@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 6/25/93 -- Vol. 11, No. 52
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Holmdel 4N-509
Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
07/14 SIGHT OF PROTEUS by Charles Sheffield (Human Metamorphosis)
08/04 Hugo Short Story Nominees
08/25 CONSIDER PHLEBAS by Iain Banks
(Space Opera with a Knife Twist)
09/15 WORLD AT THE END OF TIME by Frederik Pohl
(Modern Stapledonian Fiction)
Outside events:
07/31 Deadline for Hugo Ballots to be postmarked
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second
Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-933-2724 for
details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third
Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details.
HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 908-834-1563 holly!jetzt
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1C-523 908-834-1267 holly!jrrt
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!leeper
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 homxc!11366ns
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 908-576-3346 quartet!lfl
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!leeper
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 mtgpfs1!ecl
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. I think if you keep your eyes open, at one time or another you
will see it all on the roads of central New Jersey. Old timers in
the area will remember that at one time maybe a decade or so ago,
there was a Marx Brothers Abattoir in the little town of
Shrewsbury. (Talk about "Attack of the Killer Shrewsbury"!) Yes,
there really was one, just like there was a film called _A _D_a_y _a_t
_t_h_e _S_l_a_u_g_h_t_e_r _P_e_n. Of course, you and I know that there never was
a Marx Brothers film as vulgar and depressing as _A _D_a_y _a_t _t_h_e
_S_l_a_u_g_h_t_e_r _P_e_n. That brand of humor did not come along until the
Three Stooges.
THE MT VOID Page 2
Now let me tell you what I saw this time on Route 35 in
Cheesequake. (You think I am making these names up? No,
Cheesequake is not a Madison Avenue invention: "New Nachitos have
so much cheddar cheese flavor and so much crunch, eating them is
like a Giant Cheese Quake!" Boy opens bag. Bites a Nachito.
Under his feet the ground rumbles and cracks open. Out of the
fissure bubbles molten Velveeta. Boy enjoys his Nachito as molten
cheese covers his Nikes. No, there really is a Cheesequake, New
Jersey.) And what I saw on the road was ad advertisement for
Italian-style dog food. No, not dog food like Italian dog food; I
am sure in Italy those dogs who are fed get standard cylinders of
horsemeat. And bad horsemeat at that. "Is there good horsemeat?"
you ask. Okay, I'll digress again. People in this country get a
little green around the gills when they think about eating
horsemeat. Of course horsemeat _i_s disgusting in the United States.
That's because we serve it only to dogs and don't make it any more
appetizing than it would take to get a dog to eat it. Beef dog
food is pretty disgusting also. That doesn't mean that prime rib
is really a stomach-turner. If you are into red meat, which I am
not any more, horsemeat is superior to beef. Horses tend to have
better muscles than cows do. A horse runs around. A cow just
stands around most of the day and thinks bucolically. I got brave
once and tried a horse steak in Brussels. It was indistinguishable
from just a very good cut of beef. Of course, only dogs eat
horsemeat in the United States, so it is prepared no better than it
would take to tempt a dog. That's not so tempting, I think. Dogs
are not real gourmets. But that brings me back to what I saw in
Cheesequake. I passed a billboard so strange I did a U-turn to see
it again. So this billboard was for Italian-style dog food, but
what they meant was Italian-style food for dogs. They had both
Beef Bolognaise and Chicken Cacciatore for dogs belonging to the
rich. And I suppose if times get hard it might be more tempting
than canned horsemeat.
2. The last issue, with the description of _C_h_i_n_a _M_o_u_n_t_a_i_n _Z_h_a_n_g,
should have been Volume 11, Number 51. It also should have been
6/18/93 instead of 6/11/93. (Someday I will find what problem is
causing the number not to increment!) [-ecl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
...mtgzfs3!leeper
America is still a government of the naive, by the
naive, and for the naive. He who does not know this,
or relish it, has no inkling of the nature of this country.
-- Christopher Morley
FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: This version of Mary Shelley's
classic novel takes some chances, including actually
roughly following the plot of the novel, while giving
a new interpretation of the relationship between
Frankenstein and his monster. That would have been a
real virtue if the rest of the production was not so
bland. As it is, this is a disappointingly
uninvolving version of the story. Rating: 0 (-4 to
+4).
