From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #153
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest         Monday, June 12 2000         Volume 09 : Number 153



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  eb all over the world              ["The Kielbasa Kid" <etews@hotmail.com>]
  Re: eb all over the world            [Chris Gillis <chris@photogenica.net>]
  Re: NYC dates                                    [sofa king <woj@smoe.org>]
  Tape Op #17                                      [sofa king <woj@smoe.org>]
  Re: eb all over the world                                  [overbury@cn.ca]
  Re: Tape Op #17                                            [overbury@cn.ca]
  Re: Roy'n'Robyn                                  [sofa king <woj@smoe.org>]
  Re: Roy'n'Robyn                                          [MARKEEFE@aol.com]
  Re: really whatever Vivien wants                      [JH3 <jh3@winco.net>]
  Re: eb all over the world                ["Allen Ruch" <etews@hotmail.com>]
  Tell me about your movies               ["Asa Land" <asa_land@hotmail.com>]
  Jacobs's opinions                 [Natalie Jacobs <jacobsn@careoregon.org>]
  LeGuin all over the world                 [Vivien Lyon <vivlyon@yahoo.com>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:38:27 PDT
From: "The Kielbasa Kid" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: eb all over the world

<I'd like to hear more about why it didn't click.  My own impressions of 
this movie are from its first airing.  Maybe I've set up a shrine that's 
more attractive than the relic.>

well, i should admit that i've never read the book.  so, for all i know, the 
movie is a completely faithful adaptation.  (and i suppose i should warn 
that there are spoilers here.)
but, the film's conceptual contradicitons and continuity errors very quickly 
collapse it under its own weight.
the filmmakers don't take the premise of the "effective dream" seriously -- 
a stance i find VERY offensive.
for example, haber can't, upon inducing orr to dream all the rain away, go 
out and *watch* the rain dry up, the clouds part, and the sun come beaming 
down; then go inside and tell orr, "it hasn't rained in two years"!  that's 
gotta be one of the bigger continuity gaffes in the history of film.  orr 
can't, *by the nature of the "effective dream", overhear people saying that 
they miss the rain, because only orr himself is supposed to have noticed 
(that's why he's questioning his sanity).  but, it's an easy way to advance 
the plot, so, voila!  if i recall, every single dream is crippled by these 
sorts of continuity problems.

the film also totally ignores any "ripple effect", assuming that everything 
outside the specific purview of the dream would remain unchanged -- a 
preposterous assumption.  it's laughably ludicrous to think that orr would 
still be living in portland, still be working at the same job, still be 
under a mandate to attend sessions with haber, that the "haber institute" 
would still exist in exactly the same form, etc., etc., etc.; after the 
momentous changes wrought by orr's dreams.

another thing that really bugged me is the stupidity of the characters.  any 
fucking third-grader would be aware -- in the knowledge of the dreams' broad 
interpretation of the suggestions -- that telling orr to dream "no more 
aliens on the moon" would result in them attacking earth!

and so on, and so on, and so on.  the concept's cool enough, but the 
execution is a complete botch, in my opinion.


<(Reverend Mother Eddie, help me out here....tell them I'm a bigger
Dune fan than Chris!)>

it's true.  but i think dede (who recites the litany of fear at the 
dentist's office) has us all beat.


<I promise this is my last post>

you mean, forever?  or just as "allen ruch"?


<Even the Famous "War of the Worlds" broadcast, although not visual, 
wouldn't work on todays audience in its originally broadcast state.>

i dunno.  local comedy show a few years back, on april fool's, aired a 
"news" piece claiming the space needle had toppled over -- and tons of 
people believed it.


<Films are not real, they are entertainment, and Dinosaur once again 
advances the art of motion picture making.  It is the best example
of it's type out there.>

may be, but:
1. its "type" is film-as-product; *not* art, nor even entertainment.
2. "state of the art" is a wholly different animal from "seamless".
3. the "state of the art" is advancing at a snail's pace.  Jurassic Park 
looked like really good claymation, and Dinosaur looks the same.


