@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/28/03 -- Vol. 21, No. 35
Table of Contents
Twilight Years (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
I have always enjoyed "The Twilight Zone", being hooked as a child on the scary stories. It occurs to me now that perhaps it is because it is safe for me. It shows terrifying and weird things happening to people, but I know I am safe. When I was a kid, "Twilight Zone" showed things happening to older people. Now that I am a little older all the new episodes seem to be about weird things happening to kids and 20-somethings. [-mrl]
-4 to +4 Ratings Frequently Asked Questions List (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
Question: The -4 to +4 scale you use for rating films is rather unique. Did you invent this scale?
Answer: Actually the -4 to +4 rating system was used for a long while in CINEFANTASTIQUE, a magazine about fantasy cinema. They no longer use it, but I and a number of people I discuss film with have adopted it and still use it.
Question: Does CINEFANTASTIQUE still use this scale when they rate films?
Answer: No, as I said they no longer use this scale. But I do. I like it because zero indicates pure neutrality in my impression of a film. If I am negative on a film, so is the sign of the number. Positive, the same is true.
Question: What seems to be unusual about this scale is that it has the number zero in the middle. Is there some sort of reason for choosing a scale centered on zero?
Answer: Yes, a zero says that I am purely neutral about. A negative number says that I am negative on the film and a positive one says that I am positive. The average film would get a zero. An average theatrically released film would probably get a +1.
Question: I would expect that theatrical films get a higher rating than the general run of films made include made-for-cable and direct-to-video films. Do you find that is so?
Answer: Yes, on the average I would give a zero to the average film, including those you mention, and +1 to the average theatrical film. But I expect that films follow a bell-shaped curve. The greatest number of films get a sort of average rating. I very rarely give out a +4 or a -4.
Question: So do you find you give out as many +4s as you give out +1s?
Answer: Well, no. I think the quality of films released
follows a bell-shaped curve. There are a lot fewer +4 films
than there are +1 film. You can look at the curve at
Question: Can you explain why some films rate a +1, some get a
high +1, and some get a low +1? What is the difference?
Answer: Well, a high +1 is a little better than a +1 and not
quite as good as a low +2. A low +1 is not quite as good as a
+1. I subdivide each of ratings this way except for a +4.
Films that I consider +4s like MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, LAWRENCE OF
ARABIA, SPARTACUS, THE PATHS OF GLORY I just give the full +4 to
without qualifying it.
Question: You said earlier that fewer and fewer films get the
higher ratings. Have you ever actually given a film a full +4?
Answer: There aren't a lot, but yes I did. A MAN FOR ALL
SEASONS, SPARTACUS, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and THE PATHS OF GLORY
are examples. There are other examples at my web site where I
discuss my ratings scheme in more detail. That is at
Question: Have you ever written out an explanation of this
rating system, maybe something that reader can refer to if they
want to read it in a little more depth?
Answer: Yes, I have a page explaining my rating system at
One Book New Jersey (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
As part of the recent rather peculiar notion of everyone in a city
or a state reading the same book at the same time, New Jersey has
chosen FAHRENHEIT 451 as its inaugural book, and the months of
March and April as when you should be reading it. Given that the
book is about less controlled reading, not more controlled, this
seems a bit odd to me.
On the other hand, it is a classic, it is science fiction, and it
is the book's fiftieth anniversary, so I can't complain too much.
(The idea that the first book chosen for One Book New Jersey is
science fiction is heartening in itself.)
An article about the whole "One Book" idea (and critical of it)
can be found at http://www.thismagazine.ca/36_1/col_2.html.
More details about the One Book New Jersey program can be found at
http://www.onebooknewjersey.org. [-ecl]
HUMANS by Robert J. Sawyer (TOR copyright 2003, 381pp,
hardcover, $24.95, ISBN 0-312-87691-2) (book review by Joe
Karpierz)
HUMANS is the second novel in Robert J. Sawyer's "Neanderthal
Parallax" trilogy, the first of which was 2002's HOMINIDS. I
had a very positive reaction to HOMINIDS in a review I wrote
last year. Well, Sawyer has topped that novel by a huge margin
with HUMANS, and if he improves by the same amount in the final
volume (Hybrids, due out later this year), he will have written
a true masterpiece.
HUMANS picks up right where HOMINIDS left off. Ponter Boddit,
the major Neanderthal character, has just returned to his
version of Earth. Mary Vaughn is getting set to go to back to
York University where she is a professor and genetics expert.
If you'll remember, she was called in to verify that Ponter was
indeed a Neanderthal back in HOMINIDS. This story involves the
reconnection of the portal between our version of Earth and
Ponter's, and the ramifications that has for people on both
Earths.
And boy, do *we* come out looking bad in the deal. Sawyer goes
deeper into the comparison between Ponter's world and ours
(since it makes more sense to do so in this novel), and uses it
very effectively to take on gun control, pollution, crime,
religion, the Big Bang, and...you get the idea. And we look bad
in every single category.
This comparison comes via many different angles. The story is
actually told as a flashback from Ponter's point of view as he's
talking to a "personality sculptor"--yep--he's seeing a shrink
because something is bothering him about what happened back on
our Earth.
Ponter and Adikor convinced the High Gray Council to reopen the
portal between the Earths using the quantum computing facility
that they work at. They use a device to keep the tunnel open,
thus effectively opening a permanent gateway between the two
earth, with the idea being that the two worlds would begin
diplomatic negotiations angling toward trade, etc. The
Neanderthals send Ponter and a diplomat over, and that diplomat
promptly gets shot. Despite that, diplomatic relations
continue, with a bunch of Ponter's greatest scientists, artists
and the like coming over to teach us what they know.
That's just one part of the story. The other part chronicles
the growing relationship between Ponter and Mary, and all the,
uh, baggage that brings along with it. Remember, she's been
raped, his woman-mate has died, and, of course, the fact that
they live on two separate worlds with two different social and
family structures. Central to the story is Mary's Catholic
faith and all of the Neanderthal world's lack of a belief in any
Supreme Being (for those of you who don't know where Sawyer
stands on that, if you can't tell from this book, read his
interview in the latest issue of Locus).
One of the great chapters in this novel ties in both the ideas
of war and religion with a visit to the Vietnam Wall in
Washington D.C. Ponter, of course, just does not understand the
point of the whole thing, since there obviously isn't an
afterlife. Why do we remember people who are gone? It's a
powerful and moving chapter that's worth the price of admission.
(One thing I have to mention that is Rob's plug for one of his
previous novels, ILLEGAL ALIEN. See if you can spot it.
Unless, of course, I was imagining it. You never know).
Anyway, HUMANS is full of Sawyer's usual outstanding
storytelling and compelling ideas. We'd be disappointed if it
wasn't, wouldn't we? But you know, the real killer, the thing
that is going to drag you headlong into the third book, is an
idea that I don't ever remember seeing in an SF book before
(although I'm sure it has been done--I just don't know where)--
what happens when the earth's magnetic field reverses itself,
and the north pole becomes the south pole and vice versa? Yowza.
Run out and get this book. Run--do not walk. It's a keeper.
[-jak]
GODS AND GENERALS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This film has been generally rejected by the critics;
nonetheless history buffs may find GODS AND GENERALS is a
compelling look at the first two years of the Civil War seen, as
it rarely is, from the Confederate viewpoint. Dramatically
awkward off the battlefield at times, the film has spectacular
but believable reenactments of battle. Rating: 8 (0 to 10),
high +2 (-4 to +4)
I should start by saying that my tastes are going to be skewed
on this film. I consider myself a minor Civil War buff and the
companion production GETTYSBURG is one of my favorite history
films. It was a fairly accurate yet engaging representation of
history. I think much the same of GODS AND GENERALS. I have
visited the battle fields for the three battles depicted in this
film--Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville--and seeing
the reenactments brings the history very much to life. This
film is three and a half hours of fairly engaging recreation of
some of the most dramatic years of American history.
Experience tells me I should make clear at the outset, even at
the risk of repeating the obvious, that my position on slavery
is that it was an evil institution. This film is about people
who fought on the same side as people who defended slavery. In
liking the film I am in no way being sympathetic to slavery or
its defenders any more than I was when I liked the film
GETTYSBURG.
Several years ago Michael Shaara wrote the excellent and
well-researched novel THE KILLER ANGELS, which was an account of the
battle of Gettysburg. At that time Ted Turner's organization
would make mediocre and usually inaccurate made-for-TV films
about the Civil War. Typical was IRONCLADS, which had a mostly
fictional story, though it had an impressive dramatization of
the battle of the Monitor and the Virginia (a.k.a. the
Merrimac). For the capper of this series of films the decision
was made to adapt Shaara's THE KILLER ANGELS as the basis for a
film about the battle of Gettysburg. This would be a large-scale
film and to keep costs down they would get thousands of
free extras by using Civil War reenactment hobbyists. This had
the perhaps-unforeseen virtue of having thousands of avid
experts on the Civil War right there on set. This must have led
to a lot of arguing but also to one of the most accurate history
films ever made. It was intended to be shown for two nights on
television, but when the producers realized they had something
special, GETTYSBURG was released first for a theatrical run in
1993. It was greatly popular with the critics and with history
buffs.
Michael Shaara did not live to write more novels of the same
cast about the Civil War, but his son Jeff wrote two additional
novels, GODS AND GENERALS and THE LAST FULL MEASURE. The former
tells the story of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and at the same
time much of the history of the war leading up to the battle of
Gettysburg. The latter tells the story of the Civil War after.
These two novels frame the original. A decade after GETTYSBURG
was filmed, the Turner organization is trying to repeat the
success of that film by much of the same production team and
many of the same actors in many of the same roles for GODS AND
GENERALS. It is almost as if the production of GETTYSBURG is
continuing. The ten years has, however, taken a noticeable toll
in the aging of those actors who though they are a decade older
are playing the same people a year or so younger. It is
especially noticeable in Jeff Daniels's Joshua Lawrence
Chamberlain. But there is not much that can be done about aging
and every effort possible was made to make this film fit
seamlessly with GETTYSBURG.
Like some soldiers the new film is terrific in battle but is
frequently a little awkward off the battlefield. Some of the
acting seems stagy, some is contrived, and some is badly-paced.
But GODS AND GENERALS does something that perhaps no other film
has dared. It presents the Confederate viewpoint on the war
without letting the issue of slavery overshadow all else. The
film seems to freely admit that slavery was wrong, but slavery
was not something the Southern soldier (or most Northern
soldiers) saw as being central to the reasons for the war.
Slavery was a dying institution. Pivotal in the Confederacy's
issues was that they believed the Federal government was
ignoring States' rights and forcing its will on the South. The
United States (in the North) was mounting an army to invade the
South to enforce federal control. Of course, this was ignoring
the fact the Confederacy had already fired on the United States
at Fort Sumter.
The film also repeatedly but probably accurately depicts many of
the characters as having religion central to their thinking.
God and Providence are mentioned often and piety is an important
part of some of these people. I interpret this emphasis not as
proselytizing but as being again historically accurate.
Religion was a great comfort to these people at a time when life
was hard even without war. These were also verbose times and
some emotional scenes about love and Christmas are longer and
more sentimental than would be the current cinematic style.
These were people who did not lead such rushed lives. There is
a trade-off between realism of the dialogue and giving the
viewer the information needed is not as skillfully handled as in
the film GETTYSBURG.
One of the more disappointing aspects of this film is the music.
For GETTYSBURG Randy Edelman composed a powerful score that
captured the novel's feel of the power of the events we were
seeing. Edelman is also the primary composer for the current
film, but is joined by John Frizzell. In this film the music is
much more of a mournful lament. That and the addition of vocals
that are even more doleful create a very different feel. Unlike
the themes for GETTYSBURG, this is not a score that many will
want to add to their collection. In addition, this film seems
to have some unconvincing visual effects. If there are visual
effects in the previous film, they are not obvious. On the
other hand, with the passing of time it is now a little more
acceptable to show the horrors of mid-19th-Century battlefield
medicine. Some may find the hospital scenes harrowing but they
are more correct. Again the film makes extensive use of
historical reenactors, nearly three thousand of them.
GODS AND GENERALS is predominantly the story of Thomas
"Stonewall" Jackson. It takes him from being a professor at
Virginia Military Institute almost to the battle of Gettysburg.
We again have Jeff Daniels playing Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.
But mostly the film is the story of Stonewall Jackson over a
period of two years. That is a different kind of focus than
GETTYSBURG had, depicting many people over four days. The film
also omits some of Jackson's stranger idiosyncrasies like
holding one hand in the air supposedly to balance the fluids in
his body. Some of the major roles have been shuffled. Rather
than Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee, we have Robert Duvall.
Sheen was very good but Duvall is perhaps America's best actor
and he adds a great deal of gravity to the role. Each looks
impressive on a horse. Stephen Lang, who played Pickett in
GETTYSBURG, gets a larger but less flashy role as Stonewall
Jackson.
I think GETTYSBURG as a history film actually is great. GODS
AND GENERALS is not great, but it is at least fine. In spite of
the negative reviews and some obvious drawbacks I enjoyed it
very much and look forward to seeing it again. For the reasons
I have given I rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2
on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
OLIGARKH (U.S. title: TYCOON) (film review by Mark R. Leeper):
CAPSULE: In the newly capitalist Russia a shady tycoon is
murdered. We see his rise to power and the drama set in motion
by his murder. OLIGARKH is based on a real person, Boris
Berezovsky, and the story of his rise to power is told
intriguingly. This film has been called Russia's GODFATHER, and
I can well believe it. This is definitely a compelling film.
Rating: 9 (0 to 10), +3 (-4 to +4)
OLIGARKH is an adaptation of the novel BOLSHAYA PAIKA (The Big
Slice) by Yuly Dubov. The main character was based on the real
life shady industrial giant Boris Berezovsky, who has been
called "The Godfather of the Kremlin." "This individual had
risen out of nowhere to become the richest businessman in Russia
and one of the most powerful individuals in the country," Paul
Klebnikov writes of Berezovsky in Forbes magazine.
This Russian film, OLIGARKH, shows us a large piece of recent
history in the former Soviet Union. At the same time, even in
America it plays as a dark political and economic thriller that
is comparable in style and strength to THE GODFATHER (or at
least of ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA). As the film opens,
Platon Makovski is murdered. He was the wealthiest Russian
industrialist and one hated by the Russian public. The film
moves back and forth in time. The flash-forwards show the next
few days as the murder is investigated by police. In the
flash-backs we see how Platon Makovski and a small group of his
friends moved up the financial ladder to being fabulously
wealthy. Platon, with the looks of a movie star, is an
amazingly bright wheeler-dealer. His business success, with his
enemy more the government than it is competition, is based on
his doing the unexpected. He finds clever ways around the laws
while keeping his business looking legal. He is a sort of
financial anti-hero. The laws he breaks are holdovers from a
discredited system and seem absurd, and his successes really
seem some good for the country, putting technology in the hands
of the people.
One deal has him giving the public an opportunity to trade
brooms for cars. Another has them exporting cars only to be
re-imported so that he can sell them to the public at a lower
price. We get a view of recent Russian history and how it and
success affected this small gang of friends. In the
flash-forwards we see the investigation of the murder and the dark
drama that follows building toward its explosive denouement.
Each sequence, flash-back or flash-forward, is titled where it
placed in time relative to Platon's death, creating tension to
see just what happened and where the chips will fall. Almost
like in INTOLERANCE, we see two story lines, each moving toward
its most dramatic moment.
I saw this film at a film festival and did not know what to
expect. What I found was an audience surprisingly packed with
people speaking Russian and apparently excitedly looking forward
to the film with great anticipation. The film meant nothing to
me at the time, but apparently the Russians knew either of the
film or at least that it was a film based on the notorious
Berezovsky. Watching the film they found a great deal of the
dialog very witty, though much of the humor was not conveyed in
the subtitles. Still, it is a good story and one that I think
will be of interest in this country.
The Russian title of this film is OLIGARKH, but the American
title TYCOON seems equally appropriate. This is the most
intriguing Russian film I can remember seeing and one I hope
will be released in this country. I rate OLIGARKH a 9 on the 0
to 10 scale and a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Rather than spend yet more time complaining about Robert
A. Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND (except to say that the
second half gets even more chauvinistic and obnoxious), I will
mention another book I found at the library, Tony Perrottet's
ROUTE 66 A.D. Perrottet retraced the steps of the Roman tourists
of two thousand years ago around the Mediterranean, interspersing
descriptions of their travel conditions and experiences with his
own. As a way to see the area it is certainly interesting, though
I wouldn't recommend it to someone making it their only venture to
that region, since he skips anything less than two thousand years
old--which includes all of Istanbul. (Well, that's not quite
true. He does visit King Tut's tomb, which while over two thousand
years old, was unknown to the Roman tourists.) It's certainly an
interesting (and accidental) companion piece to Edward Gibbon's
DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, the first third of which I
hope to finish this week. [-ecl]
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
The urge to save humanity is almost always
a false front for the urge to rule.
-- H. L. Mencken