sex, marriage, and parenthood. Without the baby-sitter, the people were forced to evolve their own culture and become their own providers. Questions to Ponder: 1. Did Captain Kirk violate the Prime Directive of Non- Interference? 2. Were Captain Kirk's actions beneficial or harmful to the inhabitants in the long run? 3. On love, sex, marriage, and parenthood: a. How do you know that you are in love? (i.e. What is love?) b. Who are you willing to have sex with? (i.e. Is sex affectionate or recreational?) c. What is the significance of marriage as opposed to cohabitation? d. Do you prefer monogamy to polygamy or open marriages? e. What do you think of dual-career marriages and equal sharing of housekeeping and child rearing responsibilities? How does it affect the images and definitions of a good husband/wife and a good father/mother? f. How do you view homosexuality? g. Should there be a mandatory aptitude test in parenting for the parents-to-be? 4. What do you think of BRAVE NEW WORLD's treatment of love, sex, marriage, and parenthood? You are welcome to either or both of the show and discussion. Hope to see you there! If you have any questions, additions to the agenda, or suggestions for future topics of discussion, please send e-mail to mtund!newton or call 576-3541. Mark Leeper MT 3E-433 957-5619 ...mtgzz!leeper CYBERNETIC SAMURAI by Victor Milan Ace, 1986 (hard cover by Arbor House 1985) ISBN 0-441-13234-0, $3.50. A book review by Avi I. Hauser Copyright 1989 Avi I. Hauser I remember reading some other book by Milan and even though I refuse to clutter my mind with irrelevant facts I recollect that he had a background in sciences. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has read this book. The story evolves around post world war three Japan, with 5th generation computers all around. The barbaric character of the society coupled to the reemerging old order of feudal Japan are the setting for this hard core science-fiction story. A group of scientists try (and succeed) in making the first self aware being. The story tells us about the different people who interact with this cybernetic being, as well as the learning process and the molding of its character. It is being taught to be a samurai, and no it is not the story of the monster that tries to kill its creator. Though the dramatic story-line lacks conviction, I found this a very interesting book. It fulfills all the "definitions" of a good S.F. book since it relies on natural and plausible extensions of today's scientific knowledge. It succeeds in putting you in the right setting without too much lecturing as many other books tend to do. The author knows the physical principles of quantum mechanics, as well as AI fundamentals, but doesn't try to impress the fact upon the reader. The action parts of the story are good, the sex description is so-so and the philosophical parts leave a lot to be desired. It is not a masterpiece but over all it is better than average. Recommended reading for one of these long winter nights, but not immediately after we get to know our salary raises... DANGEROUS LIAISONS A film review by Mark R. Leeper Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper Capsule review: Beautifully filmed and acted adaptation of a scandalous French novel of 1782 and the play based on it by Christopher Hampton (who also wrote the screenplay). The film proceeds like a sexual chess game with two master players and a board full of pawns. One of the year's best. Rating: +3. It is the France of Louis XVI and the aristocracy has turned sex into a game like chess with strategy and tactics. The Marquise de Merteuil seems prim and proper, but behind the facade she is a conniving power-monger who on a whim can destroy the lives of those around her. If less capable of escaping notice for his sexual manipulations, no less adroit at the manipulation is the Vicomte de Valmont. The Marquise, to get revenge on a former lover, suggests that the Vicomte seduce the innocent 16-year-old fiancee of the lover. But the Vicomte considers seduction of the innocent too small a challenge; instead, he will attempt seduction of the truly virtuous and proposes to bed the highly moral Madame de Tourvel. The Vicomte then proceeds to accomplish both challenges. and the film becomes a sort of sexual "Mission Impossible" as under a cultured facade this merciless game of strategy and tactics takes place. Based on the stage play _L_e_s _L_i_a_i_s_o_n_s _D_a_n_g_e_r_e_u_s_e_s and the 1782 novel of the same title by Choderlos de Laclos, _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s _L_i_a_i_s_o_n_s comes to the screen beautifully directed by Stephen Frears. Losing the immediacy of a live on-stage performance, Frears takes full advantage of the new medium by making use of the most perfect facial expressions