@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/27/00 -- Vol. 19, No. 17
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.
Memory (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory. This is why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same path over and over. It is constantly new to them. In general they are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a goldfish film fan. You could show them the same film over an over and it would always be fresh. A goldfish would start his favorite movie with no idea where it was going. He would be amazed and entertained. The ending would be a complete surprise. "Gee, the butler did it." But that would be immediately followed by the question, "Did what?" Then the fish could start the film over and see the dastardly deed. But then he would immediately wonder who did it. And so it would go. This might have positive aspects for humans. Maybe some day we will be able to selectively forget all about our favorite books or films, just at the moment we are starting to watch them again. If everybody had a thirty second memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for me.
I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory. This is why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same path over and over. It is constantly new to them. In general they are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a goldfish film fan. You could show them the same film over an over and it would always be fresh. A goldfish would start his favorite movie with no idea where it was going. He would be amazed and entertained. The ending would be a complete surprise. "Gee, the butler did it." But that would be immediately followed by the question, "Did what?" Then the fish could start the film over and see the dastardly deed. But then he would immediately wonder who did it. And so it would go. This might have positive aspects for humans. Maybe some day we will be able to selectively forget all about our favorite books or films, just at the moment we are starting to watch them again. If everybody had a thirty second memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for me.
I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory. This is why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same path over and over. It is constantly new to them. In general they are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a goldfish film fan. You could show them the same film over an over and it would always be fresh. A goldfish would start his favorite movie with no idea where it was going. He would be amazed and entertained. The ending would be a complete surprise. "Gee, the butler did it." But that would be immediately followed by the question, "Did what?" Then the fish could start the film over and see the dastardly deed. But then he would immediately wonder who did it. And so it would go. This might have positive aspects for humans. Maybe some day we will be able to selectively forget all about our favorite books or films, just at the moment we are starting to watch them again. If everybody had a thirty second memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for me.
I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory. This is why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same path over and over. It is constantly new to them. In general they are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a goldfish film fan. You could show them the same film over an over and it would always be fresh. A goldfish would start his favorite movie with no idea where it was going. He would be amazed and entertained. The ending would be a complete surprise. "Gee, the butler did it." But that would be immediately followed by the question, "Did what?" Then the fish could start the film over and see the dastardly deed. But then he would immediately wonder who did it. And so it would go. This might have positive aspects for humans. Maybe some day we will be able to selectively forget all about our favorite books or films, just at the moment we are starting to watch them again. If everybody had a thirty second memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for me. [-mrl]
BEDAZZLED (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Harold Ramis writes and directs a remake of one of the funniest comedies of all time. At its best it is more of the same sort of humor that was the first film. Unfortunately Ramis cannot match the hilarious, literate banter of the original and the remake has the feel of a dumbed down version. If you cannot get your hands on the original, this is at least an above average comedy. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
I think you can learn a lot about somebody by just knowing what comedies he finds funny. Within my top three funniest comedies is the 1967 BEDAZZLED, a film directed by Stanley Donen, but most of the humor and creativity came from the erudite British comedy team of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore who with this film were at the top of their form. The humor of that film could be lampooning Christopher Marlowe's play DOCTOR FAUSTUS (the inspiration for BEDAZZLED) one moment and then be drolly slapstick the next. And perhaps the moment after that it would be presenting some profound insight on the Bible and religion. Being so eclectic and literate, the original is a film that gracefully shows its age but never dates. It is a comedy that does not need to be remade for modern audiences. If anything, it needs to be annotated. Remaking it is a project that is hazardous from the first.
In the remake Elliot Richardson (played by Brendan Fraser) works on a computer help desk. Most of the people in his office would apparently prefer solitary confinement to having to deal with him. Elliot has a not so secret crush on the demure Allison (Frances O'Connor) who has worked in the same office for four years and never even noticed the obnoxious Elliot was there. Elliot runs into Allison in a bar and tries to make small talk only to be snubbed. But wait, the evening is not over. There is an absolutely stunning woman in the bar who seems more than a little interested in Elliot. Elliot is skeptical, but no, it turns out she is not a hooker. She is something a little bit worse. She is the Devil (Elizabeth Hurley) in human form. And she has a deal for Elliot. She will give him seven wishes in return for his soul. With each wish Elliot can become somebody else. He can specify what he will be like, what other people will be like, anything that comes into his head. And with each wish, of course, the Devil finds some nasty way to live up to the letter of the wish but to completely subvert the spirit. After all, isn't that what the Devil does?
