@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 12/27/91 -- Vol. 10, No. 26
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
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.
12/21/91 NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA
(phone 201-432-5965 for details) (Saturday)
01/11/92 SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: Katina
Alexis (horror writer) (phone 201-933-2724 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 mtfme!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 following was sent to us:
NEW ELEMENT DISCOVERED AT AT&T BELL LABORATORIES
The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by
physicists at AT&T Bell Laboratories. The element, tentatively
called Administratium, has no protons, 125 assistant neutrons, 75
vice neutrons, and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an
atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together in a
nucleus by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-
like particles called morons.
Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can
be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes into
contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of
Administratium caused one reaction to take four days to complete,
THE MT VOID Page 2
when it would normally occur in less than one second.
Administratium has a normal half life of approximately 2 years, at
which time it does not actually decay, but instead, undergoes a
reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons, and
assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown
that the atomic weight actually increases after each
reorganization.
Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs
naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain
points, such as government agencies, large corporations,
universities, and telecommunications companies, and can actually be
found in the newest, best maintained buildings. WINDOW OR
WINDOWLESS OFFICES EQUALLY APPEAR SUSCEPTIBLE TO INFESTATION.
Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at
any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive
reactions where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being
made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent
irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.
(Reprinted, with slight modifications, from the Yale University
Chemistry Department's newsletter, BUNSEN BURNER).
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
...mtgzy!leeper
Oh, the tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
So if deception doth attract us,
We must have a lot of practice.
-- Mark R. Leeper
JFK
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: This is Oliver Stone's
biography and defense of New Orleans D.A. Jim
Garrison attempting to discredit the official
explanation of the Kennedy assassination. While not
always convincing in it ambitious conclusions, it
will cause people to question the Warren Report.
Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) (Minor spoilers in review)
It is difficult to evaluate a propaganda film--that is, a film
intended to convince the viewer of a particular political point of
view. How strongly do you weight your agreement with the political
message? How strongly do you weigh whether the filmmaker played
fairly and honestly? How strongly do you consider whether the film
was convincing or not? How important are traditional values such as
plot and technique? Is Leni Riefenstahl's _T_r_i_u_m_p_h _o_f _t_h_e _W_i_l_l a
good film because of the beautiful filmic technique or a bad film
because it deified Adolf Hitler? How good were Einsenstein's
_B_a_t_t_l_e_s_h_i_p _P_o_t_e_m_k_i_n and _A_l_e_x_a_n_d_e_r _N_e_v_s_k_y? How good was _Z or _M_a_t_e_w_a_n
or _R_o_g_e_r _a_n_d _M_e? What about _M_r. _S_m_i_t_h _G_o_e_s _t_o _W_a_s_h_i_n_g_t_o_n or _A_l_l _t_h_e
_P_r_e_s_i_d_e_n_t'_s _M_e_n? I take the amoral--hopefully not immoral--view
that what is important are traditional film values plus whether the
film makes a good argument. I divorce myself from my own political
viewpoint. Nor will I strongly consider if the filmmaker is being
fair unless it hurts the argument being made. I would claim _T_r_i_u_m_p_h
_o_f _t_h_e _W_i_l_l is much better propaganda than television's _M._A._S._H. in
spite of the fact I agree much more with _M._A._S._H.'s politics.
That stated, I can now begin to discuss Oliver Stone's _J_F_K. Is
it a good film from the traditional viewpoint? It does hold the
viewer's attention and it does have some good performances, and some
wooden ones also. Overall it is an enjoyable film. Is it
convincing? That depends on what you think it is trying to convince
you of. If it is trying to convince the viewer that the Warren
Commission's official explanation of what happened is wrong, it
succeeds beautifully. It is difficult to believe that earl Warren
himself could see this film and not question his own commission's
findings. On the other hand, the film darkly implies that this
might have been a huge governmental conspiracy--essentially a coup
d'etat--with the express goal of precipitating a war in Vietnam.
For this conclusion the evidence is sketchy at best. Jim Garrison
and Oliver Stone essentially show tens of thousands of people who
had a motive to murder Kennedy and a few people who might have been
involved with pulling the triggers. There is not much connection in
between. That is where the film falls down.
JFK December 22, 1991 Page 2
_J_F_K is structured as Kevin Costner, in the role of Jim
Garrison, presenting the Warren Commission's findings and knocking
holes in them. This is followed by a speech on the implications to
American democracy of the government's cover-up and these pieces are
preceded by a docudrama prologue that tells how Garrison got
involved and what he discovered in his investigations. Of course,
we see this prologue first, but the real heart of the film is the
rebuttal.
