@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 11/08/91 -- Vol. 10, No. 19


       MEETINGS UPCOMING:

       Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are on Wednesdays at noon.
            LZ meetings are in LZ 2R-158.  MT meetings are in the cafeteria.

         _D_A_T_E                    _T_O_P_I_C

       11/13/91  MT: THE RED MAGICIAN by Lisa Goldstein (Jewish SF) (MT 3K-302)
       11/20/91  LZ: THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert A. Heinlein (Alien
                       Parasites)
       12/11/91  LZ: MIRKHEIM by Poul Anderson (Novels with Names of
                       Scandinavian Mythological Places in Them)
       12/18/91  MT: "The Star" by Arthur C. Clarke (Christian SF)
       01/08/92  LZ: EXPECTING SOMEONE TALLER by Tom Holt (Operatic SF)
       01/29/92  LZ: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess (Dystopias)

         _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.
       11/09/91  Autographing: Ellen Datlow, Janet Kagan, Ellen Kushner,
                       Melissa Scott, Jack Womack (B. Dalton, Willowbrook
                       Mall, Wayne, 1-5 PM) (Sat)
       11/09/91  Autographing: S. N. Lewitt (Science Fiction Shop, NYC)
                       (4-6 PM) (Sat)
       11/09/91  SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: Bob
                       Eggleton, space artist (phone 201-933-2724 for
                       details) (Saturday)
       11/16/91  NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA
                       (phone 201-432-5965 for details) (Saturday)

       HO Chair:     John Jetzt         HO 1E-525 908-834-1563 hocpb!jetzt
       LZ Chair:     Rob Mitchell       LZ 1B-306 908-576-6106 mtuxo!jrrt
       MT Chair:     Mark Leeper        MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
       HO Librarian: Rebecca Schoenfeld HO 2K-430 908-949-6122 homxb!btfsd
       LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen       LZ 3L-312 908-576-3346 mtunq!lfl
       MT Librarian: Mark Leeper        MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
       Factotum:     Evelyn Leeper      MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       1. The next book discussion will be in  Middletown;  the  following
       description was provided by Evelyn Leeper:













       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 2



       When I first selected _R_e_d _M_a_g_i_c_i_a_n  by  Lisa  Goldstein,  I  didn't
       realize  it  would  be  such  a difficult book to find.  Because of
       this, the discussion will probably be more about the topic than the
       individual  book.  "Jewish Science Fiction" is probably too broad a
       topic, however, even for Jewish Heritage Month, so I would like  to
       narrow it down to one that was used at Chicon V this past year: The
       Nazi Holocaust and Fantastic Literature.   Goldstein's  book  is  a
       fantasy  set  during the Holocaust; another well-known fantasy with
       this basis is  Jane  Yolen's  _D_e_v_i_l'_s  _A_r_i_t_h_m_e_t_i_c,  which  has  won
       several  prestigious  (and  non-science-fiction)  awards.   Is  the
       Holocaust a valid background for fantastic  literature?   Should  a
       writer  worry  about  offending  people by "trivializing" it?  What
       pitfalls, if any, should be avoided?

       (By the way, _T_h_e _D_e_v_i_l'_s _A_r_i_t_h_m_e_t_i_c is a  very  short  book--it  is
       marketed  as  a young adult novel--so you should be able to read it
       in an evening if your library has it, and because  it  has  won  so
       many awards, your library may well have it.)  [-ecl]

       2. Well, he's back in the news again.  Who  do  you  think  is  the
       worst  current  monster in film?  I will give you a clue.  It's not
       Freddy, it's Teddy--Ted Turner,  that  is.   Evidently  the  French
       government  is looking to make illegal the showing on television of
       colorized versions of black and white films.  And  you-know-who  is
       Mr. Colorization  world-wide.   To film fans all over the world Ted
       Turner is a man who chews up classic films and then spits  them  up
       on television screens everywhere.  Well, as usual I have a stand on
       this issue that nobody, not even Ted Turner, would like, I suspect.
       I  think  both  sides  are  wrong.  If I could make colorization go
       away, I would.  Turner is doing a bad thing when he colorizes  John
       Huston's  great  _M_a_l_t_e_s_e  _F_a_l_c_o_n.   (Oh,  please  stop  doing that,
       Mr. Turner.)

