@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 06/12/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 50, Whole Number 2436
Table of Contents
Mini Reviews, Part 18 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper):
THE GOODBYE GIRL (2004): This is a remake of the 1977 film with Richard Dreyfus and Marsha Mason. Patricia Heaton is no Marsha Mason and Jeff Daniels is certainly no Richard Dreyfus. Hallie Eisenberg is pretty good, and the director of the internal play "Richard III" is clearly supposed to be over the top so Alan Cumming is no worse than Paul Benedict.
What about the idea that Elliot is an actor in 2004--who claims to have many gay friends--who first doesn't know how to play a gay character, and then plays him so a total stereotype? If Paula is flat broke, why is she throwing out a giant plate of spaghetti instead of saving it as leftovers? That's just sloppy directing.
And in 2004 there is no way that Elliot could be told he has a two-hour flight delay and thought he had time to change a first-class ticket for two economy-class tickets, take a taxi from *any* airport in New York to Bleecker Street, wait for Paula to pack, take the cab back to the airport and still get through security in time to make the plane. The only airport even close to possible would have been LaGuardia, which required at least an hour for the driving alone.
But my question is, why remake the 1977 film at all?
HANUKKAH ON THE ROCKS (2024): I don't normally watch Hallmark Channel movies, but I was curious what they would do with a Hanukkah movie. (Why my library bought it in the spring is not clear to me, unless it's that it took several months from its release to make it to the shelf.)
And now I know why I don't normally watch Hallmark Channel movies: I'm pre-diabetic and can't take that much sugar. There is no real conflict: no question of will everyone follow their dreams, but when they will figure that out; not whether the obvious couples will get together, but when.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001, 2002, 2003): I love the movies, they're a great achievement, but there is one really annoying flaw: they made Gimli the comic relief. Perhaps my objection will be clearer if I say that they made the dwarf the comic relief. I a reminded of LIVING IN OBLIVION, a film about low-budget filmmaking in which Peter Dinklage (in his film debut) plays an actor who is in a surreal dream sequence, and suddenly breaks out and complains about how having a dwarf in a dream sequence is such a cliche in films.
And it's not just THE LORD OF THE RINGS; in THE HOBBIT (2012, 2013, 2014), Jackson also makes the dwarves comic figures. And they are *not* comic figures in the books.
There is another weirdness with height. Merry and Pippin drink the ent draught and grow taller, in fact competing with each other to see who is taller. We see this in a scene later in the film when one of them surreptitiously compares their heights. Yet in the scene of the four hobbits at the end at Aragorn's coronation, they are all basically the same height. People on the Internet say that this is because the scene with the ent draught is in only the extended version, so when they filmed the coronation there wasn't a height issue. But this sees to assume that the scenes in the extended version were filmed after the rest was done, when it is almost certain that they were filmed in the normal course and when all the filing was done, then they cut some scenes out. It is highly unlikely that they reshot the coronation because they removed the ent draught, and if they had, why wouldn't they use the originally shot coronation scene which supposedly had Marry and Pippin taller than Frodo and Sam?
And of course, Jackson cast people of average height for the hobbits and dwarves and used special effects (or doubles, when the faces weren't seen), rather than casting actual dwarfs. Admittedly, the number of dwarfs Peter Jackson would have needed for all the dwarf and hobbit roles--even with the CGI--might have been a problem. Yet he managed to use special effects to have taller actors appear shorter in large parts of the films, so he could have cast some of the characters more accurately.
[-ecl]
The Pope and Gandalf (report from File 770):
File 770 (05/25/26) reports:
(1) THE POPE SHARES THE WISDOM OF GANDALF. Pope Leo XIV quoted Tolkien in his latest papal encyclical, "On Safeguarding The Human Person In The Time Of Artificial Intelligence"--"Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Leo XIV Magnifica Humanitas (15 May 2026)":
"213. The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." [187] The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization. For this reason, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on some aspects of how we, each in our own way, can cooperate in building the civilization of love. Without presuming to exhaust this theme, I would like to propose five paths toward daily and public responsibility: the need to disarm words, building peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism."
Gandalf's statement is from the third book of the trilogy. Stephen C. Winter tells us: "The hearers are the lords of the allies gathered at the gates of Minas Tirith. Denethor and Theoden are dead and Faramir is recovering from his wounds in the Houses of Healing so it is Aragorn, Imrahil of Dol Amroth, Eomer and Elladan and Elrohir, the sons of Elrond who listen to what Gandalf is saying." [-File 770]
The Intelligence of Bees (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
In the MT VOID's continuing quest to print stories about animals, we have this from The Guardian:
Insects join list of species capable of solving simple ‘box-and-banana’ problem that demonstrates basic intelligence
Bumblebees can use tools to solve a problem, according to experiments that demonstrate their remarkably advanced cognitive abilities.