The prologue does not really have much of a plot any more than
_A_l_l _t_h_e _P_r_e_s_i_d_e_n_t'_s _M_e_n did. Instead, we just follow step by step
the investigation. Other than the obvious dramatic impact of the
puzzle getting solved, there is a minor melodramatic sub-plot of
Garrison alienating his family and his staff over his monomaniacal
approach. This sub-plot is superficially added and resolved just as
superficially. The detail of the investigation is well told, though
its impact depends a great deal on the viewer's interest in
revelations about the assassination. Stone makes a safe bet that
most of the public, and certainly most who would come to see the
film, have a great deal of interest in the Kennedy assassination.
The chase after information is at least as interesting as the
similar chase in _A_l_l _t_h_e _P_r_e_s_i_d_e_n_t'_s _M_e_n.
Kevin Costner brings a good deal of his Elliot Ness portrayal
to his Jim Garrison. Sissy Spacek plays Mrs. Garrison exactly the
way she played the Southern housewife in _T_h_e _L_o_n_g _W_a_l_k _H_o_m_e. Joe
Pesci is good playing one more and different breed of low-life.
Edward Asner is notable as a gruff, bullet-shaped, bigoted
conspirator. There are quite a few notables in the cast, perhaps to
make a political point. Jim Garrison himself is along as Earl
Warren.
As with many docudramas, _J_F_K may not play exactly fair. It
mixes together newsreel footage, fake newsreel footage,
dramatization of events that happened, dramatization of events that
may have happened, dramatization of events that did not happen but
that improve the story, even mental images and supposed memories.
This is, of course, a questionable strategy, but with a little
thought the viewer knows what is being shown. It does shed some
question on some of the assertions made.
This is a film that will change some minds and provoke
argument. 73% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy and that
percentage is likely to go up with this film. I give it a low +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale.
FOR THE BOYS
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: James Caan and Bette Midler as
a USO touring comedy team. For forty-nine years they
are America's sweethearts on-stage and constantly
battling off-stage. This is mostly because he has
the values of his time and she has the values of our
time. Sobby, sentimental, and melodramatic. Rating:
high -1 (-4 to +4).
Bette Midler originally built her career on being outrageous
and running counter to the culture. These days she seems more
interested in making soft sentimental films such as _B_e_a_c_h_e_s and her
current _F_o_r _t_h_e _B_o_y_s--what at one time were called "women's
pictures." In a sense, that is just like Dixie Leonard, the
character she plays in _F_o_r _t_h_e _B_o_y_s. As we see Dixie over a forty-
nine-year interval, she is at first outrageous as an entertainer,
then slowly the world catches up and Dixie has been co-opted into
the mainstream. In fact, from World War II to the present Dixie
never fails to have and stand up for the values of a woman of the
late 1980s.
Dixie is half of the musical comedy team of Eddie Sparks and
Dixie Leonard. Sparks and Leonard are an amalgam of several real-
life people, most notably Bob Hope with his penchant for USO tours
and becoming a symbol of support for America's military policy.
There is also something of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in them as
they are considered to be "America's Sweethearts." There is a
problem with this, however. Dixie is quick-witted and sharp-
tongued. In the 1950s the ideal of womanhood presented by the media
was domestic and not all that bright. (Right now the only notable
pre-1960s exception that comes to mind is Myrna Loy as Nora
Charles.) Eddie Sparks (played by James Caan) always represents the
values of the mainstream of his time, whatever time that is. Not
too unexpectedly, the two are in constant conflict with hot war when
they are off-stage and cold war when they are on-stage. Sparks,
however, is outclassed by this woman with a much quicker mind for
gags and who is happy to mix dirty jokes into her patter.
Structured somewhat like _S_a_m_e _T_i_m_e, _N_e_x_t _Y_e_a_r, this film shows
us Eddie and Dixie only at Christmas time, usually during a war and
on a USO tour. We do see them during the Red scare, with Eddie
naturally enough bowing to sponsor pressure to rid the staff of a
"controversial" writer and Dixie, just as naturally, standing up for
right and truth. Eddie always acts from cowardice or self-interest;
Dixie never fails to stand up for some ideal or other. And just to
be sure the audience sides with Dixie--as if the deck were not badly
For the Boys December 25, 1991 Page 2
enough stacked as it is--Dixie has a likable, outgoing manner and
Eddie is given by Caan all the personality of a starched white
shirt.
The script of _F_o_r _t_h_e _B_o_y_s leaves no emotional button unpushed.
The great tragedies in Dixie's life are telegraphed for in advance.
Most of the story is told as a flashback to an all-style-no-
substance network career man who is so inspired by Dixie's nobility
that he is reformed on the spot. And if you cannot figure out the
conclusion of the film in the first few minutes, you really are not
trying. Dixie's attitudes are not the only anachronisms. In
December of 1942 Dixie makes a pun on "Peenemunde." Even military
intelligence probably did not know about Peenemunde's importance for
another eight months. (It is a German island that was the
development and launch site for the V-1 and V-2.)
In some respects the film is not so bad. It functions very
nicely as a core sample of popular music from 1942 to the present.
Music from each of the settings punctuates the film. Special note
should be made of the makeup. Both Caan and Midler age before our
eyes and the transitions are smooth and believable. The makeup
artist pulled no punches and Midler does not age well. My first
reaction on seeing the makeup-aged Midler was not that it did not
look right; it was, "My gosh, look how old she's gotten!" It is
rare one can get that natural reaction from ageing makeup.
But music and makeup do not save this film from being an
overlong and self-congratulatory swipe at the values of the past by
the present. I rate this film a high -1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
BUGSY
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Barry Levinson has a real touch
for putting myth on film. This is the story of the
West Coast career of Ben "Bugsy" Siegel. It is
glossy with an expensive look, but like most gangster
films it gets many of its facts wrong. Rating: high
+1 (-4 to +4). (Spoiler section follows review to
set the record straight.)
Barry Levinson is a director who concentrates on putting myth
onto film. Most commonly he mythologizes about his roots in
Baltimore. He tells stories about his family and friends when he
was growing up. Perhaps his best myth to date is the fantasy-sports
story _T_h_e _N_a_t_u_r_a_l. In _G_o_o_d _M_o_r_n_i_n_g, _V_i_e_t_n_a_m his mythical hero was
the irreverent disk jockey who bucks the system. Perhaps it is not
surprising that he would eventually turn to making films about one
of America's two great mythical figures, the cowboy and the
gangster. However, while cowboy films are on the skids, gangster
films are on the upswing, so he picked a well-known gangster,
Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel. (In fact, this film ties in with _M_o_b_s_t_e_r_s
earlier this year in which Siegel was one of the four title
characters. Also, Siegel is assumed by many to have been the real
murderer of Bo Greenberg. _B_i_l_l_y _B_a_t_h_g_a_t_e begins showing Dutch
Schultz committing the crime. Lucky Luciano has been a character in
all three films; the three gangster films are all intertwined.)
Levinson chose to tell the story of the ten years from 1937 to 1947,
when Siegel was a major crime figure on the West Coast.
When _B_u_g_s_y opens, Siegel (played by Warren Beatty) is being
sent to Los Angeles on a twelve-day errand. Siegel is anxious to
get together with boyhood friend George Raft (played by Joe
Mantegna). Siegel is flush with easy money and decides to stay in
California and buy himself the California lifestyle. He does this
quite literally. Being told that a house belonged to famous opera
singer Lawrence Tibbet, it takes Siegel less than five minutes to
more or less force his way in and buy the house from Tibbet. Two
things capture Bugsy's imagination. One is a minor actress,
Virginia Hill (played by Annette Bening), and the other is a patch
of barren desert where gambling is legal--it is called Las Vegas.
Siegel decides to master each.
Beatty plays Siegel as a man of mercurial temperament. One
moment he can be charming, the next he can be in a murderous rage.
Many of his ideas are totally off the wall. He discovers that one
of his lovers is married to a personal friend of Mussolini. He
decides he wants to parlay this into a plot to murder Mussolini
Bugsy December 21, 1991 Page 2
because he does not like what Mussolini stands for. On the other
hand, his plan for a casino and landing strip at Las Vegas was
visionary.
This is very much Beatty's show. Bening's Virginia Hill is
very much like Bening's character in _T_h_e _G_r_i_f_t_e_r_s. Harvey Keitel
and Joe Mantegna--both good actors--get seen without much
opportunity to act. On the other hand, Elliot Gould, usually not
such a fine actor, takes a small part as a forlorn gangster and
nearly steals the whole film. Remarkably, even a great actor like
Ben Kingsley (as Meyer Lansky) comes off wooden and uninteresting
compared to Gould.
This film has been getting a lot of attention, probably in no
small part due to the look of the set direction and the photography.
The film is not afraid to show a steamy love scene as just two
shadows on a screen. The photography catches the neon nights of Los
Angeles's center or the foggy nights of its suburbs. The film has a
well-done if somewhat subdued score from Ennio Morricone. Several
of his themes are reminiscent of his _U_n_t_o_u_c_h_a_b_l_e_s score. Levinson's
direction, however, does not sustain the mood. There is, for
example, a rather silly scene of Siegel trying to run a birthday
party for his young daughter while having a meeting with the
syndicate in his living room. It only serves to damage the
atmosphere.
Overall, in spite of several good reports, I have to say that
_B_u_g_s_y is just a stylish gangster film that generally tells a true
story, though some of its facts are wrong. I rate it a +1 on the -4
to +4 scale.
**SPOILER**
It is clear that somebody somewhere along the line really did
some research on Siegel. The story as we see it is basically
correct, though there are numerous factual errors. The major flaw
is in how Virginia Hill is portrayed. She is supposed to be an
actress. In fact, she was an Alabama girl who came to Chicago to be
a cooch dancer for the 1934 World's Fair. After that her occupation
seemed to be mistress. She was handed around by several well-known
gangsters including Frank Nitti, Frank Costello, and of course, Joey
Adonis and Bugsy Siegel, with whom she finally settled down. The
newspapers labeled her "the Queen of the Mob." She wasn't the
queen, but she did run errands for the syndicate. No reference I
can find indicates she ever was an actress. I know that the New
York Times never listed her in the credits of a film, since her name
does not appear in their directory.
Siegel did not have a plot to kill Mussolini. He did travel to
Italy to try to sell Il Duce an experimental explosive which turned
out not to work. He had to return Mussolini's investment of
Bugsy December 21, 1991 Page 3
$40,000. While there he met Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels.
It is an underworld legend that he took a dislike to them and
started hatching a plot to murder them. (I found this story in two
different references--honest!)
Harry "Big Greenie" Greenberg did not go to Los Angeles to ask
Siegel's help. He went for a place to hide out. The syndicate
found out Big Greenie was in California and asked Bugsy to arrange
his death. Not content just to arrange, Siegel took two other men
and killed Greenie himself. They shot him as he was returning home
one day.
The idea of Bugsy staying in California was that of the
syndicate, not Bugsy himself on a twelve-day trip. The story of
buying the Tibbet house was fun, but probably untrue, since Bugsy
only rented the house.
The Flamingo did not open on Christmas Day 1946, but the day
after. The turnout was poor, but there were people coming and
gambling. Further, Bugsy was not killed for several months and by
then the casino was starting to show a profit. Virginia Hill was
probably not bright enough to hide her embezzling from Siegel. And
even if she was, she was depositing the money by shuttling
frequently to Europe and personally making the deposits. It seems
unthinkable that Bugsy would not have known and, in fact, planned
the operation. Virginia was in Europe, not at the Flamingo, June
20, 1947, when Bugsy was shot. Bugsy was not alone, however; a
friend with whom he had dinner was present. The film implies that
Hill committed suicide in Austria as a result of Siegel's death.
Actually, it was nineteen years, several lovers, and a husband
later.
THE OTHER SINBAD by Craig Shaw Gardner
Ace, 1991, ISBN 0-441-76720-6, $4.50.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Evelyn C. Leeper
Craig Shaw Gardner is known as the author of humorous fantasy.
This is perhaps not an entirely new sub-genre (Thorne Smith was
writing it before most of today's readers were born), but it seems
to have recently acquired a large number of contributors--besides
Gardner, we have Douglas Adams, Piers Anthony (though his Xanth
series seems to have ended a few years ago), Esther Friesner, Tim
Holt, Terry Pratchett, .... Gardner's books seem to come in threes:
the Ebenezum Trilogy, the Ballad of Wuntvor Trilogy, the Cineverse
Trilogy. So it isn't surprising that at the end of this book is an
announcement for _A _B_a_d _D_a_y _f_o_r _A_l_i _B_a_b_a.
As far as this book goes, it's relatively self-contained,
though it does assume some knowledge of the Sinbad story on the part
of the reader. The "other Sinbad" of the title is Sinbad the
Porter, who is often confused with the famous Sinbad, Sinbad the
Sailor. When he finally meets his more famous counterpart, it turns
out to be a good thing, because a demon sent to take Sinbad the
Sailor doesn't know which Sinbad to take and so can take neither.
But fairly soon I found myself wishing he had taken Sinbad the
Sailor--a pompous, irresponsible bore. It's possible you will find
this humorous, but I didn't. And the retellings and re-occurrences
of his first seven voyages didn't do anything for me either. I
can't help feeling my time would have been better spent reading the
Burton translation of the original _T_h_o_u_s_a_n_d _a_n_d _O_n_e _N_i_g_h_t_s.