@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 07/23/99 -- Vol. 18, No. 4
Table of Contents
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper. All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
I was looking for something to write about in this week's notice. This was not what I wanted to write about. I have written obituaries in this notice before, but it was always for someone I had never really met. I just wanted to call attention to somebody's work and let people know who died. Few people that I really can call friends are also people closely enough associated with science fiction that I would be likely to write an obituary here. But George Laskowski was both a good friend and a major figure in science fiction fandom.
I met George when I lived in the Detroit area. We joined a science fiction discussion group that turned out to be mostly two couples. Evelyn and I were one couple and Cathy and Jack Robinson were the other. Cathy had another friend interested in science fiction. The friend was George, a quiet mathematics teacher from Cranbrook High School. We discussed science fiction and occasionally even mathematics. George knew science fiction, but he did not know that there really was an organized fandom of science fiction in the area. Our other science fiction activity at the time was attending the Wednesday night meetings of the Third Foundation, the Wayne State University. We thought George might like it and invited him to join us.
George took to science fiction fandom in a way we never had. His
pleasant manner won over people whether he went. Soon he took to
"fannish" ways. He went to science fiction conventions and to set
himself apart he started wearing a coonskin cap (fake coon, I am
sure). Because as a boy he loved Green Lantern comic books and the
main character in those comics had a secret name Lan, and he took
that as his fannish name. And very soon he started publishing his
own fanzine, "Lan's Lantern." I wrote at least one article for him
before leaving Detroit. When I came to Bell Laboratories and
Evelyn and I founded the science fiction club here, and I had to
write articles for the weekly notice. Lan had reprint rights to
anything I had written. It was an arrangement that more than paid
off for me as his fanzine became the best of the classic-style
fanzines (in my opinion). My articles hobnobbed with those of some
very good people. I got to discuss topics I enjoyed with some very
impressive writers. Lan would take a selection of my film reviews
and gave me my own regular department in the "Lantern." He did the
same with Evelyn's book reviews.
EYES WIDE SHUT
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
The way to become rich in the American entertainment industry is to
give the public what it wants. Evidently what the public wants is
to see Nicole Kidman nude. Last season Broadway offered NICOLE
KIDMAN NUDE: THE PLAY, officially titled THE BLUE ROOM. The draw
of this play was apparently from all the publicity that one got
with the price of a ticket a quick look at Nicole Kidman starkers.
And free with the look you got a reputedly mediocre play about
sexual mores.
But most of the country could not get to Broadway to see this
theatrical indelicacy. Now no less a filmmaker than the late
Stanley Kubrick brings to the screen NICOLE KIDMAN NUDE: THE MOTION
PICTURE, officially titles EYES WIDE SHUT. The film is not based
on THE BLUE ROOM--it just happens to be another story about sexual
mores. Kubrick himself is no stranger to the act of bringing
heavenly bodies to the motion picture screen. But I do not
remember another film that has so titillated the audience into
wanting to see the body of a major character since GODZILLA. And
in fact, Kidman does show off her body so frequently and so
gratuitously in the early part of this film we can only conclude
that she has decided she likes doing it. The irony is that her
character's nudity and even her sexuality is only tangential to the
main line of the plot. Most of the scenes of nudity, the first one
being a good 60 seconds into the film, are added totally
gratuitously.
As the film opens successful young physician William Harford (Tom
Cruise) and his wife Alice (his wife Kidman), a stylish and wealthy
New York couple, are preparing to go out for the evening. They are
going to a Christmas party at the palatial home of the well-
connected Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack). When they get to the
party both Harfords find themselves being seduced by other guests.
William is set upon by two young models, Alice by a somewhat older
Hungarian Lothario (Sky Dumont) who quotes Oscar Wilde as if the
wit was his own. The Harfords each resist, but the tension later
causes a rift in their marriage that has them each questioning
their relationship. But that disagreement is only the background
for the central action, a bizarre chain of incidents sparked by a
chance meeting at the party.
That evening the Harfords have a sort of sophomoric argument on
sexuality that does little more than show that both William and
Alice are each in their own ways naive about sex. Kubrick allows
the argument, and much that follows it, to go on way too long.
With 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Kubrick started pacing his film more
slowly. Going counter to the trend of films moving faster, Kubrick
has made the pacing of his films more deliberate and occasionally
more textured. In this pacing some points get really belabored. A
few of his sequences seem to go on much too long and his
storytelling is characterized by foot-dragging.
EYES WIDE SHUT is not in all ways a well-directed film in spite of
the Kubrick name. Cruise's acting style seems limited to facial
expression. There is little emotional impact in his performance.
Kidman goes through a wider emotional range more believably, but
still there is nothing impressive done here. Ironically Spartacus
and Varinia in SPARTACUS make a more compelling couple than William
and Alice played by an actual husband and wife in EYES WIDE SHUT.
Stanley Kubrick's final film surprises the viewer with an engaging
thriller plot involving a sinister forces having their roots in
history. There are some surprising problems with the film but it
is not without its moments of delight. I rate it a 7 on the 0 to
10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler...