Last autumn we saw Francis Ford Coppola's allegedly accurate
adaptation of Bram Stoker's _D_r_a_c_u_l_a. It turned out to be more
faithful than some of the better version, particularly in some
superficial ways, yet it transformed the story into one of Dracula
trying to regain his lost love, a rather fundamental departure from
the original novel. While the old monsters are popular, Ted
Turner's organization has financed their version of _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n,
also claiming to be close to the novel. Sure enough, the basic plot
and many of its twists are faithful to Mary Shelley, but
producer/director/writer David Wicks has decided--like most people
making film versions of _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n--to make some fundamental
changes to the story. Incidentally, their is one almost totally
faithful film adaptation. It is a 1975 Swedish-Irish co-production
called _V_i_k_t_o_r _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n, or on television, _T_e_r_r_o_r _o_f
_F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n. Leon Vitali plays the doctor and Per Oscarsson is the
monster. Except for one scene with a seance, it is a literal
adaptation from the novel--faithful, but ponderous and dull. Wicks'
_F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n is a little less faithful, but also only a little less
dull.
The film starts accurately enough with Victor having chased the
monster to the Arctic and being rescued by a ship, then telling his
story as a flashback. Frankenstein, it turns out, is a great
medical scholar, an exaggeration of Shelley's simple student. He
uses a strange process something like an early matter duplicator to
create a man. Of course, most film versions say that the monster
was constructed from dead bodies, but that is a cinematic
invention. Shelley is intentionally vague about how the monster is
created. This creation, while unconventional, is in no way
inconsistent with the novel. From there the plot followed is a
rough approximation of the novel, except for the addition of a
strange plot device that is really a fairly fundamental change to
the story. The monster, being a sort of matter duplication of
Victor, has a physical and psychic link with his creator. If the
monster is wounded, Victor also gets the same wound. This
Frankenstein June 19, 1993 Page 2
transforms the story from its usual allegory of the relationship of
God and Man to one of the two sides of a single person's
personality, more like Jekyll and Hyde.
The film is generally a fairly lackluster adaptation. The only
character with real empathy value is the monster himself, played by
Randy Quaid. His makeup is a real departure from standard
interpretations of the monster. With his stocky structure and his
moustache-less beard, he resembles something between a troglodyte
and a Scottish Highlander--with burns on his face. Again Shelley
gives us little idea of what the man-made man looks like, except
that he is eight feet tall--which even the large Randy Quaid cannot
appear. The remainder of the cast, led by Patrick Bergin in the
title role, conveys little emotion and helps to make this version
bland.
John Cameron's score rarely creates much of a mood either,
though its use of choral voices is somewhat unusual and lend the
score much of the interest value it has. After a few good Turner
productions, including a very satisfying version of _T_r_e_a_s_u_r_e _I_s_l_a_n_d,
this _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n is a disappointing and unmemorable production.
(This version can be seen several times this month on TNT.) I rate
it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Arthur Kopit's Two Phantoms
An article by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper
It is unclear if we should consider the two Arthur Kopit
versions of _T_h_e _P_h_a_n_t_o_m _o_f _t_h_e _O_p_e_r_a as if they are really two
versions or if they are instead just two incarnations of the same
play. Kopit's statement is that he wrote his stage play without
knowing that Andrew Lloyd Webber was also working on a version. He
had the American rights to the story, purchased by Geoffrey Holder,
but the same novel was in public domain in Britain where Webber
adapted it. When the Webber was a smash hit, he shelved the idea of
doing a stage play, but he still adapted his play into the 1990
Charles Dance made-for-television movie. Later he decided that his
approach was so different from Webber's that he would still do his
play. In opera, certainly, it is not uncommon for two different
operas based on the same story to be playing at same time. (There
is a famous cartoon in opera history, first published at a time when
Gluck's _O_r_f_e_o _e_d _E_u_r_y_d_i_c_e and Offenbach's _O_r_p_h_e_e _a_u_x _E_n_f_e_r_s were
playing at the same time in the same city. A well-dressed man tells
the cab driver "Take me to the opera about Orpheus." The cab driver
replies "Which one? The funny one or the dull one?") Kopit
eventually did have his stage play mounted in 1993. Because his two
versions are so similar, even sharing much of the same dialog, they
should almost be considered a single play.