<Go back and look at the morphs in Terminator 2.  Ha Ha!  What shit!  But 
man, the first time I saw those, I was thrilled!  And you can thank Kamron 
for his work on the Abyss for that technology.  And Kamron was the first to 
experiment with "digital water", and thanks to Titanic, we will have Perfect 
Storm>

never seen Terminator 2.  but an ahnold-fan friend of mine said the movie 
made him cry -- and this is a person i could *never* imagine crying at *any* 
movie (except maybe tears of joy watching Victory At Sea, or something).  in 
other words, take away the visuals, and there's still a story there.
no matter what you might think of Titanic, it's undeniable that the movie is 
driven by dicaprio and winslet, *not* the effects.  teenaged girls didn't 
keep flocking to a four-hour movie to see "the boat going up the wave", they 
went for the love story.
besides, as i recall, cameron built a 95%-scale model of the ship, as 
accurately and with as much detail as possible.  as far as i know (granting 
i'm no expert on the making of the movie), digital effects were actually 
used fairly sparingly.


<(but the boat going up the wave just doesn't look real enough!)>

well, look.  i don't have a problem with "cheesy" special effects (though i 
do, certainly, appreciate well-done effects).  my problem is first of all 
with movies that are *all* effects and no story; and secondly with critics 
who tout the wonderment and beauty of the technology, when it's plain as day 
that the effects look fake.
and this is, of course, why gilliam (in his prime) and the coens are so 
valuable: not only are the effects spectacular, but the stories are as well 
- -- when you get *both* mojos going, it's tough to beat.


<Come on, do the planets blowing up in the original Star Wars films really 
look like planets blowing up?>

the trilogy's effects are MUCH more impressive than Phantom Menace's.  why?  
because they used models, sets, puppets, makeup, etc..  in short, they 
worked with *actual* things, and they used *creativity*.  you know how they 
filmed the forest-speeder scene in Return Of The Jedi?  they put a camera on 
a guy's shoulder, undercranked it, and had him walk through the forest.  
that's it!  but look how visceral and exciting that scene is compared with 
the deadly boring pod race scene from Phantom Menace (i'm not exaggerating: 
Phantom Menace nearly put me to sleep).

or, compare chewbacca (or gredo, or boba fett, or whomever); with jar jar 
fucking binks.  which looks more realistic?  *obviously* the former.  PLUS, 
jar jar fucking binks, as a character, was probably lamer than anything ever 
seen in any movie with lucas' imprimatur.

Episode IV is far from a perfect movie.  but it's got a plot, it's got 
interesting characters, it's got great, quotable dialog, it's got way cool 
visuals.  in other words, it has a heart.  Phantom Menace has NONE of these, 
except inasmuch as it's a plagiarisation of Episode IV.  AND the effects are 
less "eye popping".

Star Wars played in ONE theatre in seattle, and it was lined up around the 
block every night for a year.  Phantom Menace is a movie with only one 
purpose -- to sell plastic crap to kids.  american children are exposed to 
(literally) 20,000 fucking television commercials per year.  20,000!  
bombard kids' brains with 20,000 ads, and they'll buy what you're selling -- 
and they did.
incidentally, the seattle Star Wars society recently got together and had a 
big circle jerk in celebration of the first anniversary of Phantom Menace's 
release.  the head honcho was on the radio, and the host asked something to 
the effect of, why would you want to watch such a lousy movie over and over 
and over again?  he responded that the original Star Wars captured the 
hearts of a generation -- 12-year-olds; and the new one does the same.  he 
LITERALLY said that the reason ADULTS should watch the movie a billion times 
is because it's explicitly marketed to kids!  (which Star Wars was not, of 
course.)

so why, if the effects look like crap, does lucas use them?
well, as capuchin mentioned, it's a lot cheaper to throw a bunch of shit 
together on a computer than to actually PAY people to BUILD things.  and if 
you're only interested in commerce, not art, why expend the time and energy 
to do something right?
also, to give him his due, lucas has invested a lot of resources in computer 
technology.  so i suspect it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy: we've 
sunk so much money into this technology, it *has* to look good.  but i think 
this is a pretty minor element, considering that he couldn't have spent more 
than about two hours in knocking out the screenplay to Phantom Menace.


<(Lukas went back and improved them with today's technology, and the films 
look a lot better!)>

BULLSHIT!  the additions for the rereleases were annoying, intrusive, 
unnecessary, unrealistic; and just plain wrong.


you've seen the movie, now buy the product.




KEN "I'm sorry if I hurt the little fucker, but I think I saved his soul" 
THE KENSTER







________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:19:03 -0700
From: Chris Gillis <chris@photogenica.net>
Subject: Re: eb all over the world

The Kielbasa Kid wrote:
> <Even the Famous "War of the Worlds" broadcast, although not visual,
> wouldn't work on todays audience in its originally broadcast state.>
> 
> i dunno.  local comedy show a few years back, on april fool's, aired a
> "news" piece claiming the space needle had toppled over -- and tons of
> people believed it.
> 

Most of the information about the Gulf War particulars, day by day,
was a really good fiction. Made up by the army, based on some general
assuptions about the positions and actions, and blindly reported by
the press. It took a long while for anyone to really start calling
bluffs. Pretty prime example of it working really well. 

Also, if you listen to your NPR broadcast (if you can stand it
anymore), reporters often, painfully often, repeat what one side of in
story has said with little questioning, taking it for fact or that it
need not be questioned.

.chris

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:13:04 -0400
From: sofa king <woj@smoe.org>
Subject: Re: NYC dates

when we last left our heroes, Tony.Blackman@sita.int exclaimed:

>Do you know how the NY dates are selling? 

i picked up tickets for a few other fegs and myself at the beginning of
this past week and got ticket #99 for the early show and #75 for the late
show. the bottom line seats around 250. i'd say they are selling somewhat
more briskly than the usual bottom line show, but not terribly fast.

>Do you think I'll be able to get in on the afternoon/night? 

if you're thinking of flying over, i'd recommend calling the venue and
making arrangements. the bottom line's phone number is +1 (212) 228 6300.
they don't do credit card sales (hence no greatticketmastersatan), but they
do accept money orders and the like. if you tell them you're flying over,
i'm sure they'll be happy to work something out.

if all else fails, i can swing by and pick up some tix for you.

>Also, who can point me in the direction of a good website that
>lists NYC gigs (so I can sell the idea to my long girlfriend who isn't
>quite as Robyn mad as I am) so we can find other good gigs on that weekend?

i haven't found a really satisfying nyc listings site either, so if anyone
else has suggestions, please speak up! you would think that the village
voice <http://www.villagevoice.com/> would have good listings, but they
only do week-in-advance thingies. you might also check out
<http://newyork.sidewalk.citysearch.com> as well.

woj

n.p. tory cassis

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:16:03 -0400
From: sofa king <woj@smoe.org>
Subject: Tape Op #17

there is an interview with robyn in the latest issue (#17) of tape op
magazine. no text, but information on subscribing (free if you don't mind
third class mail) can be found at <http://www.tapeop.com>.

woj

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:25:47 -0400
From: overbury@cn.ca
Subject: Re: eb all over the world

I wasn't spoiling for a fight when I asked "why".  All the same, I don't
get why it annoyed you to the extent that it did.  Read on if you care...

> 
> well, i should admit that i've never read the book.  so, for all i know, the 
> movie is a completely faithful adaptation.  (and i suppose i should warn 
> that there are spoilers here.)
> but, the film's conceptual contradicitons and continuity errors very quickly 
> collapse it under its own weight.
> the filmmakers don't take the premise of the "effective dream" seriously -- 
> a stance i find VERY offensive.
> for example, haber can't, upon inducing orr to dream all the rain away, go 
> out and *watch* the rain dry up, the clouds part, and the sun come beaming 
> down; then go inside and tell orr, "it hasn't rained in two years"!  that's 
> gotta be one of the bigger continuity gaffes in the history of film.

I can't remember the book well enough.  It's been many years.  Is this after
Haber begins to realise that Orr has a point?  That would change everything,
because the idea was that everyone else would forget that a change had come
about.  Why couldn't some of the changes come about visibly, then become
forgotten immediately?  Not very plausible, but is the "effective dream" 
concept itself any easier to handle?  

>   orr 
> can't, *by the nature of the "effective dream", overhear people saying that 
> they miss the rain, because only orr himself is supposed to have noticed 
> (that's why he's questioning his sanity).  but, it's an easy way to advance 
> the plot, so, voila!  if i recall, every single dream is crippled by these 
> sorts of continuity problems.

Did they say they missed the rain that had just disappeared, or the rain
they had two years ago?  I can't remember.  Anyway, as the story continues,
doesn't Orr's shrink begin to remember the way things once were?  The 
implication is that anybody could, but that most wouldn't because they
take the present for granted.

> 
> the film also totally ignores any "ripple effect", assuming that everything 
> outside the specific purview of the dream would remain unchanged -- a 
> preposterous assumption.  it's laughably ludicrous to think that orr would 
> still be living in portland, still be working at the same job, still be 
> under a mandate to attend sessions with haber, that the "haber institute" 
> would still exist in exactly the same form, etc., etc., etc.; after the 
> momentous changes wrought by orr's dreams.

If you can accept the premise that Orr can have a dream that would 
change the past, why not accept that the dream changes only that aspect
of it, with the exception of control over how the change is to be brought
about?  It's a much smaller leap of faith -- not the same as saying someone
had gone back in a time machine and altered some single thing.  He's not
altering the future by going back into the past and changing events, he's 
altering the past from the present by redesigning it from that perspective.

> 
> another thing that really bugged me is the stupidity of the characters.  any 
> fucking third-grader would be aware -- in the knowledge of the dreams' broad 
> interpretation of the suggestions -- that telling orr to dream "no more 
> aliens on the moon" would result in them attacking earth!

I always think I could deal with Satan or get wishes from a genie much better 
than any of those dolts in the stories, too.  It's an old theme, really.  C'mon 
- -- give me three wishes!

> 
> and so on, and so on, and so on.  the concept's cool enough, but the 
> execution is a complete botch, in my opinion.

How can someone who insists on such accuracy be content with movies that
feature things that audibly go "boom" in space, or intergalactic civilizations 
featuring crude robots (C3PO) and warmongers who haven't blown themselves
to smithereens on their own worlds long before they found others to
conquer?  It's all Cool-Whip for thought in comparison to the premise
of the Lathe of Heaven, or the others you've heard me trot out regularly
as examples of the damage done by Star Wars.  The Illustrated Man, 2001,
Farenheit 451, Slaughterhouse Five -- you know what I mean.  There's too much
eeeeeevil, and ka-boooooom and whooooosh now. "Wars in space" take up far too 
much of the limited space SF can occupy in the market.

Kinda like that "Masters of the Universe" cartoon show.  Who are the Masters
of the Universe?  A buncha meatheads with big muscles, of course.  Why not
an action series featuring Steve Hawkings and Bill Gates types fighting the war
of pure research vs applied technology?  Yeah, I *know* why.  Sigh.




- --
Ross Overbury
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:28:36 -0400
From: overbury@cn.ca
Subject: Re: Tape Op #17

Tape op magazine?  Here comes Coffee Boy magazine!

- --
ex-tape-jockey

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:16:23 -0400
From: sofa king <woj@smoe.org>
Subject: Re: Roy'n'Robyn

also sprach "Stewart C. Russell" <stewart@ref.collins.co.uk>:

>overbury@cn.ca wrote:
>> 
>> HAH!  I compared Hitchcock to Harper way back and got little
>> agreement.
>
>ISTR you got some agreement. MAybe there aren't too many people here who
>listen to the 'other' RH?

i'm one. chris "hamburger" alexander -- a name soft boy scholars should
recognize -- is one as well.

woj

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:08:06 EDT
From: MARKEEFE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Roy'n'Robyn

In a message dated 6/11/00 8:25:25 PM, woj@smoe.org writes:

<< >> HAH!  I compared Hitchcock to Harper way back and got little
>> agreement.
>
>ISTR you got some agreement. MAybe there aren't too many people here who
>listen to the 'other' RH? >>

    He's someone I've been wanting to check out, but never get around to.  I 
actually saw part of his show at Bumbershoot last year, but I didn't have a 
seat, and the sun was blaring in my eyes, so it was hard for me to get into 
it.  Anyway, what are his best three albums and why?  Thanks! :-)

- -----Michael K.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:11:22 -0500
From: JH3 <jh3@winco.net>
Subject: Re: really whatever Vivien wants

>Eb, who recently saw a small portion of "Bride of Chucky," which
>made "The Waterboy" seem like "Battleship Potemkin"

Hey, I don't know about the rest of you, but I was *blown away*
by the scene where Adam Sandler jumps too far past the back of
the end zone to grab a long pass, and ends up toppling head-first
all the way down the Odessa Steps in super-slow-mo!

I'm sure Sergei would've been proud.

>"The Gedge (as he will henceforth be known) strides back into
>our lives with a spaghetti-western grunge weepy" was how The
>Melody Maker recently announced that their readers' lives were
>soon to be enhanced by the forthcoming Cinerama CD single.

I hope you all can appreciate my NEVER referring to myself as
"The Hedge", despite (as you might imagine) the *obvious*
temptation.

John "BORING ARTHOUSE HAIR" Hedges

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:23:15 PDT
From: "Allen Ruch" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: eb all over the world

<I wasn't spoiling for a fight when I asked "why".>

i hope i didn't sound antagonistic!  'twas not my intent.


<All the same, I don't get why it annoyed you to the extent that it did.  
Read on if you care...>

yeah, i suppose i should come clean and admit that continuity errors bug the 
holy mother fuck out of me -- probably to the point of irrationality (or at 
least, to the point of obstructing my enjoyment of a perfectly good story).


<That would change everything, because the idea was that everyone else would 
forget that a change had come about.>

my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that the *past* would have been 
altered -- so that it'd have been *impossible* for them to "forget" 
something they (strictly speaking) never knew.  that's why it's such a 
compelling concept to have *one and only one* person "remember".


<Why couldn't some of the changes come about visibly, then become
forgotten immediately?>

hmmm...i *suppose*, though there's still the continuity problem (in this 
case) with the sun having shewn for two years straight.  but i still don't 
like it.


<Not very plausible, but is the "effective dream" concept itself any easier 
to handle?>

i think so (see below).


<Did they say they missed the rain that had just disappeared, or the rain 
they had two years ago?  I can't remember.>

okay...i was trying not to go on at length.  but i really cringed at the two 
years part.  makes no sense for an abrupt, overnight change.


<Anyway, as the story continues, doesn't Orr's shrink begin to remember the 
way things once were?>

the civil rights lawyer?  yes, because she's in the room when haber induces 
the "zero-population-growth" dream.  i really disliked the way the film 
handled this character, i must say.  frankly, i don't think *haber* should 
be allowed to "remember".


<If you can accept the premise that Orr can have a dream that would
change the past, why not accept that the dream changes only that aspect
of it, with the exception of control over how the change is to be brought 
about?>

because it's totally illogical.  the concept of a portland "sun city" island 
in the middle of a rainy climate is hogwash.  you wanna make the whole 
region a desert?  fine.  but it's got to *evolve* that way.  there's got to 
be a *working* ecosystem.
the instantaneous kill-off of three-quarters of the world's population with 
no perceptible change in "ambient" life is real rich, in this regard.  a 
plague that *retroactively* adjusts population growths so that by orr's time 
there are one-quarter as many people as he "remembered" is fine, but it's 
gotta come with realistic concomitant adjustments -- can't have your cake 
and it it too!


<It's a much smaller leap of faith>

well, i don't consider accepting the premise of a work of fiction a leap of 
faith.  define the parameters, and i'll accept them.  we all know people 
don't have "effective dreams" in real life (or DO they?  bwa ha ha ha ha!).  
but it's fun to see what it might be life if someone *did*.  this shouldn't 
preclude grounding the non-"fantastic" elements of the story.


