@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 02/12/16 -- Vol. 34, No. 33, Whole Number 1897
Table of Contents
archive.org Science Fiction and Horror Films:
Lee Beaumont writes:
Have you seen this: https://archive.org/details/SciFi_Horror?
It is an on-line collection of Sci-Fi / Horror Films that are freely available.
Can you spell B-I-N-G-E-?
Mark responds:
Yes, there is a lot that is of interest in archive.org. On my Free
Audio Drama page (
I use their movie page much less, simply because the vast majority
of films are not very good. These are the films for which nobody
is defending the copyright so they are not considered all that
worthwhile. A few I would recommend include CARNIVAL OF SOULS,
CITY OF THE DEAD, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, NIGHT TIDE, CABINET OF
DR. CALIGARI (the film that launched German Expressionism, FIRST
SPACESHIP ON VENUS, HORROR EXPRESS, NOSFERATU, THE HANDS OF ORLAC,
THE GOLEM, THE LOST WORLD, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, THE
TRANSATLANTIC TUNNEL, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Most of these
films are commonly found elsewhere. [-mrl]
Settling Space (link to article by Dale Skran):
Dale Skran has an article, "Settling space is the only sustainable
reason for humans to be in space" in SPACE REVIEW. It can be found
at
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2915/1.
Best Return on Charitable Investment (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
We recently past the time of year most of us are besieged with
organizations sending us messages on a common theme. These
messages all say something to the effect that "We know you have
money. We are a great organization. We do all kinds of good. You
should take your money and send it to us."
Several years ago I wrote a column on what I decided was an optimal
strategy of allocating contributions among charities and social
organizations so that it would do the most good. Then recently I
was listening to the Freakonomics Podcast and they made the same
point I had in my column and suggested the same strategy. So let
me mention it again. The point I made is that the most common
strategy for giving to charities and public service institutions is
a mistake. It does not do all the good that could be done. We all
hear from many worthy charities. (And some that are not so
worthy.) We say to ourselves, "I will give this much for this
charity. And I like that one and I will give to that one." People
take the set of causes and allocate so much to this one and so much
to that one. I think this strategy is a bad idea. Here's why.
Well, suppose you are giving to many organizations. Each
organization can do only so much good with an additional dollar
contributed to them. It is unlikely that any two organizations can
do exactly the same amount of good with that dollar. If you give
that dollar to the organization that can best use it, you have done
the greatest amount of good that can be done with that dollar.
What we are talking about is what Freakonomics calls "return on
investment (ROI)" or more informally "bang for the buck." If you
could figure out what is the one organization that does the
greatest amount of good with that dollar you should give the dollar
to them. If you instead give it to an organization that does a
little less good, then less good will be done with the money. That
is bad. Now what about the next dollar? One dollar has not
changed the situation enough that now another organization can do
more good. Almost certainly the same organization can still do the
most good. Unless you are a Bill Gates sort of big-volume
philanthropist you will probably not contribute so much to the most
efficient charity so that it will no longer be the best place to
put your next dollar. Your best strategy is to find the one
charity that has the highest return on investment and give them the
whole wad. Then you have done the most good that you could have.
So the best strategy is to collect all your charitable giving in
one lump sum and give it all to the one optimum charity.
Ah, but there is a rub. How do you choose the organization that
has the greatest return of good done with your dollar? Well, there
where you probably need help most I cannot help you. You have to
make that decision, probably with your own judgment. You have to
pick the best cause. The alternative is to spread your money among
less efficient organizations because you have doubts that you can
pick the best charity. Which sounds better to you?
At this point most people I tell this to have an objection.
Suppose a fund for brain-damaged caboose dusters is not doing the
most good with the money they get. Then my strategy would have
nobody contributing to brain-damaged caboose dusters, and surely
that is a great harm. Well, my answer is no it is not. If it is,
then people are not putting their money where it will do the most
good. Perhaps the following year the world would see that the
greatest harm is being done to brain-damaged caboose dusters and
they will get their turn. And let us face it. Everybody in the
world is not going to agree that you have chosen the best best
cause. By the law of large numbers charitable contributions will
still be distributed much the same way they are now.
If you follow my strategy, you should be responsible in researching
and choosing your charity. Charitywatch.org rates charities, if
you trust them. That can be a big help. I will not tell you what
charity I am going to pick next for fear that I will bias some
poor, innocent reader. But when I give to it, I expect I am doing
as much good as possible for me with each dollar I contribute.