1990 Charles Dance
The day that Tony Richardson's made-for-television version of
_T_h_e _P_h_a_n_t_o_m _o_f _t_h_e _O_p_e_r_a was due to be shown, my local newspaper did
a feature on it quoting the writer Arthur Kopit as saying, "[After
having read the novel] what struck me was that this story ... wasn't
very good. Still it captured the imagination of people. Why? What
bothered me about [the previous dramatic] versions, what I thought
they essentially missed, was that you never knew why the Phantom was
in love with Christine."
I had very high hopes for this version. There were four
announced film adaptations in the wake of the success of the
Broadway play. One starred Richard Englund, whose most famous role
was the razor-gloved Freddy Krueger; one was simply a film version
of the musical; one was set in Nazi Germany. Of the four versions,
the only one that sounded like a genuine new adaptation of the novel
was the announced four-hour television version. Then I read Kopit's
quote.
What Kopit is saying is that he has no respect for the material
itself, only for its ready-made market. He also thinks that the
Phantom June 14, 1993 Page 2
dramatic versions missed the point of why the story is popular. I
could easily believe his comment if it really were the novel that
people remember but, in fact, the book has not been what people have
liked. For most of the years the story has been liked, Gaston
Leroux's novel has been hard to find. Andrew Lloyd Webber tells an
anecdote about how difficult it was to find a copy of the novel when
he wanted to read it. The dramatic adaptations that Kopit thinks
missed the point of why the story is remembered are really what made
the story popular. And here they cannot have missed the point.
Actually I would contend that they have all missed what I like in
the novel, but not what has made the story popular.
The novel is about a man with a great intellect and a horribly
deformed face. All his life he was treated as a freak and just
occasionally exploited for his genius. Eventually he finds the
opportunity to build for himself an empire in the darkness beneath
the Paris Opera House. There he can enjoy the music and can be seen
only when he wants. This is Gaston Leroux's Erik but he has never
been done satisfactorily in a film or play. I had hoped that in the
three and a half hours or so of story there would be time to show
Erik's history. In fact, this version did show Erik's history but
it bore little relation to anything in the novel.
Kopit missed the point entirely by making his Phantom a
petulant young man (played by Charles Dance of _T_h_e _J_e_w_e_l _i_n _t_h_e
_C_r_o_w_n), who is being shielded by a former manager of the opera house
(over-played by Burt Lancaster).
Kopit's screenplay intends this Erik to be likable and steers
clear of the question in the novel of whether Erik might be
psychotic. This Erik does not kill, at least in the course of the
film. Oh, his face may startle and early on this causes a death,
but that does not appear to be Erik's fault. This Erik has lost the
feel of the sinister and instead controls the fate of the opera
house with practical jokes. Even the cutting down of the chandelier
is not a murder attempt but an act of angry vandalism intended to
vent rage and for which the audience was intentionally given time to
get out of the way. Of course, this Erik had less reason for rage
than the one in the book. The script claims that Erik's mother at
least found his face "flawlessly beautiful." In the book Erik's
mother gave him his first mask because she could not stand to look
at his face.
There are a few nice touches to the script. One of them is the
issue of how to handle the unmasking. Sort of independently of the
quality of the rest of the production there is the question of how
to shock audiences when they do see the Phantom's face. The
approach here was unusual and not badly done, though it was perhaps
dictated by the screenplay's efforts to keep Erik as a romantic
Phantom. Less endearing is Erik's unexpected forest beneath the
ground. It isn't like the metal forest of the novel but a real
Phantom June 14, 1993 Page 3
forest with live trees and unexplained sunlight. It appears that
Erik must have built himself a holodeck.
Charles Dance is a little whiny for my tastes, as well as not
being sufficiently sinister. Lancaster as the former manager is
overripe and Teri Polo as Christine Daee (in the book Daae') is
unmemorable. She and her lover Adam Storke as Phillipe, Comte de
Chagney, are pretty people but boring actors. (Again, they got the
name wrong on the Comte. The character's name was Raoul. Phillipe
is the name of Raoul's brother, older by twenty years.)
