Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7903
Posted: Sun Jul  4 00:58:56 1982
Received: Sun Jul  4 05:19:34 1982

>From JPM@Mit-Ai Sun Jul  4 00:58:30 1982

SF-LOVERS Digest          Sunday, 4 Jul 1982        Volume 6 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Stand on Zanzibar & Puppet Masters &
          Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep & Dream Park &
           Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan & Rite of Passage &
                   Software & The World of Null-A,
             SF Movies - Blade Runner & Time After Time &
                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
                  Random Topics - Violence in Movies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 1982  1:19:47 EDT (Thursday)
From: Ben Littauer 
Subject: book reviews

I've had a chance to read a fair bit of science fiction these past few
weeks, so I thought I'd submit some mini-reviews of some of what I've 
read in the hope that it might inspire others to do the same (I always
like to see pointers to stuff which might interest me), or even spark 
some discussion.  Ratings are on a scale of four stars.

Brunner -- Stand on Zanzibar ****

I tried to read this about three time through college, and I never got
more than about fifty pages into it before quitting.  This book starts
up rather slowly, and unless you have a large block of vacant time you
shouldn't begin.  This is one LONG book.  It repays the startup 
investment with much interest, however, so I would heartily recommand 
it.  Basically an overpopulation book, but that is an understatement 
of gross proportions.  Brunner really does paint a vivid picture of 
his world through his somewhat unconventional style.  There is an 
absolutely wonderful character named Chad C.  Mulligan, a social 
anthropologist, who writes marvelous tirades on the stupidity of the 
human race.  The book is worth it just for Mulligan's writings, but 
the plot of the main story line is also very good.

Dick -- Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ***

This one has the cover BLADE RUNNER.  This is a very odd book, and if 
the movie is really representative of the book, I'll be very 
surprised.  This edition has a caveat at the beginning stating that 
the book only inspired the movie, so I'd expect the movie to take 
DADoES only at a superficial level and leave all the hard questions 
posed in the book out.  The plot is the adventures of a bounty hunter 
out to get illegal androids.  One of the important questions is 
whether these androids deserve to live.  I predict that the movie will
take the first and leave the second.  Worth reading.

Heinlein -- Puppet Masters ***

I read this when I saw it mentioned in all the FRIDAY reviews on SFL.
I enjoyed it, but I found (as I often do with Heinlein) that the 
anti-communist propaganda was a little overbearing (and yes, I do know
that it is not a recent book).  Plot deals with parasitic ETs which 
are trying to take over the Earth by taking over people's bodies.

McIntyre -- Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan **

Much discussion of this has preceded me.  I liked it, but I can't get 
very excited about novelizations of movies.  Probably would have 
gotten three stars if not for this.

Niven/Barnes -- Dream Park ***

This is a good one for those of us who aren't D&Ders.  Gives some 
feeling for what D&D might be all about (I can't say for sure since 
I've never played).  A decent mystery, too.  But I do miss the heyday 
of Known Space (there is at least on passing reference to KS in DP).

Panshin -- Rite of Passage ***

Another oldie but goodie.  I have mixed feeling about this one.  On 
the one hand, I did like it a lot, but on the other I felt that it was
somewhat "thin" and unchallenging.  Is this a juvenile do you suppose?

Rucker -- Software **

"preserve your software ...  all the rest is meat!" I like that.  A 
decent adventure story about robot intelligence and human 
intelligence.  Two stars because I felt a little dissatisfied with the
ending, and not enough feeling of what the world is like.  I've seen 
that Rucker has a non-fiction book out along the lines of Godel, 
Escher, Bach (which is my nominee for book of the decade).  Ruckers is
called something like .  Anyone can tell me 
about it?

Van Vogt -- The World of Null-A **

I read the revised edition with special preface by the author 
extolling the virtues of the philosophy of General Semantics (also 
known as Null-A).  Reading the book did not give me any real idea what
Null-A is all about.  A friend of mine explained to me that Null-A is 
a plot device used by Van Vogt to motivate his characters.  This is 
about the same conclusion I had come to.  I tend to be suspicious when
an author has to tell you that his book will introduce you to concepts
that are the very basis of sanity, etc., etc.  I might have enjoyed 
this more without the preface.

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

Date: 1 Jul 1982 1417-CDT
From: CS.EMERSON at UTEXAS-20
Subject: Bladerunner Comments (Not a Spoiler)

I saw Bladerunner the other night. I thought it was fairly good but I
did not enjoy it as much as STTWOK or ET. Somehow the transition
between scenes was poor. I also found it a little too violent and
gory. It was fairly suspenseful in parts and the influence of Ridley
Scott was evident: everything was dark, gloomy, seedy, and decrepit
just as in Alien. The special effects showing the future Los Angeles
were very impressive in my estimation.  (With all of the commercialism
and blaring advertisements the setting reminds me a little of Pohl and
Kornbluth's Space Merchants.)  However, the movie was set in 2019
which strikes me as a little soon for having interstellar travel as
implied by the references to "Offworld".

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

Date: 30 Jun 82 12:18-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: violence in movies

                             BLADE RUNNER
                           By Glenn Collins
                   c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service

    NEW YORK - The film is called ''Blade Runner,'' a detective story 
set in the year 2019, and it has won praise for its lavish and 
detailed depiction of the Los Angeles of the future. The movie also 
contains scenes of grisly sadism that are perhaps unequalled in recent
popular entertainment:
    -Roy Batty, a ''replicant,'' or artificial human, slowly crushes
the skull of his human creator, to the accompaniment of Dolby sound 
effects.
    -The detective character played by Harrison Ford shoots a 
''replicant'' woman in the back several times. She crashes through 
five large windows, and the audience is treated to clinical views of 
her bloody wounds and her corpse's staring eyes.
    -Batty breaks two fingers of the character played by Ford.
    -The finale of the film depicts the terrorizing of one or another 
protagonist, including the shooting of a ''replicant'' woman in the 
torso. We see her violently writhing and dying, and the film then cuts
back again and again to the sight of her bloody corpse. Then Batty is
shown putting his finger in the wound and licking her blood.
    Although the debate about violence in films and on television has 
continued for years, new concern has arisen from the release last 
month of the federal government's update of the 1972 surgeon general's
report on the adverse effects of televised violence on the young, and
from the attention given in recent weeks to the trial of John W.
Hinckley Jr., whom prosecutors charged modeled his behavior on the
film ''Taxi Driver.''
    ''Blade Runner'' contains many rough-'em-up scenes that might be
expected in any classic private-eye vehicle. But the vivid depiction
of gore, and the plot emphasis on aggressive behavior, seems to raise
to a new level a trend evident in many recent mass-audience
science-fiction or fantasy movies that attract large youthful
followings.
    These films are not billed as horror movies or shock epics like 
''Texas Chainsaw Massacre,'' in which bloody scenes are often expected
by the audiences attracted to them. Many of these movies were seen by
children, brought to theaters by their parents despite a PG rating.
''Blade Runner'' is rated R, but is expected to draw a youthful
following because of its science-fiction theme, the presence of
Harrison Ford, its score by Vangelis, who composed the ''Chariots of
Fire'' theme, and the direction by Ridley Scott, whose last effort was
the popular ''Alien.''
    Several film makers, when asked about gratuitous violence,
deplored it while trying to rationalize the gore in their own films.  
Psychologists interviewed emphasized the harmful effects of vividly 
depicted aggression.
    ''Gratuitous bloodshed and violence is dangerous.'' said Scott.
''I think it does inspire violence. Children must be affected by it .
It's inevitable.''
    Scott agreed that moviemakers are currently obliged to show bloody
scenes. ''I think the average thriller these days enters a gratuitous 
area, for increasing box office sales,'' he said. Commenting about 
excessive violence, he said: ''That kind of thing, I think it 
denigrates the whole industry.''
    How, then, did he defend the bloodiness of ''Blade Runner''?
''Well I don't think the film is gratuitous in terms of being a
detective story,'' he said. ''If you have that kind of story, violence
is going to occur.''
    But why did the film go in a such a gory direction? Other
detective films have found alernative ways to suggest violence. ''It
was to show the power of the replicants,'' he said. ''The violence
involved in each instance was to show how hard it was to stop them.''
    Scott expressed dismay that his film might be viewed as
excessively violent. ''We kept it restricted,'' he said. ''This was
the cut version. The demonstration of violence in the scenes was cut
back.''
    What about the sadistic breaking of fingers? ''Oh,'' he answered, 
''the breaking of the fingers - we went wide on that one. People think
you are seeing these things, but all you really hear is the sound of
the fingers breaking.''