by John Malkovich as the Vicomte and by Glenn Close as the Marquise. Even if such expression were possible in the stage play, it would be lost on all but the first few rows. The film also stars semi-actress Michelle Pfeiffer, who is as out-classed by Close and Malkovich as her character is by theirs. Frears uses her as little more than a mannequin. It is unfortunate for her sake that she and Frears were content to let her give such a flat performance in a film in which there was real direction and acting going on. In fairness, I should mention that Malkovich has been criticized for using such an American accent for his role. Why he has been singled out I am not sure. In the syntax of cinema French accents are often used rather than subtitling when the characters would realistically be speaking French. Frears did not follow the convention and I was not bothered by it. I wondered whether an actor as plain-faced as Malkovich could play a man women found so seductive as the Vicomte. This too I never questioned while actually watching the film. If the very most basic plot is a little too much like some of those incompetently made French sex-romps that show up on late-night cable, everything else is first-rate in this production. I would give _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s _L_i_a_i_s_o_n_s a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. WORKING GIRL A film review by Mark R. Leeper Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper Capsule review: _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l will probably be the film with which Melanie Griffith breaks through to stardom and genuine name recognition. She plays a secretary who discovers that her boss (Sigourney Weaver) has stolen her idea and decides to put the idea over herself. Rating: low +2. Tess McGill is one of hundreds of secretaries in a Manhattan brokerage house. She has gone to night school to learn the business and what she hopes will set her apart is her drive to get ahead. Her company holds out the carrot to her that she may someday get a better job, but it is clear from her modish mini-skirted dress, her excessive jewelry and makeup, and her long hair that she is just not the type of person who makes it into the upper echelons. One evening she discovers that her boyfriend is cheating on her and that her boss is using her and stealing her ideas for a client's investments. Fed up, she decides to get serious about the business. She cuts her hair, dresses for a higher class, passes herself off as being at her boss's level, and goes out to pitch her ideas for herself. _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l is the story of the elaborate ruse and the effects it has on Tess, her boss, and a foundering executive at the client's business. Just as Tess was competent but never got any special notice until she pulled her business coup, Melanie Griffith (who plays Tess) did not get any particular recognition until _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l. She was a familiar face who had been seen in several films: _N_i_g_h_t _M_o_v_e_s, the all too rarely seen _S_m_i_l_e, _O_n_e _o_n _O_n_e, _B_o_d_y _D_o_u_b_l_e, _S_t_o_r_m_y _M_o_n_d_a_y, and _T_h_e _M_i_l_a_g_r_o _B_e_a_n_f_i_e_l_d _W_a_r. Her only role that really got critical attention was that of Lulu in Jonathan Demme's _S_o_m_e_t_h_i_n_g _W_i_l_d. I suspect that with _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l she has made herself a recognizable star. _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l is her film even if Fox unconscionably gives her third billing. Second billing goes to Sigourney Weaver as her boss and adversary. Weaver plays a slick shark of an executive who uses every dirty trick, including sex, to fight the fight. This is the first time I have seen her play a villain. Top billing goes to Harrison Ford who is just barely one of the major characters of the film. (Perhaps as a subtle protest to the billing, Sigourney Weaver has been quoted as saying, "I loved the idea of playing a supporting role with Melanie the star.") _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l was directed by Mike Nichols with a little less bite than his films usually have. Of course, Nichols' best-loved film is _T_h_e _G_r_a_d_u_a_t_e and generally his films (like _C_a_t_c_h _2_2, _W_h_o'_s _A_f_r_a_i_d _o_f _V_i_r_g_i_n_i_a _W_o_o_l_f?, _C_a_r_n_a_l _K_n_o_w_l_e_d_g_e, and _S_i_l_k_w_o_o_d) make a social statement. The social statement here is "do not exploit you fellow workers" and "you should fight to get ahead," not unlike the moral of Colin Higgins' comparable--but not as good--_9 _t_o _5. Where _S_i_l_k_w_o_o_d was negative on big business, _W_o_r_k_i_n_g _G_i_r_l concentrates on both faults and virtues. Rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.