The society that we see portrayed in this film is almost certainly
based on one that did exist, though the original probably died out
in the middle 18th century. The original is popularly called the
Hellfire Club (though members called themselves "The Monks of
Medmenham") and it was for a time an important force in European,
and particularly British, politics. Like the society that Kubrick
shows us here it was a secret society; even most members may not
have known who the other members were. The secret society combined
satanic mysticism--either real or feigned, probably some of both--
and orgies.
The founder and leader of the secret society was Sir Francis
Dashwood, an influential Member of Parliament and eventually
Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not known with any sureness who
else was a "monk." One person who it is strongly rumored was a
member or perhaps only an honorary member but a repeated guest was
Benjamin Franklin. The Earl of Sandwich was certainly also a
member. (As an aside, if his name sounds a little funny the latter
was not surprisingly also an avid gambler. His unwillingness to
leave the gaming table to eat caused him to invent a food
concoction more portable than a plate of food. He would grasp a
piece of meat in the hand between two slices of bread. And that's
the origin of the "sandwich" and of its name.)
Other members of the Hellfire Club included painter William Hogarth
and politician John Wilkes. The club met and had their orgies and
their strange ceremonies at Medmenham Abbey. Meeting at the chapel
of the abbey and at the West Wycombe caves near the Dashwood
estate, the club held strange ceremonies and orgies very much like
the ones we saw in the film. For more information, read
http://www.blather.net/archives3/issue3no1.html. [-mrl]
RUN, LOLA, RUN
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
It has been suggested that history is a random walk affected by
uncountably many tiny events, most too small to even notice. Chaos
theory suggests that tiny changes lead to immense differences later
in time. RUN, LOLA, RUN is a very clever low-budget film from
Germany in which explores this idea. We see Lola (played by Franka
Potente with day-glow red hair) live the same twenty or so minutes
of crisis in three different ways (though each involves running a
great deal). And we see how the outcome is different because of
those choices.
Lola has lived with her boyfriend Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu) for
about a year when the crisis takes place. Manni has a job acting
as courier in a drug deal. In a moment of confusion Manni leaves a
bag with 100,000 Deutsche Marks (roughly $50,000) on a subway. In
a few minutes Manni will have to face his bosses. If he is without
the money, he will probably be killed for his mistake. Rather than
do that, Manni decides he will probably take his chances robbing a
grocery. In a moment of panic he calls Lola and tells her what he
is going to do in just twenty minutes. If Lola can get to him in
twenty minutes with 100,000 Marks, he will abort his planned
robbery. What does Lola do? In three different futures she
handles the situation in three somewhat different ways and things
turn out differently because of her efforts.
In the opening this film, written and directed by Tom Tykwer, talks
about universal questions and suggests that this film will be
driving at some answers. However any conclusions that RUN, LOLA,
RUN draws are really suspect. The individual stories are contrived
in many ways. Some coincidences are acceptable, but there are too
many to make these three futures believable. In a cinematic
version of snapshots we see the future for some of the tangential
characters and it seems very different based on how Lola runs past
the person. No mechanism for what is causing the differences is
shown. In addition, Lola has some strange power that can only be
called a "magical shriek" that has powers never explained. It
makes the film a fantasy, in spite of otherwise realistic treatment
of the alternate worlds. So in some senses this film is not as
good as SLIDING DOORS, another film, far from perfect, on a very
similar theme. And another problem is that the timing seems
inconsistent between segments. If the first story took twenty
minutes, they other two should have taken considerably longer. But
even more serious is the fact we do not really get to know the main
characters very well. Nobody's character is particularly well
developed or made more comprehensible in the course of the film.
On the other hand, this film effortlessly shifts gears among film,
video, and animation. The use of the different media probably
allowed for some budget savings in what is clearly a low-budget
film. The only time that the budget becomes an obvious problem is
when the subtitles in the United States version are white on a
white background making them impossible to read. The pace of even
the opening credits are enough to leave the viewer panting. It
seems to be an amalgam of many different cinematic styles, and the
film makes that work. We learn a great deal about some of the
characters by seeing them in the same situation but handling it
three different ways.
RUN, LOLA, RUN is an unexpectedly provocative film that will be
remembered as a curious novelty, if for no other reason. I rate it
a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-
mrl]
Capsule: What starts as an exploration of
sexual mores takes a turn for the bizarre, then
becomes a paranoia suspense thriller with an
unexpected nod to 18th century European
history. This film is probably not as erotic
as people might be expecting, nor is it a deep
self-contemplative piece, but it still is a
surprisingly rewarding film. Rating: 7 (0 to
10), low +2 (-4 to +4). SPOILER WARNING:
Following the review (and a spoiler warning) I
have a historical note relevant to the plot of
this film.
Capsule: This is a very high-energy German film
using some experimental cinematic techniques.
The film tells three alternate timelines for a
woman who has twenty minutes to get 100,000
Deutsche Marks. Lola makes different decisions
and different coincidences occur so the event
has three very different outcomes. The film
sometimes is contrived and does not play fair
with the viewer, but for a low-budget film,
this is worth seeing. Rating: 6 (0 to 10),
high +1 (-4 to +4)
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
Democracy gives every man the right to be oppressor.
-- James Russell Lowell