       One standard argument that colorization isn't so bad  is  that  you
       can  always  turn  the  color  off.   The standard response to that
       argument is that colorization spoils the carefully  crafted  black,
       gray,  and  white  tones  that  Huston  orchestrated  for the film.
       Right.  This is a film that has been stored on unstable film  stock
       for half a century, then is broken down into lines and broadcast to
       cathode ray tubes.  Now, no two of these  cathode  ray  tubes  have
       exactly  the  same  setting of brightness or contrast and yet every
       one until now has gotten the precise black  and  white  tones  this
       film  had  when  projected in 1941.  But turning off the color on a
       colorized print is just going to distort the tones horribly.   Come
       on.   Face  it, you are not going to get Huston's original tones if
       you watch _T_h_e _M_a_l_t_e_s_e _F_a_l_c_o_n on television.  You  cannot  even  get
       them in a theater any more.  the response of film fans was going to
       be to get a bill through Congress that a large number of films were
       special  treasures and Turner could not colorize them without a big
       warning at the front saying  this  film  has  been  colorized.   So
       there,  Mr. Turner.   Turner's  response  to this was, "Sure.  Good











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 3



       idea."  Not just  special  treasure  films  but  everything  Turner
       colorizes  bears  the  announcement at the front.  I guess I'd call
       that a class response.

       In my experience this violence done  to  the  mood  of  a  film  by
       colorizing   it   is   small  compared  to  the  violence  done  by
       commercials.  The New York ABC affiliate broke the opening  credits
       of  _H_i_g_h  _P_l_a_i_n_s  _D_r_i_f_t_e_r  for a commercial.  Then generally show a
       generous ten or twelve minutes of the film at a time before cutting
       to  an  interruption.  Turner's two stations show films in a manner
       that indicates he respects cinema.   He  does  not  have  excessive
       interruptions--more  than  I would like but nothing like some other
       stations.  And his stations  show  features  about  the  making  of
       films.   And  he  shows  shorts.   Then  there is _T_h_e _U_n_h_o_l_y _T_h_r_e_e.
       That's Lon Chaney, Sr.'s only sound film.  Not a  great  film,  but
       because it was Chaney's only talkie, I was curious for years to see
       it and there may have been about a dozen people in America who knew
       the  film's background and wanted to see it.  Nobody in their right
       mind would think this obscure artifact  could  be  a  big  audience
       draw.   Imagine  my  disappointment  when I found out from a friend
       that Turner had broadcast it and I missed it in  the  listings.   I
       was  luckier a few months later when he broadcast it a second time.
       Turner also broadcast the silent version of _B_e_n _H_u_r, _W_i_n_d, what  is
       left  of _G_r_e_e_d, and the nearly silent _M_y_s_t_e_r_i_o_u_s _I_s_l_a_n_d with Lionel
       Barrymore.  For years I had wanted to see the Japanese film _U_g_e_t_s_u.
       I  had  never  seen  even  PBS  broadcast  it.  Turner showed it in
       Japanese with subtitles.

       I love _K_i_n_g _K_o_n_g.  I didn't want Turner to colorize it.  Turner got
       the  best existing print he could get and cleaned it so more detail
       was visible and colorized that.  He also released, I am  told,  the
       cleaned-up  black  and  white version.  I saw the colorized version
       and thought Turner had done little to add to or  detract  from  the
       film.  I would like to see the cleaned-up black and white version.

       Most of the films Turner colorizes are readily available  in  black
       and  white.   An d most that are not are also not mood pieces where
       the shades  of  gray  are  super-critical.   They  are  films  like
       _D_i_r_i_g_i_b_l_e,  an adventure film about the Navy using dirigibles.  The
       only real atmosphere was that in which the dirigible flew.

       Turner has, to my mind, been a boon and not a bane to film fans.  I
       like his news coverage too.

       3. This year's World Fantasy Award winners are:

       Best Novel (tie): _T_h_o_m_a_s _t_h_e  _R_h_y_m_e_r  by  Ellen  Kushner  and  _O_n_l_y
            _B_e_g_o_t_t_e_n _D_a_u_g_h_t_e_r by James Morrow

       Best Novella: "Bones" by Pat Murphy












       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 4



       Best Short Story: "A Midsummer Night's Dream" by  Neil  Gaiman  and
            Charles Vess

       Best Anthology: _B_e_s_t _N_e_w _H_o_r_r_o_r edited by Stephen Jones and  Ramsey
            Campbell

       Best Collection: _T_h_e _S_t_a_r_t _o_f _t_h_e _E_n_d _o_f _i_t _A_l_l _a_n_d  _O_t_h_e_r  _S_t_o_r_i_e_s
            by Carol Emshwiller

       Best Artist: David McKean

       Special Award -- Professional: Arnie Fenner

       Special Award --  Non-Professional:  "Cemetery  Dance"  --  Richard
            Chizmar

       Life Achievement Award: Ray Russell


                                          Mark Leeper
                                          MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
                                           ...mtgzy!leeper



            All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to
            the understanding, and ends with reason.  There is nothing
            higher than reason.
                                          -- Immanuel Kant





































                              THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS
                            A film review by Mark R. Leeper
                             Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper



               This is not a review--it is a symposium of ideas about _T_h_e
          _P_e_o_p_l_e _U_n_d_e_r _t_h_e _S_t_a_i_r_s based on an after-film discussion.  It will
          contain spoilers in the same sense that a road sign that says
          "Bridge Out" is a  spoiler.