<He's not altering the future by going back into the past and changing 
events, he's altering the past from the present by redesigning it from that 
perspective.>

if i understand you correctly, you're saying his dreams *compensate* for the 
objections i've raised above?  i'm afraid i don't think they do (at least 
not realistically).




<How can someone who insists on such accuracy be content with movies that 
feature things that audibly go "boom" in space, or intergalactic 
civilizations featuring crude robots (C3PO) and warmongers who haven't blown 
themselves to smithereens on their own worlds long before they found others 
to conquer?>

because Star Wars succeeds on its own terms -- as a gold ol'-fashioned 
manichean swashbuckler -- set in "outer space".  is it a "great" movie?  is 
it even within sniffing distance of my top 100?  no.  but it's fun for what 
it is.


<It's all Cool-Whip for thought in comparison to the premise of the Lathe of 
Heaven>

precisely!  Lathe Of Heaven strives for something higher, so should be 
judged by higher standards.


<The Illustrated Man>

there was a movie of Illustrated Man?  was it any good?  actually, if i may 
back up, threadwise, i'll admit to once having fantasised about making a 
movie out of Nine Stories.



i apologise if i'm being overly pedantic and absolutely boring the pants off 
of everybody.  (well, i *don't* apologise for boring [pun intended?] eb's 
pants off!)  i promise no more posts as "allen ruch".








________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:59:37 EDT
From: "Asa Land" <asa_land@hotmail.com>
Subject: Tell me about your movies

O.K, before I wing off onto the public highway to poop on various favorite 
hobbyhorses (The refs to Tristam Shandy, if I lost you),
Id like to get several things straight.

Perhaps the reason Olham didnt work for me as Drac, is that in high school I 
saw a youngish Frank Langella do it on Broadway, and when I say do it, I 
mean--really--do it. The man was walking pornography.  Even my virgin self 
knew that this was the real thing.  I never saw the movie cause if youve 
seen a good actor utterlly work a small house
right, celluliod's nothing compared to that physicall presence.

Keanu Reeves, (like Kevin Coster) is good for one thing and one thing 
only--he poses well.  I love Dame Emma(you mean they gave a title to the 
original ET and not to the best(and funnest, and smartest and humanest) 
actress to grace these latter days), she makes Shakespeare glow, but without 
a worthy opponent the play looses something, and Reeves performance has to 
have been one of the worst pieces of shit Ive ever seen.  The guy should 
smarten up and only do rejected Tom Cruise scripts,(thou even that might be 
a stretch, since he'd have to learn to portray joy.)

Hamlet is a Saturn return play(IMHO).  Its done by someone 28-30, or who 
really looks like an immature version of that age.  The closest I saw to an 
overcoming of this was Fiennes, who looked young 30s, but made Hamlet very 
obviously in the throws of wild cycles of manic-depression. However, that 
again was on stage, and a good performer on stage, because of the immediacy 
of the whole thing(I love seeing the spit fly) can do almost everything if 
they have the art.  Movies are a cooler medium, less physical and more 
cerebral.

Alright, time to poop. Here is my central dilemma about movies versus books:

I have an extremly visual imagination, so reading for me- is- a movie,(there 
certially no consiousness of looking at the printed page)
Its a movie with an inside, since this is the novel's, versus the movie's 
strength, interior monologues, experience of anothers consiousness without 
mediation thru outside expression. So when I read I get the novel' virtue of 
interiority, plus my own ability to shape visuals. Its a double joy.

But I miss something.  I miss the Other.  I miss a great photographer's, a 
great actor's, a great director's imagination. I miss details I wouldnt 
think off. Touches that convey the humaness of these other human beings 
involved in the process. I miss becoming larger than myself. I miss being 
more completely opened to others' visions, and for a short bit,thouroughly  
transcending the boundries of my own ego.

The way this plays out  is that, on a whole, Im not a movie nut.  Your 
average movie isnt as good as the one I can make for myself.  But a great 
movie, a great movie is better, far better.  My test is --when I walk out on 
the street is everything -more-real. After a really powerfull movie light is 
more light and touch touches deeper, and you are different, larger, than 
when you walked into the theater.