The whole mediocre revision of the story is directed by Tony
Richardson, who directed _T_o_m _J_o_n_e_s. I am not a fan of that film but
it certainly was better directed than this slow-moving version. If
I had never heard of the story before I would have liked this
version better, but as it is, I would call it the better than only
the Herbert Lom and Richard Englund versions. And perhaps it is a
bit better than the stage version of the same play.
Kopit's play _P_h_a_n_t_o_m
The story of the play _P_h_a_n_t_o_m is almost identical to the NBC
_T_h_e _P_h_a_n_t_o_m _o_f _t_h_e _O_p_e_r_a, not too surprisingly. Once again Erik is
a young man hidden in the opera house because of the horribly
deformed face a result of his mother's attempted abortion.
Once again the main interest is the father-son relationship.
The story is told much faster than in the television version without
losing a lot of depth.
Eric is still somewhat innocent, though in this version he does
intentionally kill Joseph Buquet, an act that was apparently an
accident in the television version. Still, this is a very light
interpretation of Erik, particularly in the first act. Erik
sabotages the opera through silly practical jokes. In one scene
Erik is distraught because he just killed a man and at the same time
because he doesn't like the voice of the new grand diva. This is
one play in which just about everything worthwhile is in the second
act, when Erik is really angry. One hole is left in the story. It
is assumed that Erik became a great operatic singer and one who can
also teach others all from singing lessons from his mother when he
was very young. It is unlikely, to say the least.
The music and songs by Maury Yeston are uneven. Some of the
songs, such as "Home," are hauntingly beautiful, but others seem
very amateurish. One has the lyric, "The opera has been invaded by
a phantom. The opera has been invaded by a ghost. If you are
chasing him, you are chasing a phantom." Another that is a love
song between Christine and Phillipe sounds like bad Rogers and
Hammerstein, totally out of place with the style with the rest of
Phantom June 14, 1993 Page 4
the show.
The staging of the play is often clever, though not as clever
as some of the effects done in the Andrew Lloyd Webber version.
This one requires several large floats to be moved around the stage.
And the best effect of the Webber, the boat in the lagoon, is done
better here. The lagoon is made to appear to be three or four times
as wide as the stage.
Erik's first appearance is dramatic, as a dark silhouette seen
in a white mist, but I still prefer the appearance in the mirror in
the Webber version.
"Comparing the Various Versions"
Now that I have had my say about each of the versions
individually, it would be a good idea to ladder them from my
favorite to my least favorite. It should be fairly obvious from
what I said above, but just to make it a matter of record.
1. The 1111999988887777 MMMMiiiicccchhhhaaaaeeeellll CCCCrrrraaaawwwwffffoooorrrrdddd ((((TTTThhhheeeeaaaattttrrrriiiiccccaaaallll)))) version--Amazingly
well-staged and well-written. While being surprisingly
accurate to the book it is also the most compelling rendition.
Best point: Erik really is the tragic genius that Leroux wrote
about. Worst point: Erik's makeup is not at all accurate to
the book and not really believable.
2. The 1111999944443333 CCCCllllaaaauuuuddddeeee RRRRaaaaiiiinnnnssss version--A more engaging story than even
the Chaney version. We never really sympathize with Chaney's
Phantom and with Rains we do. This version probably had more
influence than Chaney's version. The story is just a little
over-sweet. Best point: For the first time you really
sympathized with the Phantom and to some extent found him
dashing, even with Claude Rains in the part. Worst point:
What happened to the original story?
3. The 1111999922225555 LLLLoooonnnn CCCChhhhaaaannnneeeeyyyy version--This remains the classic version
and the most impressive makeup job of any version. I put it
just a tad beneath the first remake because of script problems
not giving enough plot and having too much comic relief. Best
point: Some of the visuals are stunning and even haunting.
This is a simply beautiful rendition. Worst point: There is
not very much of the novel in this adaptation. The pacing of
silent film is just not time-efficient enough to tell much
story.
4. The 1111999988887777 AAAAnnnniiiimmmmaaaatttteeeedddd version--An animated comic book version, but
it is an adaptation of the original novel; it is not based on
any film version. Best point: generally the most faithful
Phantom June 14, 1993 Page 5
version to the novel. Worst point: dull acting that tells the
story but is not at all involving.