[-mrl]
FORSAKEN (film review by Mark R. Leeper):
The Western film is a genre that keeps threatening to die out, but
it is still with us after many years. Every year there are at
least two or three Westerns released and there are some fans who
look forward to them every year. Watching a Western like FORSAKEN
is a little like sitting down to a plate of macaroni and cheese.
We know what we are going to get with very few surprises. This is
a film made in the mold of SHANE and perhaps PALE RIDER. There are
also touches such as the dour one-word title, not unlike UNFORGIVEN.
So seen from a distance FORSAKEN is a familiar plot. We have our
bad guy, James McCurdy (played by the great Brian Cox) who is
trying to buy up all the local land and chase out the poor, weak
homesteaders. Does he want to have a huge ranch? Is the railroad
coming through paying a high price for land? Has some valuable
mineral been found on the land? I do not believe we ever find out
why he wants the land, but does it really matter? His motive is
the first cousin to a MacGuffin.
The film takes place in 1872 Wyoming. Our main character is the
now infamous gunfighter John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland). He
fought in the Civil War, all the time dreaming of returning home
marrying his sweetheart Mary-Alice Watson (Demi Moore). But seven
years ago after he was discharged from the army he found himself in
a fight and discovered he was really good at killing. After seven
years he has a notorious reputation and is only now returning to his
home. There he is met by his father, a minister played by Donald
Sutherland. The father and son Sutherlands play the father and son
Claytons. (This is the first time they have played together as
father and son.) The Reverend Clayton cannot forgive his son for
ignoring his religion and going into a life of killing. True to
form our plot rises to the expected climax with a lot of shooting
and killing. Acting honors, if there really are any, go to Michael
Wincott as Dave Turner, a well-educated and intelligent gunfighter
in the cast of Johnny Ringo in TOMBSTONE.
Standing in for Wyoming are the rocky hills of Alberta Canada. The
film is directed by Jon Cassar from a screenplay by Brad Mirman.
Cassar had directed Kiefer before on the TV series "24". The two
Sutherlands obviously know each other well and do a fair job
playing off each other.
FORSAKEN does not bring much that is new to the Western, but it is
nice that it brings a Western at all. I rate FORSAKEN a high +1 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2271563/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/forsaken_2016/
[-mrl]
HAIL,CAESAR! (film review by Mark R. Leeper):
The Coen Brothers--Joel and Ethan--love movies, and HAIL, CAESAR!
is their paean to filmmaking in The 1950s. This is a film set in
and around Capitol Pictures Studio at that time. That makes this a
semi-sequel to BARTON FINK which also was set around Capitol. This
gives them a chance to do pastiches on several genres of films,
notably multiple types of musicals. We have a bathing beauty
number, a sailors-on-leave dance number, and a singing cowboy.
They also get to do a short copy of a high society film, a Western,
and, most notably, a Biblical epic with allusions to BEN-HUR. We
see this all from the point of view of studio troubleshooter Eddie
Mannix (played by Josh Brolin). When things are going wrong, Eddie
finds a way to rescue the situation. Rescue is his business.
It is the Biblical film, HAIL, CAESAR! A TALE OF THE CHRIST that
causes one of the most notable problems for Eddie. Its Roman
general (played by Baird Whitlock (played by George Clooney)) is
central to the Roman epic. But shooting has to be halted when
Baird Whitlock disappears. Eddie Mannix is responsible to get him
back and ready for the cameras. Eddie's jobs could be the basis
for several compelling stories happening in parallel. We have the
stories, but they all come to rather bland conclusions. When a
pregnant bathing beauty starts showing Eddie has to deal with
sister dueling gossip columnists Thora and Thessaly Thacker (Tilda
Swinton and Tilda Swinton). (In real life it was advice columnists
Dear Abby and Ann Landers who were really feuding sisters.) All
the plots take place in a single day punctuated at each end by
Eddie's visit to confess to his priest even though he has done
nothing worse than smoked two or three cigarettes.
The film has some iconic bits of humor. In one of the better ones
Eddie calls together a Catholic priest, a Greek Orthodox priest, a
Protestant minister, and a rabbi for them to see the script of
HAIL, CAESAR! A TALE OF THE CHRIST to make sure all agree that the
script is non-offensive. But these representatives of different
beliefs do not agree on anything. It is a moment that might have
come from a Woody Allen film, but Allen would have had a more
serious discussion.
The script has several plotlines winding their way to happy but
uninteresting resolution by the end of the film. Much of the humor
in the film is rumored to be in-jokes, but being as I am an out-
person some may have gone over my head.