             - Kate Pott, acknowledged film viewer, cautions us that it really
               would be unfair on the basis of one psychotic cannibal film to
               condemn all the psychotic cannibal films being made and that
               many are considerably better than _T_h_e _P_e_o_p_l_e _U_n_d_e_r _t_h_e _S_t_a_i_r_s.

             - I think it somewhat politically simplistic for this film to
               suggest that there is sufficient money in the black ghetto for
               everyone to have a high standard of living, but that the money
               is all going to killer psychotic slumlords who, through
               inbreeding, have become crazy as bedbugs.  Even if you accepted
               that premise, I am not sure that their dementia would take the
               form of kidnapping children for their own and then, when the
               children become unhappy, imprisoning them in the walls of a
               house.

             - Evelyn Leeper points out that this house that appears small on
               the outside would not have walls three to four feet thick.
               Much of this film takes place within the walls of the house and
               we can see the inside of the walls are excessively spacious.

             - Evelyn pointed out that door-to-door salesmen are a much rarer
               phenomenon than they used to be.  The few salesmen who came to
               the door could not be rendered into sufficient meat to feed the
               twelve growing children living in the walls of the house.

             - I would add that if so many door-to-door salesmen have
               disappeared it would be fairly easy for the police to pinpoint
               the trouble spot in the neighborhood.

             - I was less than pleased with a plot structure in which all but
               about ten minutes of screen time is taken up by two over-
               extended chases through the walls, basement, and roof of a
               single house.

             - Evelyn was not totally pleased with plot elements like having
               the African-American boy who is the main character mostly
               trying to earn enough money for a cancer operation to save his
               mother's life (and wanting to become a doctor someday) and
               getting advice from his kindly uncle Booker and his somewhat
               shady friend Leroy.











          People Under the Stairs   November 4, 1991                    Page 2



             - I found that in spite of the fact that our main character has
               found rooms full of money wrested from ghetto tenants, it seems
               unlikely that the explosions at the end of the film would
               shower only money on the neighbors waiting outside.

             - It was the overall impression of the three of us that this film
               sucked pond water.  Kate rated it a -2 and Evelyn and I each
               gave it a -3 on the -4 to +4 scale.


























































                                     BILLY BATHGATE
                            A film review by Mark R. Leeper
                             Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper



                    Capsule review:  A film with a nice period feel
               about a young man rising in Dutch Schultz's
               organization while Schultz himself is falling.  Above
               average accuracy for a gangster film, but still some
               mistakes.  The film needed a really good performance
               by Hoffman, who for once just could not muster the
               power the role needed.  Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4).

               "Organized" crime was not so organized in the 1920s and early
          1930s.  Individual gangs built on bootlegging, prostitution,
          gambling, or other rackets fought each other for turf.  Meyer Lansky
          forged a single government over the major gangs to organize them and
          to minimize inter-gang warfare.  The birth of this syndicate was the
          death of the last wild gangster.  And it was not the FBI or the
          police who killed him; it is generally assumed to have been fellow
          gangsters terrified because this loose cannon had just effectively
          declared war on the United States government.  In his fiery temper,
          Dutch Schultz had announced that he was going to kill government
          prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey.  The new syndicate was trying to bring
          order.  The last thing it wanted was a war with the United States
          government packaged and delivered by the likes of Dutch Schultz.  So
          Schultz died and true organized crime was born.  E. L. Doctorow's
          novel _B_i_l_l_y _B_a_t_h_g_a_t_e tells the story of a  young Irish-American
          rising in Schultz's organization at the same time Schultz's star
          started descending.  Tom Stoppard wrote the screenplay for a film
          adaptation directed by Robert Benton.

               The structure of _B_i_l_l_y _B_a_t_h_g_a_t_e's plot parallels that of
          _G_o_o_d_f_e_l_l_a_s.  The story begins with one horrendous crime, flashes
          back to how things got to this state, and then continues from there
          into the future.  Billy (played by Loren Dean) is on hand to see
          Schultz (played by Dustin Hoffman) murdering Bo Weinberg (played by
          Bruce Willis).  It is a long ritual involving a tugboat, a tub of
          cement, and Drew Preston (play by Nicole Kidman), who is Bo's
          unreliable girlfriend.  From there we return to how a teenage Billy,
          awestruck at Schultz's power and wealth, first accidentally
          impresses Schultz, then intentionally does it, then connives his way
          into Schultz's organization.  Bathgate begins as mascot and errand
          boy to the Schultz organization and uses his new-found wealth to
          impress his girlfriend and his mother, the latter drained from a
          sweatshop job that pays in a week what Billy spends on one lunch.