First, what was done well about this film? Some of the jokes are fairly clever and some (only some) of those are original. I did find myself laughing at this film. The credit sequence gives you a Devil's eye view of the world and the people in it with little tags to tell you their deep secrets. That is a clever idea. The premise of the multiple wishes and how the Devil is tricky is done almost as well as in the earlier film. With each wish Elliot's appearance changes to fit the wish and at least some of his appearances are quite funny. The Devil's general mischief is not as inspired as it is in the first film, but several of the jokes are funny. If the first film did not exist, this would be at least a clever, watchable, and enjoyable comedy.
The problem is that there are places where this film is almost as good as the original, but many other places where it in no way comes close. Almost all of the banter based on the classics of literature and religion are gone. In the original the holes in the main character's wishes made subtle philosophical points. There is little such intelligence in this screenplay. What this film does offer that the first film did not is some machine guns, a short chase involving a helicopter, and a large traffic accident, all fairly common and by now boring stuff. The ending of the original was hardly brilliant, but the remake simplifies it and dumbs it down so that it is maudlin and really betrays the spirit of the film.
Brendan Fraser's best work was in the serious dramas SCHOOL TIES and GODS AND MONSTERS, but through practice he is becoming an accomplished comic actor. He manages a tour de force playing several externally different characterizations, reminding one of Alec Guinness in KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS. The film's replacement of the lackluster Peter Cook with the seductive Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil may be slightly an improvement, but the lackluster was part of the joke. One feels that if the Devil could look any way he/she wanted to, that the choice would be to look like Hurley. Frances O'Connor needs to do little but be demure and attractive, and she does little more in her role. It is interesting that English-born women were chosen as the two stars of this remake of an English comedy.
For me, this attempt was as misguided as would be an attempt to remake CITIZEN KANE. The result could have been worse, I suppose, but naturally my recommendation would be to see the original rather than the remake. Still this version gets 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
PAY IT FORWARD (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: A seventh grade teacher challenges his students to change the world. Then one implements a scheme that might just do it. Given the premise, this is a surprisingly adult and moving drama. It does not talk down to the viewer. There is a lot of pain in the scarred characters. Kevin Spacey again gives a solid performance. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4)
A reporter's car is destroyed while he is getting a story on a hostage crisis. As he sadly looks at the wreckage a passing stranger throws him some car keys, making him the gift of a new Jaguar. But the benefactor has one condition. The reporter must do large favors for each of three deserving people of his own choice. And each of them must do three favors. Intrigued, the reporter sets out to find the origins of this benevolent pyramid scheme.
Flash back four months. In a Las Vegas junior high school, a new teacher, Mr. Simonet (played by Kevin Spacey) gives his seventh grade social studies class two tough assignments. The first is just to keep up with all the new vocabulary words he uses in his conversation. Not easy, but the second assignment is a lot harder. "Think of an idea that could change the world." Not an assignment frequently given to a junior high student. (At least not until high school teachers see PAY IT FORWARD.) Trevor McKinney (Haley Joel Osment) comes up with a plan more powerful than he realizes. He will do favors for three people, each of whom will pass the favor on threefold in an ever growing pyramid. Rather than paying back the favor they pay it forward. This part of Las Vegas certainly is a community that could use some altruism. Trevor's mother Arlene (Helen Hunt) is a recovering alcoholic who is a waitress in a casino by day and one in a strip joint by night. Arlene is infuriated when Trevor gives a homeless man the run of her house, and she goes to complain to Mr. Simonet.
There are several ways this story could have gone wrong. The people could have been instantly transformed by the power of good. Or everybody in the chain might have their lives dramatically changed by the scheme. Or the people might not be properly developed or only developed as one might expect for a film aimed at teens. In fact these are people who have had some hellish experiences and whose lives are not working out. The script could have pulled its punches in many different ways. The way that story does go wrong was in a much less offensive manner, thought wrong it does go at the very end. The filmmakers turn the heretofore realistic plotline into a slightly syrupy allegory toward the end. To that point they go out of their way to take a story that was not pat, and then they give it a pat ending. But then director Mimi Leder has had previous problems with the final reel of otherwise good movies. That was her problem with the film DEEP IMPACT. This screenplay was written by Leslie Dixon who wrote OVERBOARD and MRS. DOUBTFIRE. The writing is frequently moving and at times takes chances. I could probably have done without the love story. But for the ending and perhaps some gratuitous violence at the beginning the writing is good.
The plotting has been compared with what one might have gotten in a Frank Capra film and it is an apt analogy, though this screenplay has some harrowing realism, perhaps along the lines of LEAVING LAS VEGAS. Speaking of Las Vegas, when this film about a pyramid scheme shows the skyline of that city, it features the Luxor pyramid. Was it an intentional comment? Other writers have tried to do films in the Capra style. Notable particularly is THE HUDSUCKER PROXY by the Coen Brothers. This is a more successful attempt.
Helen Hunt seems to be showing up everywhere on the screen these days. She is in both PAY IT FORWARD and DR. T AND THE WOMEN, both currently playing in theaters. If that were not enough theaters are showing a trailer for WHAT WOMEN WANT starring Helen Hunt. Haley Joel Osment, formerly of THE SIXTH SENSE, seems to have been born with a face that just seems earnest and intense. But whatever part luck played, he is already a skillful actor who holds his own against adults, not with Shirley Temple cuteness, but with genuine acting intelligence. Kevin Spacey also exhibits acting intelligence, but then he is all grown up so it not quite the same feat. All three play scarred people, though Spacey's character's scars are the most obvious.
This is a good film worth seeing as I think the other half dozen or so people who saw it in the theater with me would agree. It is a pity it is not getting larger audiences. Perhaps people are underestimating the maturity of the storytelling. I rate it a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
A comment for people who have seen the film: The chronology does not quite work in this film. The birthday party is maybe one day before the end of the film, but the invitation to the birthday party happened before the whole parallel sequence. Simply too much had to have happened in that interval of time. [-mrl]
DR. T AND THE WOMEN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Robert Altman looks at the superficial lives of the wealthy and frequently not too bright in Dallas upper class. His points are less subtle and just a bit more vulgar than usual. The film takes a long time to make its point, which turns out to be disappointingly trite. This is a film that at least superficially seems to verge on misogyny but perhaps is really anti-rich. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), low 0 (-4 to +4)
DR. T AND THE WOMEN is about a fabulously handsome and successful gynecologist living and working in the Dallas area. Dr. Sullivan Travis, (played by Richard Gere) lives the good life. He has a beautiful wife Karen (Farrah Fawcett) and two nice children. In his practice he treats many attractive women, yet he remains totally faithful to his wife and family. In typical Altman fashion we follow several strands of plot in the lives of T's family, his patients, and T's relationship with an intriguing woman golf professional at T's country club. Problems start to creep into T's world as Karen Travis childishly takes off her clothes and takes a swim in the fountain in from of a Godiva chocolate shop in an upscale mall. Her doctor diagnoses her case as something called a Hestia Complex, a mental disease of the wealthy. Meanwhile as one daughter plans her upcoming wedding, another seems intent on disrupting the wedding plans. And several other plot strands work themselves out.
Director Robert Altman is a surprisingly erratic filmmaker even after all these years and after having made several classics. There is a great deal of similarity in all his films--each will have a large number of familiar actors and a lot of plot strands that all make a sort of mosaic of life in some part of the country. Yet each film will be trying to make some point and the quality of the film tends to hang on that point and sort of people he is portraying. Last year this gave us the charming COOKIE'S FORTUNE. Considerably less charming and in the final analysis more than a little fatuous is this film. What we get is a not very flattering portrait of the nouveau riche, with women going through women's pursuits of spending large sums of money, planning weddings, and turning visits to the gynecologist into one more popular form of entertainment. It is hard to imagine women so excited about getting an intimate examination that they cluster like pigeons turning the doctor's office into real chaos just for the excitement of being examined. Somehow even with someone with Richard Gere's looks doing the examining, this really stretches the imagination. Meanwhile the receptionist snorts like a horse and patients plan accidents for other patients. While the women are doing this, the guys are doing really masculine and only marginally more believable pursuits like shooting skeets (well, golf balls) and going duck hunting.
Altman has done more interesting work. This film only really engages the viewer if one is fascinated with this sector of society. The film generally hovers no further than arm's length from being sexually titillating. We see locker room scenes, and gynecological examinations. People take off their clothing out behind desks. We see Farrah Fawcett nude in a fountain once it is clear she is not mentally competent. Altman can do better things than tantalize the audience. Most of these patients are treated in a superficial and not very sympathetic manner. Many we never see outside the chaos of the waiting room. Like MAGNOLIA the story builds to a sort of a strange climax, though what happens here is much less likely than what happens in MAGNOLIA. This is all in service to making a point that has been made many times before in film. Altman is no more intelligent about making that point in this film. Nor do his characters have the interest value they had in COOKIE'S FORTUNE. If one neither enjoys the theme nor the characters, there is not much left.
Altman probably cannot make a film that is totally bad. His famous relaxed style of shooting a film attracts too many good people. But with a really mediocre script he can waste talent on a film worth only a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
GINGER SNAPS (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R. Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: A new take on the werewolf story. Lycanthropy and puberty come to a teenage girl at about the same time and that only increases the confusion. In spite of some immature teen-film trappings this film touches sufficiently on psychology to make it stand out and deserve to be seen. Rating: low +2
- Title is a pun
- Very similar premise to story "Boobs" by Suzy McKee Charnas
- Takes place in Bailey Downs (safe and caring)
- Bridgett and Ginger, sisters, are odd kids of school
- Both years late into puberty
- Some strange animal hunts night
- Ginger bitten by night creature which is then killed in WOLF MAN fashion
- Younger sister knows
- Lycanthropy and puberty come to Ginger at the same time
- All adults are out of touch with reality
- Bridget is sullen
- Ginger growing fangs and tail, nobody but Bridget notices
- Ginger shapely very quickly, becomes popular with boys
- "Do you think I want to go back to being nobody?" Ginger asks.
- Bridget and friend have to stop killings
- Puberty or lycanthropy: which changes come from which
- Buffy-inspired
- All adults out of it
- Tense finale
- Directed by John Fawcett
- Lots of stage blood
- Werewolf done well on budget. No good view till late in film, then looks a little plastic
- Werewolf noise loud and chilling
- Good actors for lack of experience
- Ginger grew breasts too fast for late puberty
- Mimi Rogers is one name actor, good comic performance
[-mrl]
THE GODDESS OF 1967 (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R. Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: A young Japanese yuppie with odd tastes travels to Australia to buy a rare 1967 Citroen Goddess. He finds to buy it he must drive cross-country with a blind woman. Through flashbacks we piece together her story and some of his. One the story is reconstructed it is cliched and melodramatic. Style is more unusual than the content. Rating: 0
- Strange Japanese man on road trip with enigmatic, blind, Australian woman
- Starts with Japanese man on PC typing "I want to buy a Goddess." Turns out to be a Citroen Goddess.
- Man likes snakes, feeds then mice
- Dickering price on Internet
- In Australia strange owner, blind, claims must take a 5-day trip to get owner to sell car
- Road movie with flashbacks telling woman's story
- Remembering sexual abuse by grandfather
- Grandfather living isolated thought he could make own rules
- Distorted colors, orange washed out
- When in car backgrounds through window are impressionist
- Aussie dusty vistas vs. memories of Japanese crowded city
- At first seems pointless but bits of stories collect in puzzle to put together
- Parental sexual abuse (overused theme)
- One powerful scene at end
- Long, slow, and often not of much interest
- Filmed in Australia and Japan
- Dialog style like early Jim Jarmusch films, long pauses between lines
[-mrl]
HOLDUP (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R. Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):
Capsule: When a robbery goes wrong the robber and his two hostages spend an afternoon together waiting for the safety of night and forming two-on-one alliances. Based on loosely a real incident, this film offers a nice mix of comedy and drama. Rating: low +2German language
- Vienna
- Andreas is unemployed and badly needs money
- Tries but cannot get up the courage to rob grocery
- Hides I tailor shop, then decides to rob it
- Takes two prisoners, tailor (Boegel) and sick man (Kopper)
- Blindfolds and ties prisoners while searching for more money
- Unrelated police barricade across the street, but Andreas cannot leave
- Andreas goes into rages
- Prisoners at first cooperate, but start to get on each others nerves
- Sick man accidentally locked in bathroom
- The three talking about private lives
- Robber reveals details foolishly
- Trying to be compassionate
- Humor
- What director calls typical Austrian denial, but one refers to serving in "the war against Hitler."
- Most of film one shop
- Loosely based on real incident
- Robber played by standup comedian
[-mrl]
You are free, and that is why you are lost. -- Franz Kafka