From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom
THE MT VOID
12/05/25 -- Vol. 44, No. 23, Whole Number 2409
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 29 (MURDER, SHE SAID; MURDER AT THE
GALLOP; MURDER MOST FOUL; MURDER AHOY!;
THE ALPHABET MURDERS) (film reviews
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Counting Countries: The Final Update? (comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE STONE TAPE (letter of comment by John Kerr-Mudd)
This Week's Reading (Great Courses)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 29 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper)
MURDER, SHE SAID (1961): The problem with the Margaret Rutherford
"Miss Marple" movies is not so much Margaret Rutherford, but Ron
Goodwin, because while the music he composed might be fine for a
comedy, it is all wrong for a straight mystery.
(Rutherford's Marple is a bit more active, and a bit more
eccentric, than Agatha Christie's creation. Joan Hickson was more
to my taste, with Geraldine McEwan once again a bit too active
than the original. Christie, however, did like Rutherford's
portrayal.)
They needed to change the title from the original British title of
the original novel (WHAT MRS MCGILLICUDDY SAW), since they
eliminated the Mrs McGillicuddy character altogether, along with
Lucy Eyelesbarrow--Miss Marple takes the position herself (maid
rather than housekeeper). And they must have decided the American
title (4:50 TO PADDINGTON) lacked punch or sounded too British or
something, so they settled on MURDER, SHE SAID, as clearly
relaying to the audience what was to be expected. (And, yes, I'm
sure that the television series title "Murder, She Wrote" was a
nod to this title.)
Joan Hickson, who later played Miss Marple on television, has a
small part in this as Mrs. Kidder.
Released theatrically 07 January 1962.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055205/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_she_said>
MURDER AT THE GALLOP (1963): They definitely needed to change the
name on this, to cover up that it was based on a Hercule Poirot
novel, AFTER THE FUNERAL. They also cut down on the number of
characters. This is generally necessary when making a novel into a
film, but it also cuts down on the number of suspects.
(There was an old-time radio show episode in which the budget was
enough for only three characters, one of whom was a continuing
character, so when one was murdered, it was obvious who the
murderer was.)
And they decided to promote the comedic aspect of the film (and
increase it as well).
The murder weapon was changed; being bludgeoned or worse by an axe
was a bit stronger than MGM wanted to depict. But for that matter
all the plot between the initial set-up and the reveal of the
murderer was changed.
As in the first film, the murderer is revealed not in the
traditional "gathering of the suspects", but when Miss Marple
lures the killer to try to eliminate her.
Released theatrically 19 December 1963.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057334/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_at_the_gallop>
MURDER MOST FOUL (1964): Again, this is based on a Hercule Poirot
novel, MRS MCGINTY'S DEAD, and so changed the title, this time to
a phrase Miss Marple used in the previous film. A lot has been
changed, though the basic underlying plot is still there. By now
it's clear that the murderer will be revealed when Miss Marple
traps the killer in some sort of direct confrontation in which she
gets to say she won the 1923 Women's Archery Cup or whatever. (She
seems to have an inexhaustible supply of sports awards in every
field--golf, riding, fencing...)
Released theatrically 23 May 1965.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058383/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_most_foul>
MURDER AHOY! (1964): Unlike the previous three films that were
adapted from Christie novels--THE 4.50 FROM PADDINGTON (MURDER,
SHE SAID, the only Miss Marple novel used), AFTER THE FUNERAL (a
Poirot mystery, adapted for Miss Marple with the title MURDER AT
THE GALLOP) and MRS MCGINTY'S DEAD (another Poirot novel, adapted
as MURDER MOST FOUL)--this film used an original screenplay that
was not based on any of Christie's stories. In my opinion it
suffers for that. Having Miss Marple adopt a naval uniform is a
bit much, and the original Miss Marple would never have gotten
involved in a sword fight. (For that matter, neither did this one,
really--by careful use of a double and editing the sword fight is
at least passable.)
Released theatrically 22 September 1964.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058382/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/murder_ahoy>
THE ALPHABET MURDERS (1966): This is simply appalling, on the
level of the Woody Allen version of CASINO ROYALE. Tony Randall
plays Hercule Poirot as a would-be Inspector Clouseau (and with
only a fairly ordinary moustache), and Robert Morley's Captain
Hastings is now an MI5 agent whose scenes include running down a
street wearing nothing but a towel.
For that matter, most of the original plot was jettisoned.
There is an uncredited cameo of Margaret Rutherford as Miss
Marple, complete with her theme music (Ron Goodwin did the music
for all five films). The title was apparently changed from the
novel's title (THE A.B.C. MURDERS) because there was a cinema
chain called the ABC Cinemas, and the producers were worried that
the original title might offend them.
Had they seen the finished product, I would hope they would be
offended.
Released theatrically 17 May 1966.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060094/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_alphabet_murders>
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Counting Countries: The Final Update? (comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
[This is called a final update, because I don't envision myself
ever flying anywhere in the future; flying has become so
miserable.]
People often ask me how many countries I have visited. It is not a
simple question to answer. (States are easier--all fifty, though
even there one has to add "and Washington, D.C.").
First, there are 50 unequivocal countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada,
China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Palestine/West Bank, Peru,
Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland,
Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Turks & Caicos, United
Kingdom, United States, Vatican City, Vietnam, Zimbabwe
(The West Bank was never annexed by Israel, so I have to count it
separately.)
Then there are four countries that were all part of one country
when I visited, but split up starting literally the day after I
left:
- Bosnia-Hercegovina
- Croatia
- Slovenia
- Yugoslavia (Serbia)
This would add four but subtract one.
And another two that also split (though more peacefully):
- Czech Republic
- Slovakia
This would add two but subtract one.
Two "countries" were actually British territories, but are usually
counted separately:
- Gibraltar
- Hong Kong
(And Hong Kong is now part of China, but not completely
incorporated there either.)
While we're at it, some people would count four more I have
visited as countries (if not sovereign nations):
- Puerto Rico
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
Those last six are not sovereign nations, but are countries in the
sense of being treated as separate entities from their governing
nations by various organizations--for example, the International
Olympic Committee and AMPAS (Puerto Rico and Hong Kong), and
various sport associations (Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland).
Seven others--which at least are undisputed countries--barely
count:
- New Zealand (walked around the airport in Wellington two
different times)
- South Korea (walked around the airport in Seoul two
different times)
- Senegal (saw the airport out the plane window during a stop
there)
- Namibia (was in riparian territorial waters)
- Nicaragua (was in riparian territorial waters)
- Zambia (was in riparian territorial waters, and also a short
stretch between Zimbabwe and Botswana))
And finally, a "one-off";
- United Nations (it issues its own stamps and is not part of any
other country)
Well, almost finally. It turns out that the "Travelers Century
Club" has a list of "countries" which takes into account (e.g.)
continental separations and island groups. So when counting from
their list we would add Alaska, Hawaii, and the Galapagos Islands,
and count Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia as separate
countries.
Now I think the TCC rules are questionable. For example, they
define an island group that is within 200 miles of its home
country, but has a population of at least 100,000, and is
administered as a separate state, province, or department, as a
separate "country." So Prince Edward Island counts as a separate
country (being a Canadian province), but Manhattan Island does
not. (Hawai'i does, because satisfies another requirement: it is
more than 200 miles from the home country.)
On the other hand, they clearly exclude the United Nations,
because it has no resident population.
(See <
http://tinyurl.com/void-tcc-rules> for the full list of
rules.)
Anyway, here's the summary:
- 50 unequivocal
- 6 formed from two earlier countries that fissioned (and get
removed)
- 6 territories/semi-autonomous regions of the US, UK, and China
- 3 airport stops (2 deplaning, 1 not)
- 3 riparian visits and/or very brief land crossings
- 1 one-off
- 4 additional if TCC geographical separation rules are counted
(but then minus 1 for the United Nations)
So I believe that currently the strictest count would be 50, and
the most inclusive would be 71. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE STONE TAPE (letter of comment by John Kerr-Mudd)
In response to various comments on THE STONE TAPE in previous
issues of the MT VOID, John Kerr-Mudd writes:
Suitably late night scariness; too much for me, I fear. Luckily I
never saw it back when I was an impressionable youth. [-jkm]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I've been watching the Great Courses series "History's Greatest
Voyages of Exploration", and have discovered that while not
everything we learned was wrong, many of the "firsts" weren't:
Columbus did not discover America, and was not even the first
European to arrive there. That was the Vikings.
Virginia Dare was not the first white child born in the Americas.
That was Snorri Thorfinnson.
Virginia Dare was not the first white child born in what would
become the United States. That was Martin de Arguelles, Jr. (She
was the first English child, if one wants to put that much
restriction on it. But then why not narrow it down further to
first English male?)
Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the globe, nor was
Sebastian Elcano. That was Enrique of Malacca.
Vasco de Gama was not the first to round the Cape of Good Hope,
nor was Bartolomeu Dias. The Phoenicians did it first a few
thousand years earlier.
Robert Peary was not the first to reach the North Pole, nor were
Matthew Henson nor Frederik Cook. That was Aleksandr Kuznetsov (by
air), and Ralph Plaisted and team (by land). (Basically, all the
earlier claims were either intentional fakes or genuine errors in
calculation.)
Also, people in Columbus's time did not think the earth was flat
(blame Washington Irving for this myth), and George Washington did
not chop down the cherry tree (Parson Weems invented this).
However, Lincoln may actually have walked miles to return money he
accidentally overcharged a customer.
(And if Irving's biography of George Washington was this
unreliable, one has to wonder about his biography of Mohammed.)
I followed this with "Polar Explorations", done in conjunction
with National Geographic. Or perhaps more accurately, "Polar
Explorations" seems to be a National Geographic production with
the name "Great Courses" tacked on. It is not a series of
college-like lectures, but more like a series of NOVA episodes,
with several different lecturers, full of anecdotal stories, long
visual sequences, and somewhat disconnected observations. It's not
that it's bad, but it is not the "Great Courses" as one has come
to expect it.
Another Great Courses series ("The Joy of Science") perpetuated a
different common misconception, claiming Charles Darwin went on
the Beagle as the ship's naturalist. Actually, the official
naturalist was Robert McCormick; Darwin was on board as a
companion to Captain FitzRoy, who otherwise would have had very
few men of his own class to socialize with on the ship. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Enveloped in a common mist, we seem to walk in clearness
ourselves, and behold only the mist that enshrouds
others.
--George Eliot
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2