               There are problems with the script that might also be virtues.
          This is not a rock 'em, sock 'em, _U_n_t_o_u_c_h_a_b_l_e_s sort of film.  There
          are scenes with action, but there are not many.  There is little to











          Billy Bathgate            November 3, 1991                    Page 2



          race your pulse.  There is not even much dramatic tension.  The film
          is more concerned with questions such as whether Schultz really is
          exceptional or whether he is just an ordinary man.  There is a
          little bit of inter-gang rivalry, a bit of Billy's risking his life
          from or for his boss.  But Billy's scams are small and short.  Like
          _R_a_g_t_i_m_e, this is not an adventure film; it is an opportunity to put
          the viewer in a well-realized historical setting so that the viewer
          can appreciate the situation.  In some cases advancing Billy's story
          frustratingly takes us away from Schultz's story.  There is also a
          little sex in Billy's story, giving us some visual candy to appease
          us that we are not seeing Schultz's story.

               One problem with the dramatic tension is that Hoffman does not
          do angry and psychotic very well.  Sometimes putting someone mild in
          a vicious role works extremely well.  A case in point might be Alan
          Arkin in _W_a_i_t _U_n_t_i_l _D_a_r_k.  However, the decision to have the driving
          power of a film to be the force of Dustin Hoffman's anger is
          questionable.

               "Sorry, Mr. Hoffman, we're looking for someone meaner."

               "I can be meaner!"

               "We're looking for someone angrier."

               "I can be angrier!"

               "We want someone scary."

               "I can be sceary!"

               "We want someone else."

               Hoffman kicks the casting director in the bedoobees.

               Henry Fonda also was convincing in nice-guy roles but had
          problems with heavies.  Hoffman is not terrible in the role, but he
          is only okay and much more could have been hope for.

               Next we come to the question of historical accuracy.  Here,
          too, the film is flawed, but not terribly.  There were some points
          that were indeed quite accurate.  Arthur Flegenheimer did indeed
          borrow the name Dutch Schultz from another hood.  And he was indeed
          very even-tempered until it came to the question of money.  If
          Schultz thought you were cheating him out of even small money, your
          life was not worth much.  "Legs" Diamond and Vincent "Mad Dog" Coll
          each died from Schultz's rages over money and they were by no means
          alone.  But the film did not go far enough.  It showed Dutch Schultz
          as a fancy dresser.  Schultz was too much of a skinflint ever to
          dress nicely.  Lucky Luciano said, "Dutch was the cheapest guy I
          ever knew.  The guy had a couple of million bucks and he dressed











          Billy Bathgate            November 3, 1991                    Page 3



          like a pig."  The film shows Bo Weinberg being an independent hood
          murdered before the upstate New York trial.  In actual fact,
          Weinberg worked for Schultz.  He had little faith that Schultz would
          win the upstate New York trial and let Luciano move in on Schultz's
          rackets while Schultz was pretending to be a good citizen for the
          trial.  Another inaccuracy is in the spoiler section following this
          review.

               As a minor aside, incidentally, we see a little of Stephen Hill
          playing Otto Berman--known as Abbadabba Berman.  He was a
          mathematician who worked out a method to increase the numbers racket
          take by 10%.  He would find out what numbers had been least played.
          From there he figured how much he had to bet in racetrack pari-
          mutuel machines to make the low-played numbers come up winners.
          That part was perfectly legal.  The pari-mutuel machine bets would
          lose, but the right numbers would come up and Schultz would pay out
          less.  The "Abbadabba" nickname was a magic word (corrupted from
          "Abracadabra"?) indicating that Berman was the magician of the
          numbers racket.

               Overall this is not a perfect portrait of Dutch Schultz and the
          people around him, and it could use a bit more action, but it is
          watchable and enjoyable.  My rating is a low +2 on the -4 to +4
          scale.

          *****SPOILER**********SPOILER**********SPOILER**********SPOILER*****

               The attack on the Palace Chop House could have been better
          researched.  Charlie "The Bug" Workman (I'm not making this up!) did
          the hit.  To make sure he was not surprised by someone coming out of
          the restroom, he went there first and shot the heavy-set man washing
          his hands.  He then burst out of the john with a .38 in each hand
          and gunned down the three men at Schultz's table.  Bug then realized
          the man in the john was Schultz and went back in to rifle Schultz's
          pockets.  This is quite different from the scene in the film.  Also,
          Schultz appears dead in the film.  Actually, Schultz raved for about
          two days before dying.  I occasionally get mail from people whose
          response to having inaccuracies pointed out is "What does it
          matter?"  That is never an easy question to answer.  In truth,
          historical accuracy is its own reward.  It only matters if it
          matters.  To me it matters.


















































               THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK