@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
10/20/06 -- Vol. 25, No. 16, Whole Number 1357
Table of Contents
More on THE DEPARTED (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
I mentioned in my review of THE DEPARTED that the character of
Frank Costello was not based on the real life Frank Costello who
was the model for Vito Corleone in THE GODFATHER. Dan Kimmel
tells me that the character is actually based on another
racketeer named "Whitey" Bulger. The name is pronounced like
"one who bulges." Wikipedia informs me that this is the gangster
James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger, who is in the #5 position on the
FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. (Get this: #4 is Osama Bin Laden. I
leave to your imagination how bad #s 1, 2, and 3 are. Or check
The Mystique of the Fifties Science Fiction Film (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
This year at the World Science Fiction Convention in Los Angeles
I attended a panel on the 1950s science fiction film. On the
panel was Bill Warren. Now Warren has to be one of the world's
leading experts on the science fiction films of the 1950s. He is
the author of KEEP WATCHING THE SKIES, a massive two-volume
film-by-film study of science fiction films from 1950 to 1962.
Bill asked the audience a question that was very apt. He wanted
to know what was the special appeal of the science fiction films of
that decade, the 1950s. Unquestionably the science fiction films
of that time seem to have a special sort of attraction. Older
fans remember those films with a real fondness. Certainly it is
far more than the science fiction films of the 1970s or 1980s.
What is it about these films that accounts for this mystique?
With the two or three minutes of thought I had under the
circumstances I came up with what I think is part of the answer.
From the time of ancient Egypt to 1945 two giant forces had ruled
the world. One was politics and the other was military power.
One made decisions and told people what they should do, and the
other was the muscle to back up those orders. We had gotten into
World War I through politics and military power. For that matter
that was how we had gotten into all of our wars that way and that
was how we had gotten out of them. But World War II was at that
time unique in the way it ended. It was the same two forces that
had gotten us into World War II, but that was not how we got out.
A third force was coming to prominence. That was science.
Science rather than politics or military power ended that war.
The truth was that much of the war was won because the Allies had
better scientists. For example, Winston Churchill claimed that
the only thing that really frightened him in the German power was
the U-boat threat. Then some little mathematicians in a
university in England in very large part neutralized that threat.
The war in the Pacific was reversed at the Battle of Midway and
luck played a role, but a major part was played by fore-knowledge
of what the Japanese plan was. And that intelligence came from
mathematicians. The British and the Americans had each broken
their enemies' codes. Those facts came to be known in the 1950s.
But everybody knew what ended the war was a sudden flash like a
deus ex machina provided by physicists and mathematicians.
It was clear that science was now a large part of people's lives
and would be for the rest of everybody's lives. Things were going
to change. Science was the new force, a new power in the world.
And it was more colorful. It excited people's imaginations. It
was the shock of the change that was coming that fueled science.
Science was on everybody's minds and that was exciting.
Bill said that change does not excite people. It frightens them.
I let the matter drop, deciding that I wanted to write an
editorial about the subject. And I guess this is it. Yes,
certainly Bill is right that there are some people whom change
frightens. Perhaps everybody is frightened by it to some extent,
but many people, particularly the young are also excited by
change. I remember my father telling me that when he as seven
years old (that was 1927) everybody in his class was excited
about the new film that had been released. The film was WINGS.
My father wanted desperately to see the film with these wonderful
airplanes. They had heard about the dogfights and wanted to see
them. I am sure to adults the idea of this new weapon and the
changes it would bring was a little frightening. But kids think
they are immortal. Change brings with it excitement and
adventure. Kids want to be a part of that thrill.
In the 1950s I doubt if many kids took seriously the threat that
there might be a Rhedosaurus that comes strolling out of the
Hudson River, but it was a fun idea. But they wanted to play in
their minds with the ideas that perhaps there could be some really
interesting side effects of a thermonuclear blast. The effects of
nuclear power was for the young of that time the equivalent of
what the bi-planes were in the 1920s. There were adults who were
worried about what would happen if the Soviets got the same
power. For kids and for adults who wanted to spend a few hours
in child-like wonder and safe chills, the new science fiction
films offered a lot of fun. There were a very few films in that
decade that looked at the threat of the new science for real.
Toward the end of the decade there was ON THE BEACH, for example.
But that is really science fiction for a mainstream and mostly
adult audience. But by far the greatest part of the 1950s wave of
science fiction films played off of the excitement of this new
force of science. It now was something that everybody was aware
of. The kids who wanted to see WINGS in the 1920s were a lot like
the kids who wanted to see THE WAR OF THE WORLDS in the 1950s.
And they were both a lot like the kids who loved the science
fiction pulp magazines which also dealt in safe but deliciously
scary images from a new frontier.
There are really two phenomena that have to be accounted for.
Why did science fiction films start having this mystique and why
did later films stop having it?
What happened to the caché that 1950s films had? Why did the
1960s films not share it? Why did the later science fiction
films not seem of the same interest? First, I do not entirely
believe that just the 1950s films have this excitement.
Certainly there were films of the later decades I still find
exciting. The appeal did not come to an end at the end of that
decade. Even Bill Warren's book continues though films of 1962.
And there are some science fiction films of the 1960s, perhaps
more sophisticated, but which excite me in much the same way the
1950s films did. Further, the next generation of filmmakers had
been born knowing about the atomic bomb all their lives and no
longer saw science as bringing a new and exciting age. A large
number of science fiction films became dour and purportedly
socially relevant exercises like FAHRENHEIT 451, ZPG, and
THX-1138. It was a time of message films that talked down to the
audience. It is hard to get excited about a future where people
get formed into blocks of protein to feed other people.
I should add there are 1950s science fiction films that do not
share the mystique. I do not think there was much viewer
excitement for the likes of UNKNOWN TERROR, THE FLAME BARRIER,
KING DINOSAUR, THE PHANTOM FROM 10,000 LEAGUES, or THE MONSTER
FROM GREEN HELL. These are films that played for a short time,
mostly at drive-ins and matinees, and then were quickly and
mercifully forgotten. This mystique may be correlated to the
1950s films, but it extends to films not from the 1950s and
certainly not to all films of the 1950s. The good reputation of
1950s science fiction films is based on several films to varying
degrees, but not on that high a percentage of the films made in
those years. Still there were enough good films to make the 1950s
science fiction films popular long after most films from that
period have dropped off the radar. [-mrl]
Bob Tucker and Crickets (letter of comment by John Purcell):
John Purcell writes:
It's kind of weird writing a loc after the news fandom has been
rocked with. I find myself alternating between sadness and
smiles when I remember all the times that I have had the pleasure
of being in Bob Tucker's company. I don't know about you, but
even though I've been expecting this news, it still stunned me.
At least we all can share in the same thought: we have been
blessed with his presence. So are you writing any kind of a
tribute in his memory? [-jp]
[Mark replies: I would be the wrong person to write one. I never
actually met the man and never really read much of his writing.
I guess he has been in my blind spot since I have only vaguely
been aware of his presence. -mrl]
Hopefully, early next week the latest issue of my zine, "In A
Prior Lifetime", will be posted; my personal tribute to Bob leads
the issue off. Fanzines everywhere should be appearing in the
next week with their thoughts and memorials. It is going to be
very awesome and humbling. As for your latest issue, all I can
think of is how Darwinism has reared its head yet again. Sure is
a bummer to be a cricket in Kauai nowadays, isn't it? Can you
imagine what Pinocchio would be like given this information?
Picture Jiminy Cricket sitting on top of his little grass shack
in Hawaii, breaks into his song: "When you wish upon a star...."