The Coens give us a film whose whole is just not up to the sum of
its parts. I rate HAIL, CAESAR! a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or
6/10. This film makes an interesting pairing with the recent film
TRUMBO.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475290/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hail_CAESAR!_2016/
The film impacts on two different eras of history. It is mostly
about Hollywood in the 1950s. But HAIL, CAESAR: A TALE OF THE
CHRIST also has details about the Roman Empire at the time of the
emperor Tiberius. It should be noted that errors in the Roman
Empire film being made may be intentional on the part of the Coen
Brothers to show how sloppy the film-making *in* the film was.
My wife, Evelyn C. Leeper, has a very good eye for historical
detail and assembled this list of historical anachronisms she
noticed.
[-mrl]
Some Annotations to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Greek Interpreter" (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Not all of these are original, although I have tried to add enough
that I am not just repeating other people's previous observations.
There are also comparisons with the Granada version of the story
(with Jeremy Brett as Holmes).
[Spoilers ahead.]
1) The fact that Mycroft is as skilled in deduction as Sherlock
does not prove that it is hereditary. The training or environment
may have started when they were children with the same tutor (or
whatever).
2) It has been noted by many that Mycroft and his "reasoning from
an armchair" is clearly the inspiration for Nero Wolfe. The
description of Mycroft as "absolutely corpulent" is the clincher.
(That "Nero Wolfe" has almost all its letters in common with
"Sherlock Holmes" is probably no accident either.)
3) Sherlock and Mycroft must have astonishingly good eyesight to be
able--from a second-story window across the street--to see chalk
marks on a jacket, to determine the type of footwear, to tell that
the skin is lighter on one side of the forehead than the other, and
to determine that he is carrying a rattle and a picture book
(rather than some other book or magazine).
4) The reference to "wealthy Orientals" does not imply that Melas
spoke any east Asian languages. In Doyle's time, "Oriental"
referred to any place from the eastern Mediterranean to Pacific
Ocean, Greece being on the western edge of that vast area.
Greece's designation as "Oriental" is no doubt due to its previous
condition as part of the Ottoman Empire, even though it had won its
independence in 1830.
5) Even the fact that Melas says, "I interpret all languages--or
nearly all..." does not indicate proficiency in what we would now
consider "Oriental" languages. If he were proficient in (say)
Japanese, he would be in demand for that as much as for Greek, if
not more, due to the dearth of Japanese interpreters. In fact, it
would be even more so, since ancient Greek was taught in the more
highly regarded schools, and while ancient and modern Greek differ,
they differ less than Old and Modern English (for example).
6) I'm not sure I would call an hour and forty minutes "almost two
hours."
7) The combination of a slate and a pencil seems odd--the Granada
version has chalk.
8) There is a question of whether in the following exchange it
would be clear to someone unfamiliar with the language that the
second part had been added. It is clear that Melas would have to
speak his part as a single sentence, with no pause between what he
was told to say and what he added. Kratides merely needs to leave
out the punctuation. Also, Greek does not require separate words
for subject pronouns, nor does it use the word "do" or other
"helping verbs". If one examines the exchange it is clear that the
additions are only one or two words. Whether Melas could think
fast enough to pull off the "sentence combinations" is the real
question.
9) When Melas says, "My very next question might have cleared the
matter up," one wonders what it could have been that would have
cleared it up, especially given the constraints in length for
questions and answers.
10) Mycroft places an ad in the newspapers, the sole effect of
which is to alert the villains. They do get a positive response,
which they then decide not to follow up on because "the brother's
life is more valuable than the sister's story."
11) In this early Holmes story, Doyle is careful to have Holmes
follow all legal procedures, e.g. obtain a warrant. In later
stories, Holmes has no qualms about breaking into houses when he
deems it necessary, nor does Watson do more than mildly remonstrate
him. Even in this, and with a warrant, Holmes "bends" the law by
forcing a window to gain entry.
12) How does Holmes know that the carriage left within the last
hour?
13) The story has a charcoal lamp generating the poisonous fumes,
but what are these fumes? Carbon monoxide is odorless. The
Garanda version has it as sulfur fumes.
14) If one cannot strike a match in the atmosphere, then why would
a candle remain burning? The implication is a lack of oxygen,
rather than added poisonous fumes.
15)"Blue-lipped and insensible, with swollen, congested faces and
protruding eyes" implies carbon monoxide poisoning.
16) In the story the delay in obtaining the warrant is what kills
Kratides, who dies just after they arrive. In the Granada version,
Watson says that Kratides has been dead at least four hours--
letting the police off the hook.
17) Brandy is frequently used as a restorative in Holmes stories,
but in fact it is almost always a bad idea in such cases.
