The Letters to the Editor department is intended to be a forum for our readers to express their own opinions and ideas. While we appreciate the many complimentary letters we receive each day, you won't find them on this page. Instead, you will find letters that go beyond or even contradict what we have written, letters that offer a different perspective and provide a different view of science fiction. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Dark City is strange and wonderful
f Philip K. Dick had written a film noir, it would be something like Dark City. Writer/director Alex Proyas (co-writer with Lem Dobbs and David S. Goyer) has built a world that is imaginative, entertaining, and thought-provoking. Here is a film that uncondescendingly questions the nature of identity and reality. It is also a tour de force of production design by George Liddle and Patrick Tatopoulos, cinematography by Dariusz Wolski, music by Trevor Jones, and costuming by Liz Keogh, evoking fond memories of another Dickian film, Blade Runner. My feeling is that the weak link of the film is the acting, which ranges from fair to good. Perhaps I was looking for something else in Rufus Sewell's performance as protagonist John Murdoch, but I felt a slight lack of passion in his performance, although he elicits adequate sympathy by the end of the film. The standout really is Kiefer Sutherland as the enigmatic Dr. Schreber, with his quirky accent and mannerisms.
The cast is rounded out by the always competent William Hurt as the confused Inspector Bumstead, Jennifer Connelly as John's wife, Emma, a creepy Richard O'Brien as Mr. Hand, and an even creepier Ian Richardson as Mr. Book.
Dark City is not for everyone. There's not a lot of action, and it takes a good long while to figure out what's going on, so if you like straightforward narrative, this isn't for you. This is a film that doesn't pander to the least common denominator. I predict that this film will become a cult favorite much like Blade Runner, although only time will tell how well it stands up. But it is a many-layered film that bears repeated viewings to garner all of its nuances. I found Dark City to be a strange and wonderful film.
Norman L. Cook
unclescrooge@hotmail.com
Defends Artemis Web site
must take issue with the review of the Artemis Society Web page by Jeff Berkwits, who finds most of it "overly academic and downright boring." I think readers with a little science background would find it much less boring.
I think that there are many people who are sufficiently interested in science fiction that they have taken the trouble to learn something about science. That's like saying that most people who are interested in French poetry will probably take the trouble to learn a little French. I don't
understand the attitude of people like Berkwits, who are (presumably) interested in science fiction but not science.
Bill Haloupek
haloupekb@uwstout.edu
So killing aliens is okay?
had to respond to Brooks Peck's review of Wing Commander Prophecy. In the review, Peck complains that drinking is glorified, thus setting a poor example for the young skulls full of mush he presumes will be playing the game. How ridiculous! Apparently blowing aliens into floating chunks of space debris is fine, but the sight of fighter jocks blowing off stress and tension in the bar afterward is bad. One can only imagine the horror if someone in the game was seen smoking a cigarette! I might be overreacting a tad, but lets have just a little common sense, please.
David L. Myers
DlmR7@aol.com
Soylent Green is underrated
disagree with your review of Soylent Green. C'mon, man. It's a classic
B movie. Using Heston is a stroke of brilliance. Here's this actor who
plays Moses and whatnot. And we have him here as a corrupt cop...a
corrupt, cynical cop as the hero. His conversion at the end, when he
says "I love you Sol" and then he tells his boss to get the word out
about Soylent Green...that's cool sh*t. Like a lot of the classics film
noir B movies, the central character is like that...the cynical cop...a
reflection of our post-modern uh...ya know like our atheism, cynicism,
pessimism, amorality...and then finding that deep down in this hell, in
this nihilism there's meaning. It's the classic film noir thing.
I think this is an underrated film with an underrated director.
Jim Fields
jmffields@earthlink.net
Hollywood is overlooking the greats
would like to respond briefly to Daniel Thorne's comments on my recent letter. The letter title "Where's the serious sci-fi?" was added by SF Weekly. My letter was a lament about the lack of "the classics" being adapted to the big screen. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is more (but I would disagree that there is plenty) serious SF now than a couple of years ago, but I still maintain that Hollywood has missed a gigantic opportunity by not producing movies based on the novels
of such greats as Asimov and Clarke.
I encourage all SF fans to actively demand that the movie industry continue to bring such excellent fare as Gattaca and Contact.
Chris Snider
chris@op9.com
Finds the Top 20 interesting
t is always interesting to read the top 20 shows listed in SFWeekly.
The mix of syndicated vs. network vs. "can you even find out when it is being aired" is amazing. As a fan of Highlander I'm sure I speak for fans of other shows that aren't consistently aired in a specific time slot. It must be extremely difficult to determine how many individuals would be watching if they could determine on a weekly basis when the show was aired. Also, add in the incredible times some of these shows are on (3 a.m.!). The fact that these shows show up at all on your list is an indication of the dedication of their fans. I would like to thank USA and WGN for giving us consistancy in a normal timeslot.
Menoly
menoly@email.msn.com
Jazzed about Shakespeare
can't begin to express how jazzed I was reading this letter and the later reply. I am a Shakespeare maniac, and firmly believe that the reason his works continue to have resonance for us 400 years later is not only his poetic genius, but his intimate knowledge of the human condition.
Shakespeare did indeed "borrow" from myth and from the historical chronicles of his time. But he chose those stories for the same reason we continue to value his works today: they speak to the human condition, our strengths, foibles, triumphs and disgraces. All that from a man who lived almost 400 years before Freud and Jung. Not bad for a grammar school teacher from Stratford.
Laurie Donaldson
laudon@hotmail.com