5. The 1111999988882222 MMMMaaaaxxxxiiiimmmmiiiilllllllliiiiaaaannnn SSSScccchhhheeeellllllll version--Unexpectedly watchable
television version based on the '43 version, but still Schell
makes an impressive phantom. Best point: Dramatic climax with
Schell riding the chandelier into the audience. Worst point:
The opera is not very convincing. Schell's wife would never
have sung on the stage.
6. The 1111999999990000 CCCChhhhaaaarrrrlllleeeessss DDDDaaaannnncccceeee version--Not based on any other version
or on the book, but on Arthur Kopit's play. It does not
always make sense. This version could have told the story in
the novel but wasted it on an entirely different story.
Lancaster forgot how to act years ago and in some scenes is
really bad. Best point: This Erik, while not Leroux's, is
somewhat interesting on occasion. Sometimes whiny, sometime
almost Byronic. Worst point: Totally absurd treatment of
opera. There is no respect for opera as an art form. And
operatic excellence, in part, is what the story should be all
about. The book's Erik is willing to murder for the
perfection of the art form.
7. Kopit's musical stage play _P_h_a_n_t_o_m--It is a shorter and hence
a bit more superficial version of the same story Kopit did for
NBC. Even much of the dialog is the same. Some of the
staging, while not as simple and elegant as in the Webber
version, does manage to create impressive effects. It is
hard to think of the story transformed into being about a
father-son relationship, but while not Leroux, it is a story
worth telling. The set design of the lagoon scene is
genuinely impressive set design that out-does the clever
stagecraft of the same scene in the Webber. Best point: there
are genuinely touching scenes between Erik and his father.
Worst point: horribly cliched love song in the first act
between Christine and Phillipe in the inappropriate style of
American musical.
8. The 1111999966662222 HHHHeeeerrrrbbbbeeeerrrrtttt LLLLoooommmm version--Hammer's version does not work,
is not Leroux, and at times is overripe. It is hard to
generate any sympathy for the Phantom and the musical chords
intending to generate it only make the effort seem the more
pitiful. The villain is never punished more through oversight
than plan, I think. Best point: The story does generate some
suspense in spite of itself. Worst point: The malignant
hunchback who does all the dirty work.
9. The 1111999988889999 RRRRiiiicccchhhhaaaarrrrdddd EEEEnnnngggglllluuuunnnndddd version--Oh geez, where should I
start? It mixes the Faust legend, and time travel and mostly
is just an excuse to make an unkillable-killer film. It
clearly had two different directors with different styles.
Best point: It's short. Worst point: It's not nearly short
enough.
CLIFFHANGER
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Can Rockies rescue ranger
Sylvester Stallone recover from a trauma, and get it
together enough to clobber nasty super-criminals
trying to recover three suitcases of stolen money
that fell out of a plane over the Rockies? Hint:
Stallone co-authored the screenplay. Lots of action,
lots of cliche, a few stunts. Rating: low +1 (-4 to
+4).
Sylvester Stallone is back in a pure action, non-comedy role.
He had tried breaking out into comic roles in _O_s_c_a_r and _S_t_o_p _o_r _M_y
_M_o_m _W_i_l_l _S_h_o_o_t. _O_s_c_a_r I like to spring on unsuspecting people since
it really is about the funniest comedy I have seen in the last ten
years, though probably not due to Stallone's efforts. On the other
hand, _S_t_o_p _o_r _M_y _M_o_m _W_i_l_l _S_h_o_o_t is reputedly just awful. So
Stallone is back in a sort of mountain-climbing equivalent of _D_i_e
_H_a_r_d that might have been called _F_a_l_l _H_a_r_d. Stallone himself co-
authored the screenplay with Michael France, undoubtedly to make
sure the story gave audiences exactly what they wanted--breath-
taking stunts tied together with brain-numbing cliche.