    Why was it necessary to keep returning to the bloody torso of the 
murdered replicant woman, and Batty tasting her blood? ''But he has 
lost his mate,'' responded Scott. ''The blood is a trigger point for 
him. He touches the blood and uses the blood as a warrior might use 
war paint. The Indians used to do that, you know.''
    Nicholas Meyer, who directed ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,'' 
and the 1979 film ''Time After Time,'' agrees that many movies are too
gory. ''Lots of movies are gratuitously violent,'' he said.  ''They
pander to audiences - certainly, it's a form of pornography.''
    Why, then, did he include the scene in the new ''Star Trek'' in 
which creatures crawl bloodily out of a crewman's ear? ''It wasn't as 
violent as it could have been,'' he said. ''It was a moment of going 
'boo.'''
    Wouldn't the point have been made in a less gory way only a few 
years ago? ''I can't answer that question,'' he said. ''I have no 
explanation for the blood. More would have been too much, and less 
wouldn't have been enough. We got off the blood pretty quick.''
    Was he concerned that children would be disturbed by the scorpion 
scene, or by the sight of the bloody corpses in the space station?  
''It's a PG movie,'' he said. ''I never thought that either 'Star 
Trek' or 'Time After Time' should be seen by young children.''
    When asked whether he was aware that many children were seeing the
new ''Star Trek,'' he said, ''You can't blame the film maker for the 
parents who don't heed the rating system.''
    Indeed, most of the movies in question are rated PG. However, many
parents complain that they do not have the time or the financial 
resources to preview all movies seen by their children, and that 
peer-group pressure exerts a powerful force on youngsters to see 
movies parents may not approve of.
    ''People prefer to blame movies for the discretion that parents
fail to exercise with their own children,'' commented Meyer. ''There
is a rating system, and is it the fault of the film makers that
parents don't honor it?''
    He added: ''Look, blood has been a theatrical staple for hundreds
of years. Read 'Titus Andronicus' - it's far more violent than
anything we've seen on the screen. Talk of violence, what about
'Lear'?''
    ''The people who make movies justify violence by saying that 
Shakespeare did it, or that it's somehow socially beneficial,'' said 
Dr. Leonard Berkowitz, professor of psychology at the University of 
Wisconsin, who has done many studies on violence and aggression.
    Berkowitz said, however, that the adverse effects of the graphic 
depiction of violence on audiences is well documented. The recent 
report prepared by the National Institute of Mental Health concluded 
that there was ''overwhelming'' scientific evidence that ''excessive''
violence on television leads directly to aggression and violent
behavior among children and teen-agers.
    Berkowitz said that the effects of violence on audiences were 
threefold. ''First,'' he said, ''it makes audiences in general less 
horrified by, and more indifferent to, violence. Secondly, audiences 
may learn the lesson that violence is approved behavior. Third, some 
can become stimulated by it.''
    Why do film makers choose the gory option? ''It's done because
there is action involved,'' he said, ''and it's done because there are
people who enjoy the sight of violence, and producers are catering to 
those tastes to get more people into the theater.''
    Moviemakers, Berkowitz said, ''feel they have to be ever more 
extreme to give a charge to audiences.'' He continued: ''As people 
become more and more inured to violence, producers feel they have to 
supply more and more of it. So, 'Rocky III' is more violent than 
'Rocky I.' Only awhile ago, people were deploring the gratuitous 
violence in 'Bonnie and Clyde,' and yet one thinks of the film 
differently now in comparison to recent movies.''
    Isaac Asimov, the longtime science-fiction author, believes that
the presence of gratuitous violence in recent science-fiction movies,
and in any movie, is a moral issue: ''Seeing these things, we get
inured to violence, and that's not good for our society. A callous 
population is a dangerous population.''
    He added: ''The Greek or Shakespearean portrayal of violence was
not for the sake of violence; violence illuminated human motivation.
But now in these violent movies there is no attempt to understand the 
causes, consequences and implications of violence. There is no higher 
art in these films than seeing a hanging, or an auto da fe.''
    As a science-fiction pioneer, Asimov said he was disturbed that 
blood and gore had so frequenly been injected into movies about the 
future. ''It's not so much a betrayal, but a trivialization,'' he 
said. ''When you're trying to deal with something as important as the 
future of humanity,'' he said, ''and you simply use the future as the 
background for a freak show animated by a bunch of carnival tricks, 
that's a disappointment. I would like to see a movie about serious 
people in the future facing the kind of reasonable problems that real 
human people must face.''

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

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************