Asa
The Golden Ass









________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:30:15 -0700
From: Natalie Jacobs <jacobsn@careoregon.org>
Subject: Jacobs's opinions

> - - remove a few frames from his movies and print them in books, and
that's
> about all you really need.

Such a book actually exists - two of them, actually.  There's a book of
"Prospero's Books" - which adds much more detail about the concept than is
embodied in the film - and there's also a book that I've mentioned before,
"100 Allegories to Represent the World."  After buying this book, I don't
feel the need to see any more Greenaway films, though I do feel the need to
see Ewan McGregor nekkid in "The Pillow Book."

> All points taken, I think you should give jackson his shot. Maybe he'll 
> take on Little, Big after his LOTR trial run. ;)

My initial response to this was a mental cry of "NOOOOOOO!!!" but on second
thought, I wonder if it might actually work... though in the wrong hands it
would become unbearably twee (fairies, talking fish, etc.).

(re. Laura in High Fidelity)
> i didn't quite find her insincere, but she definitely seemed somewhat
> self-absorbed, albeit in a confident way.

She seemed like an ice princess.  This bugged me, because in the book she
was really smart and sharp-tongued and good at deflating Rob's dumb notions.
Her cold, distant attitude in the movie was the only deviation from the book
that really bothered me.

More movie stuff: I really dug "Princess Mononoke."  I was happy to see
Japanese animation where the characters don't all have huge eyes and tiny
mouths. Claire Danes was awful, though.  "Shanghai Noon" kicks ass and
Jackie Chan is god.  Uh, that's all I have to say for now.

n.

p.s.  Should I go to Seattle for the Robyn show?  How would I get there?  So
many questions.

p.p.s.  I bought a Loud Family album at last.  News at 11.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vivien Lyon <vivlyon@yahoo.com>
Subject: LeGuin all over the world

I apologize in advance, but I have to leap to the defense of my
beloved local author and hero.
 
- --- Allen Ruch <etews@hotmail.com> wrote:
> yeah, i suppose i should come clean and admit that continuity
> errors bug the 
> holy mother fuck out of me -- probably to the point of
> irrationality (or at 
> least, to the point of obstructing my enjoyment of a perfectly
> good story).

Eddie, continuity errors are sort of the _point_ of Lathe of
Heaven. It's the 'continuity errors' that Orr induces that start
to break up the fabric of space/time.

> my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that the *past*
> would have been 
> altered -- so that it'd have been *impossible* for them to
> "forget" 
> something they (strictly speaking) never knew.  that's why
> it's such a 
> compelling concept to have *one and only one* person
> "remember".

He's _not_ altering the past, he's altering the present. The
three people who know what's going on remember the past, because
it hasn't really changed. Most of the people have false memories
of the past, and a few people have vague recollections.

> the civil rights lawyer?  yes, because she's in the room when
> haber induces 
> the "zero-population-growth" dream.  i really disliked the way
> the film 
> handled this character, i must say.  frankly, i don't think
> *haber* should 
> be allowed to "remember".

If Haber weren't 'allowed to remember,' he would never be able
to embark on his plan to change the world. 

> because it's totally illogical.  the concept of a portland
> "sun city" island 
> in the middle of a rainy climate is hogwash.  you wanna make
> the whole 
> region a desert?  fine.  but it's got to *evolve* that way. 
> there's got to 
> be a *working* ecosystem.

Exactly. As I said above, the continuity errors lead to the
final climax of the book (and I'm presuming the movie as well).
Orr isn't altering the past. Therefore, because events and
states don't have their proper antecedents, they begin to fall
apart. 

> well, i don't consider accepting the premise of a work of
> fiction a leap of 
> faith.  define the parameters, and i'll accept them. 

I believe that LeGuin does set her parameters quite clearly.
Perhaps the movie version is unsuccessful, I cannot say. But the
book is really very good; you should give it a try. Although, at
this point you might be so biased you wouldn't be able to enjoy
it. That's the shame of bad film versions of good books. 

Vivien
ps- Eddie, I'm almost loathe to ask: did you tape it? I'm ever
so curious to see it, badly done or no.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #153
*******************************