18) In the story Kratides never signs the papers. In the Granada
version, he signs when the villains say that if he does not sign
Sophy is of no use to them and they will kill her.
19) Why don't the villains kill Melas and Kratides outright instead
of just leaving him in a room with a charcoal lamp? (In the
Granada version, they may actually have killed Melas.)
20) The story ends with a report of the death of two men traveling
with a woman, but it is several months later. Why would Sophy have
waited so long? In the Granada version, Sophy has been told that
Kratides will be joining them, but also seems to be under the spell
of Latimer to the extent that she does not seek revenge when she
learns Kratides is dead. (However, Latimer gets his punishment
much sooner, and without anyone having to directly kill him.) [-ecl]
Mars Rover and THE BLACKLIST (letter of comment by Steve Milton):
In response to Mark's comments on the Mars rover in the 02/05/16
issue of the MT VOID, Steve Milton writes:
The short expected life of the Mars rover was based upon a
calculation of how long the solar panels could provide enough power
to the rover as the build-up of dust degraded their performance.
The engineers thought they could guarantee at least 90 days. It
turned out the build up of dust on the solar panels was self-
limiting. They degraded to a point and then stabilized at a level
that provided adequate power. It's lucky the engineers didn't make
the rest of the components so that they would only last 90 days.
In response to Dale Skran's review of THE BLACKLIST
in the same issue, Steve writes:
The name of the Illuminati-like organization [in THE BLACKLIST] is
the Cabal not the Alliance. [-smm]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
THE DARK FOREST by Cixin Liu (translated by Joel Martinsen) (ISBN
978-0-765-37708-1) is the second book of the "Trisolaris" trilogy.
The first, THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM, won the Hugo Award for 2014, the
first translated fiction work to do so. (Well, maybe the second,
because another translated work, "The Day the World Turned Upside
Down" by Thomas Olde Heuvelt, won the same year for novelette, and
that category is announced before the novel category.) Anyway, the
first and third books in this trilogy are translated by Ken Liu (no
relation), but this middle volume is translated by Joel Martinsen.
There is no change of tone that I can detect, so at least Ken Liu
and Joel Martinson managed to give a consistent feel to the
trilogy. (I'm assuming that volume three will not demonstrate any
major dissonances.)
It goes without saying that as the middle book of a trilogy, THE
DARK FOREST cannot really stand on its own. Without having read
the first book, a reader might be able to follow what is going on,
but not with the same understanding. The odd thing, though, is
that the third book does not entirely seem necessary. I mean, it
is clear that the end of THE DARK FOREST is, if not a cliffhanger,
then at least open to multiple interpretations of subsequent
events. But it does not feel as if it must be resolved; not
everything in life has a well-defined end, and we don't get to find
out how everything turns out.
Or maybe I've just been reading too much Frank Stockton.
[There does seem to be a bit of an inconsistency. On one hand,
someone objects that research is being spent only on low-end tech
(chemical/fission rockets rather than rather than fusion). On the
other, he also says that there is only limited research on closed
ecosystems, which I would think of as low-tech, at least in some
sense. Maybe I'm just missing the point here, though.] [-ecl]
Go to our home page
CAPSULE:
In a Western set in 1872 Wyoming, and much in
the style of SHANE, a famous gunfighter and his minister
father have to repair their relationship and stand up
together against a land grabber. For the first time
father Donald and son Kiefer Sutherland play a father
and son in the traditional Western directed by Jon
Cassar. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
CAPSULE:
The Coen brothers write and direct (so what
else is new?) their tribute to 1950s (or so) filmmaking
at a major studio. The script juggles multiple
plotlines. That is not unusual for the Coens. What is
unusual is they do not seem to be invested in any of the
plotlines. And I have to say, neither was I. What
connects the stories is that they all involve a
troubleshooter for the studio who can fix nearly any
problem that comes up. But several humdrum stories do
not make for a compelling overall plot. On the other
hand they have plenty of room for lavish production
numbers and for comic interludes. The lavish is very
lavish and some of the comic is fairly comic. Rating:
high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Q: You can do no good by this obstinacy. Who are you?
A: I care not. I am a stranger in London.
Q: Your fate will be on your own head. How long have you been
here?
A: Let it be so. Three weeks.
Q: The property can never be yours. What ails you?
A: It shall not go to villains. They are starving me.
Q: You shall go free if you sign. What house is this?
A: I will never sign. I do not know.
Q: You are not doing her any service. What is your name?
A: Let me hear her say so. Kratides.
Q: You shall see her if you sign. Where are you from?
A: Then I shall never see her. Athens.
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous
energy merely to be normal.
--Albert Camus
Tweet