And suddenly, this deep droning comes out of the darkness as
swarms of these flies swoop down on Kauai in waves like Japanese
Zeros, and larvae-bomb Jiminy Cricket into oblivion. Kind of
like a cross between PINOCCHIO, TORA TORA TORA!, and the scene
where the grasshoppers arrive on the island in ANTZ. Very
surreal. [-jp]
[Mark says: I wish I had written that. -mrl]
Thanks for floating this issue my way. Take care, and I'll let
you know when my zine is up on efanzines. [-jp]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
CATHOLICS by Brian Moore (ISBN 0-829-42333-8) was made into a
1973 made-for-television movie. Back then, it was science
fiction; now it is alternate history. The premise is that
Vatican II was followed by Vatican III and Vatican IV (which
changed the nature of the Mass and banned private confessions in
favor of collective confession by the congregation). In
particular, the rulings of Vatican II (the Mass in the
vernacular, with priests facing the congregation, are being
enforced. A monastery on an island off the coast of Ireland has
persisted in saying the Mass in Latin and Rome has sent a
representative (Martin Sheen in the movie) to deal with the
problem. This is definitely a more philosophical (and
theological) script than one usually finds in a made-for-
television movie, and is recommended. (I found it on an EastWest
double feature DVD for a dollar! I will note, however, that the
music can at times be very obtrusive.) The movie does
concentrate on the "Latin [Tridentine] mass" and only mentions the
other aspects (confessions, ecumenicalism, etc.) in passing, while
these figure more importantly in the book. Ironically, just a few
days ago it was reported that the Pope is about to sign a document
that would make it easier for priests to celebrate the Mass in
Latin than it currently is.
INTRODUCING MATHEMATICS by Ziauddin Sardar, Jerry Ravetz and
Borin Van Loon (ISBN 1-84046-11-3) has the same flaws that Sardar
and Van Loon's INTRODUCING SCIENCE (reviewed in the 07/29/05
issue of the MT VOID) had: it spends more time criticizing
Western colonialism and imperialism than introducing mathematics.
I suppose that Eurocentrism and ethno-mathematics may be
interesting topics, but they are not mathematics per se.
[There seems to be a strong movement in the name of mathematics to
steer people away from the study of mathematics itself and into
social issues. This is fine for people pushing a social agenda,
but as far as mathematics goes it is a sort of unilateral
intellectual disarmament. -mrl]
PASSENGER TO FRANKFURT by Agatha Christie (ISBN 0-312-98170-8) is
subtitled "An Extravaganza by Agatha Christie". This is Christie
foray out of the mystery genre into the international thriller
genre, and fails (in my opinion) because she relies on too many
of the "tricks" that work in her mysteries. I talked in the
07/14/06 issue of the MT VOID about some of these: the
mis-identified corpse, the deceptive murder, and so on. One I
did not mention at the time was the coincidence, both meaningless
and meaningful. A meaningless coincidence would be that the
mysterious new lodger is actually the long-lost son of the local
squire, but his return turns out to have nothing to do with the
murder of the squire. A meaningful coincidence would be that the
aunt in England of the detective happens to know many of the
people involved in a murder that took place in France. PASSENGER
TO FRANKFURT seem to rely too much on the latter. In addition, I
think Christie works well on a small palette: a murder in a
resort, a theft in a manor, etc. When she tries to write global
conspiracies, she ends up out of her depth.
THE FOUR JUST MEN by Edgar Wallace (ISBN 0-486-24642-6) is
another attempt at a larger mystery, though in this case the
focus is on a single crime planned by a group engaged in righting
wrongs around the world: The Four Just Men. Far more interesting
than what the murder plans are, though, is the whole issue of
vigilante justice. (One could see "The Four Just Men" as a team
of super-heroes whose powers are intelligence and guile.)
Wallace does not spend much time on this, though. (This was his
first novel and released without its final chapter, and the
gimmick of a prize to the readers who could figure out the
ending. The Dover edition includes the conclusion from a later
edition.) [-ecl]
Go to my home page
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves.
-- Sir Edmund Hillary