The bees were given an adapted version of an experiment that, 100 years ago, first demonstrated chimpanzees could work out how to retrieve an out-of-reach banana by stacking boxes. Since then, various other primates, elephants and crows have joined an elite cohort of species known to be capable of this level of insight and spontaneous problem solving.
In the latest research, bees were shown to be able to roll a polystyrene ball to a specific location and climb on to it in order to access an artificial flower on a low ceiling. The findings challenge the longstanding assumption that insects operate purely on instinct and mindless trial-and-error learning.
Full story at:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/04/bees-use-tools-to-solve-problems-study-finds
(This sort of story is one reason I read The Guardian--they cover this sort of science better than other "mainstream" news sources. [-ecl]
THE ALIEN AUTOPSY SCANDAL (film pointer by Evelyn C. Leeper):
[This has already run on "Sky Documentaries" but will probably eventually be available elsewhere as well.]
Those of us who remember the 1995 film that purported to be an actual alien autopsy from Roswell, New Mexico, may want to watch THE ALIEN AUTOPSY SCANDAL, the story of how Ray Santilli and Gary Shoefield used a sculptor who had worked on "Doctor Who", a butcher to supply suitable-looking animal parts, and a magician to create a film that certainly convinced a lot of people at the time.
Full story by Rhik Samadder at:
A Starbucks Marketing Stunt Gone Horribly Awry (comment by Evelyn C. Leeper):
I will summarize from The Guardian:
Starbucks launched a marketing campaign on May 18 called "Tank Day" for its new, bigger coffee mugs.
In South Korea, May 18 is the anniversary of a 1980 massacre in Gwangju. According to The Guardian, "Over 10 violent days, paratroopers crushed pro-democracy protests against military strongman Chun Doo-hwan. Victims’ groups say hundreds were killed."
Even worse, "There was also a problem with a slogan the Starbuck campaign used: 'thwack on the desk'. It echoed a notorious cover story used by police after the 1987 torture death of student activist Park Jong-chul. Authorities at the time initially claimed Park died because an officer had used his fist to 'hit the desk with a thwack'."
And why am I reporting this in the MT VOID?
"Marketers chose the slogan after consulting an AI tool, looking for suggestions, Shinsegae Group said. It turned out some managers who approved the campaign never opened the email attachments showing the marketing material."
The Guardian summarizes, "It was a PR nightmare: customers smashing Starbucks branded tumblers and mugs as fans deleted loyalty apps and cashed out prepaid balances. Amid the uproar, government ministries cut ties with the coffee chain and apology notices were pasted on Starbucks stores across South Korea."
Starbucks cancelled the campaign the same day, and fired the CEO, Son Jeong-hyun. But the fallout continues. [-ecl]
THE INCANDESCENT by Emily Tesh (copyright 2025, Tor Books, 432 pages, ISBN-10: 1250835011, ISBN-13: 978-1250835017; Macmillan Audio, 12 hours and 26 minutes, ASIN: B0DFQMHG92, narrated by Zara Ramm) (audio book review by Joe Karpierz):
Not all that long ago, I'd never heard of the term "dark academia". Whether that's because the term is new or I was just not paying attention is neither here nor there. From the term itself, it's not all that difficult to figure out what it is. Or, at the very least, I can point at something and say "that's dark academia" without actually having a rigorous definition to support my assertion. Another term that is relatively new--well, it's been around at least a year now, if not longer--is romantasy. That one's even easier to figure out. But what if a book contains both romance and fantasy but is not really romantasy, and oh by the way it's dark academia?
That book would be Emily Tesh's THE INCANDESCENT.
Chetwood School is a 600+ year-old British boarding school that teaches magic alongside traditional "A level" subjects. Not as long as the 1000+ years Hogwarts of Harry Potter fame has been around, and not founded by four famous wizards, but it is one of the better magic schools in Britain and 600 years is a long time. Our central character is Director of Magic Sapphire--Saffy--Walden. Walden spends her days being an administrator of the school, teaching classes, and protecting the students from all sorts of demons that lurk around every corner of Chetwood. Walden is a driven individual, to the point where she has nearly no social life. She had a partner while she was living in America, but that relationship ended--awkwardly--when it was clear that the two women were headed in separate directions. So Walden spends her days keeping herself busy so she doesn't have time to even think about her life. The school, its students and teachers, and magic are enough for her--until those darn kids do something stupid.
That "something" is summoning a high level demon that has been lurking around the school for centuries and trying to get past the magical wards that are everywhere designed to keep demons out. Now, to be honest, there are demons, and there are demons. There are demons that inhabit the clock on Walden's wall and the faculty printer--imps--to monster demons from hell that are out to take over the school and kill everyone in sight. That last type is the one that the kids summoned, named Old Faithful. Walden rushes in to try to save the school and the kids, and as good as she is, she's severely outclassed and outmatched. In to save the day, although not easily, is head Marshall Laura Kenning. Walden is both impressed by Kenning's magical abilities and dazzled by her beauty. Eventually, they begin a relationship that fizzles, in part because of the Phoenix demon that Walden has contained in a tattoo on her arm.
Eventually, Kenning is forced to leave the school as someone had to take the fall for Old Faithful's demonic incursion. An outsider is brought in to evaluate the school's protections against demons and the ways in which its students are safeguarded against the constant danger that surrounds them. Mark--the outsider--is basically a jerk, at least to start. Walden eventually warms up to him, as he is quite good at what he does, and well, one thing leads to another. This is where we learn that Walden is bisexual. But more on that in a minute. The novel turns into something of a detective story, as Walden not only realizes that more and more demons are making it past the school's defenses, but it's Mark that is the cause of all the incursions.
When once a decade or so a brilliant book comes along and takes your breath and soul away, the reader can expect the next one to be terrific because if the author can do it once, they can do it again. Or, as is more likely the next book is a letdown, a disappointment. Is this because the brilliant book (SOME DESPERATE GLORY) was so good that nothing could compare, or the follow up (THE INCANDESCENT) is not that good of a novel? I think THE INCANDESCENT has its flaws, to be sure. Walden seems to make bad choices throughout the book, including who she picks as lovers. The book is presented as a sapphic romance, but that particular relationship does not last very long nor is it explored very much. And while there is sapphic romance, there is the other situation with Mark. Not a romance, per se, but a physical relationship of convenience, which is okay, but you wonder why she fell into bed with him when she knew that he was no good, and eventually *up* to no good. The Phoenix tattoo and the power it represents is not fully fleshed out either. Sure, it was a research project, but who thought it would be a good idea to allow that piece of magic to happen needed to be explored more deeply. I suppose including all the bits and pieces that I wanted to read about might turn it into a doorstop novel, and in general I'm done with those.
I honestly don't think the book is as bad as I'm making it out to be. It was an enjoyable and fun read, but by no means was it riveting. I never once thought I was wasting my time reading it. I just wish it were better than it is. After SOME DESPERATE GLORY--which I told several people they should just give the Hugo to because no novel could top it that year--I was expecting more. I was disappointed. [-jak]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Our book/movie group selected YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, with the selection of book left to each member. The obvious choice was FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley, but since many of us had already read that. the other option given was THE MAKING OF YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN by Mel Brooks. I read that (although it was mostly photos), but also read the novelization, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN by Gilbert Pearlman.
Of the novelization, I will say that it has the same problem that the novelization of DARK STAR had: it is futile to try to convey in words a film that is based in large part on visual gags, slapstick, and facial expressions. Pearlman apparently realized (or discovered) this, so he omits several humorous bits (e.g., the patient being told to hop down off the gurney, and after he clambers down with difficulty, Dr. Frankenstein says, "Nice hopping"). Then he needs to fill in the pages with scenes not in the film, such as an introductory scene of the lawyer reading the will to other members of the Frankenstein family before he brings it to Frederick).
I suppose one can argue that the book should be taken on its own. But the underlying story is not that great without the visual references and the atmosphere of the film.
As for the visual references, one of the villagers mentions that the monster had previously appeared five times. Those would be in the films FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, and FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN. (Brooks apparently doesn't recognize HOUSE OF DRACULA and HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, or ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN.)
Obviously the creation scene is from FRANKENSTEIN, down to the use of the original lab equipment from that film. It also uses the monster's fear of fire. From BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is the classic blind hermit sequence. The official with the wooden arm is from SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. The scene of the monster being carried, arms outstretched, as if he is crucified, copies an identical scene from GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN. And the transference scene copies the same scene from FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN.
[I was in a quandary as to whether to put this in film reviews or book comments. I decided based on the fact that currently I have more film columns backlogged than book columns.]
[-ecl]
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Quote of the Week:
Trump making half naked sweaty men fight on his front
lawn is a great way to celebrate Pride Month. Hats off
to him.
--Glenn Epstein
Go to our home page