Stallone plays Gabe Walker, a Rocky Mountain rescue ranger who
was once great but lost his nerve after a horrible traumatic
experience on a wire high over a valley that should have been called
Macho Grande. Gabe is back in the Rockies a year later, testing to
see if he can get together with his woman friend Jessie (played by
Janice Turner), patch things up with a buddy (played by Michael
Rooker), and pull his life together. Just at that moment a plot to
steal $100,000,000 is falling apart overhead. John Lithgow plays
Qualen, a British master criminal with an accent that occasionally
fades. Qualen heads a team of killers who intended to hijack the
cash but ended up accidentally dropping it in three suitcases over
the Rockies and who now want the rescue rangers to retrieve the
suitcases.
Of course, the real stars of the film are the three S's:
Stallone, scenery, and stunts. While some of the scenery really is
the Rockies, some is the Italian Alps near Cortina D'Ampezzo, and
some is sets. The stunts, which I will not describe so as not to
spoil them, are impressive, though not really too different from
those you would probably think of if you were scripting a similar
story. Trevor Jones's score bears a marked resemblance to his score
for _T_h_e _L_a_s_t _o_f _t_h_e _M_o_h_i_c_a_n_s.
This is about what you would expect Sylvester Stallone would be
releasing in the summertime. It is nearly two hours of action and
familiar plot against a less familiar setting. I give it a low +1
on the -4 to +4 scale.
SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Nora Ephron tells the story of
Fate bringing together a man and a woman "made for
each other." The story is occasionally touching, but
feather-light. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4).
Not long ago _A _S_t_r_a_n_g_e_r _A_m_o_n_g _U_s introduced audiences to the
word "bashert." It is the concept that a man and a woman are fated
to meet and fall in love, a pairing made in heaven. People in
_S_l_e_e_p_l_e_s_s _i_n _S_e_a_t_t_l_e discuss whether there is anything to this
concept and are inclusive, but it is clear that screenwriter Nora
Ephron wants us to believe it is true. _S_l_e_e_p_l_e_s_s _i_n _S_e_a_t_t_l_e has the
strangest case of bashert since _S_o_m_e_w_h_e_r_e _i_n _T_i_m_e. Ephron, who
previously wrote _W_h_e_n _H_a_r_r_y _M_e_t _S_a_l_l_y..., has written and this time
directs this story about when Sam met Annie.
Sam is Sam Baldwin (played by Tom Hanks). Sam lost his wife
Maggie and decides to leave Chicago and its memories and to move to
Seattle. There, eighteen months later, he is still a wreck and an
insomniac to boot. He lives in a houseboat with his son Jonah (talk
about tempting fate!). Jonah (played by Ross Malinger) calls a
radio psychologist to ask what his dad should do. When Sam is
called to the phone, he opens up to the psychologist and shows such
sensitivity that hundreds of women listerers across the country are
moved, including the absolutely right woman for Sam. She is Annie
Reed (played by Meg Ryan). Unfortunately, she lives a continent
away in Baltimore and is already engaged to be married. But Fate is
not to be cheated, and we follow two story lines--the lives of Sam
and Annie--knowing full well that they will eventually come
together.
Ephron's plotting is not really her strong point. The film is
extremely sentimental from the opening credits on. Under the
credits we hear Jimmy Durante singing "As Time Goes By" and are
shown a map of the United States on a section of a globe. As each
actor's name is credited, a star is added in the sky over the map.
Then in the film as a running gag everybody has seen the sad film _A_n
_A_f_f_a_i_r _t_o _R_e_m_e_m_b_e_r. All the women love it; none of the men care for
it. Eventually that film will be pivotal in bringing Sam and Annie
together.
While the plot is sentimental and a little sticky, the dialogue
is a lot of fun and often very witty and insightful. Annie's
confidante is her friend Becky (played by Rosie O'Donnell) who, like
Annie, is unmarried and is clearly getting frustrated. Her cynical
comments are some of the best lines in the film. On the other hand,
Sleepless in Seattle June 20, 1993 Page 2
Sam's conversations with his friend Jay (played by Rob Reiner) are
totally unlikely and inane. As before, Ephron's female characters
are better written than her male characters. Still, it is unusual
these days to see an unabashedly--not to say overly--romantic film.
_S_l_e_e_p_l_e_s_s _i_n _S_e_a_t_t_l_e is diverting and even nostalgic with its
resurrection of old songs that act as commentary on the story.
Nothing great, but a solid +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.