MT VOID, 04/04/25 -- Vol. 43, No. 40, Whole Number 2374

THE MT VOID
04/04/25 -- Vol. 43, No. 40, Whole Number 2374
Editor: Evelyn Leeper, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
All material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by
the author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
     evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
The latest issue is at <http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
<http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.
Topics:
         Mini Reviews, Part 8 (HERE, PEEPING TOM, THE ENGLISHMAN
                WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN)
                (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper)
         China Mieville Interview (pointer)
         Originalism (letter of comment by Peter Rubinstein)
         "Cocoon" (letter of comment by Arthur Kaletsky)
         This Week's Reading (Agatha Christie television
                adaptations) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 8 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Three miscellaneous films:
HERE (2024): HERE is a gimmick film.  The camera stays in one
place (until the very last couple of minutes of the film), but
shows you scenes from a half dozen periods of time.  Not only are
the scenes shown in non-chronological order, but within each scene
sections of the screen are blocked out which show a different time
than the rest of the screen.  All this is undoubtedly to
demonstrate William Faulkner's observation, "The past is never
dead.  It's not even past."
It also demonstrates that how we describe the past to others is
not always accurate, but whether this is because we genuinely
believe the incorrect story, or because we want to project that
view of the past to others, is not clear.
But the most memorable part (for me) is probably the scene in
which two Black parents sit down with their teenage son and give
him "The Talk", about how he should act, and what he should say,
if he is pulled over for a traffic stop.  I am sure this has been
in movies before, but this is the first time I remember seeing it,
and it was chilling in the same way "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" is
chilling in CABARET.  [-ecl]
Released theatrically 01 November 2024.
Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18272208/reference>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/here_2024>
PEEPING TOM (1960): In the first scene of PEEPING TOM, the viewer
is looking through the camera lens, and seeing what Mark sees, in
vivid color.  But when we see him watching the film later, it is
black-and-white film.  This repeats throughout the movie,
emphasizing that film is not reality, but is a "watering-down" or
dilution of reality.  (This is not Technicolor, but Eastmancolor;
it must have been restored magnificently.  Many of Michael
Powell's have a glorious use of color.)  [-ecl]
Released theatrically 16 May 1960 (UK), 07 November 1961 (US
festivals).
Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054167/reference>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/peeping_tom_1960>
THE ENGLISHMAN WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN (1999):
THE ENGLISHMAN WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN may not
be the longest movie title in English, but if one rules out titles
clearly designed as a gimmick. and titles of the form "(words), or
(more words)" (e.g., DR. STRANGELOVE, OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP
WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB), it is certainly in the running.
The irony is that for a film with such a substantial title, it's a
rather insubstantial film.  Oh, it's pleasant enough, and has
beautiful scenery and a happy ending.  (Not really a spoiler--with
this sort of movie, there is never any doubt.
But it is a puzzle movie, in the same way as THE DAM BUSTERS or
ALL AT SEA MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET are puzzle movies: it requires
thinking out of the box.  Come to that, one sees the same sort of
thing in GETTYSBURG and THE LIGHTHORSEMEN.
Of course, the solution in the movie wouldn't work.  Soil has a
20-degree angle of repose, hence a 20-foot mound would have a
radius of about 55 feet, so a volume of about 63,000 cubic feet.
At 75 pounds per cubic foot (the average for soil), that's 2400
*tons*.  There were not enough people to move that much soil in
the time given.  [-ecl]
Released theatrically 12 May 1995.
Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/reference>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/englishman_who_went_up_a_hill_
but_came_down_a_mountain>
===================================================================
TOPIC: China Mieville Interview (pointer)
<https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/30/author-china-mieville-says-we-
shouldnt-blame-science-fiction-for-its-bad-readers/>
Excerpt:
To Mieville, it's a mistake to read science fiction as if it's
really about the future: "It's always about now. It's always a
reflection. It's a kind of fever dream, and it's always about its
own sociological context."
He added that there's a "societal and personal derangement" at
work when the rich and powerful "are more interested in settling
Mars than sorting out the world" -- but ultimately, it's not
science fiction that's responsible.
"Let's not blame science fiction for this," he said. "It's not
science fiction that's causing this kind of sociopathy."
===================================================================
TOPIC: Originalism (letter of comment by Peter Rubinstein)
In response to Evelyn's comments on originalism in the 03/28/25
issue of the MT VOID, Peter Rubsinstein writes:
[Evelyn wrote,] "the originalists need to pay more attention to
the Preamble, in particular, to the phrase 'promote the general
Welfare.'"  [-ecl]
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of interpretation that alters
conclusions based on "promote the general Welfare."   [-pir]
===================================================================
TOPIC: "Cocoon" (letter of comment by Arthur Kaletsky)
In response to Evelyn's comments on the film COCOON in the
03/25/25 issue of the MT VOID, Arthur Kaletsky writes:
Apropos COCOON, I just cannot resist recommending the excellent
Greg Egan story of that title, which shares nothing with the film.
IIRC it's in several collections.  [-ak]
Evelyn responds:
The ISFDb lists it as being in Gardner Dozois's YEAR'S BEST
SCIENCE FICTION 12TH ANNUAL COLLECTION, as well as in ISAAC
ASIMOV's DETECTIVES and the Egan collection LUMINOUS.  [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1929) (letter of comment by Gary
McGath)
In response to Mark's comments on THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1929) in
the 03/28/25 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:
[Mark wrote,] "THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1929) is the first film
version of the Jules Verne novel."  [-mrl]
The 1916 [film] 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA incorporates parts of
MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, including Nemo's back story, though it takes
major liberties with both novels.  [-gmg]
Evelyn adds:
All films back then seem to take major liberties with their
sources when they are novels by dead authors.  A classic example
is the 1930 version of MOBY-DICK (see
<http://leepers.us/mtvoid/2019/VOID1108.htm#mobydick> for Mark's
classic review).  [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I've been bingeing Agatha Christie television series.  The Hercule
Poirot series (1989-2013), with David Suchet, are excellent, up
through Series 7, but then started to go downhill, as plots were
changed, characters added and deleted, and so on.
After that I watched the Miss Marple series (1984-1992), with Joan
Hickson.  These were also quite good, though I do prefer Poirot to
Marple.  After that I went to the Geraldine McEwan series
(2004-2009).  I had remembered not liking McEwan as much as Miss
Marple, but in re-watching, I have concluded that what I didn't
like were the liberties taken with the stories.  For starters Jane
Marple wan't even in some of the original stories, and the authors
also added and deleted other characters, changed the killers'
motives, and in some cases, changed the killer.  They also seemed
to feel it was necessary to add gay or lesbian romances in several
of the stories.  (They also made one of the romances in one of the
mysteries an interracial one, though no one seemed to comment on
that.)
I then ordered the first set of the Julia McKenzie series.  I find
her less like I picture Miss Marple (more perky, for one thing),
but they also have a lot of changes from the original.  For
example, two never had Miss Marple in them, but even the ones that
did had major changes.   In THEY DO IT WITH MIRRORS, both Carrie
Louise and Ruth and have their personalities vastly changed.
(Ruth is downright obnoxious.)  And apparently the producers
decided to kick off the series by having an explicit sex scene at
the beginning of A POCKET FULL OF RYE--no skin is exposed, but
there's a lot of thrusting and such.  I will not be ordering the
rest.  [-ecl]
===================================================================
                                     Evelyn C. Leeper
                                     evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
           By virtue of its unbounded aggression, Roman imperialism
           was ultimately responsible for its own destruction.
                               --Peter Heather, closing line of
                                 THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE