Wondering about Mephisto

Last week, scientists announced that a nematode has been found living almost two miles below the surface of the Earth. Before this discovery, nothing living had been found deeper than 1.2 miles below the surface. The name they gave this creature is Halicephalobus mephisto. This made me wonder about the term "mephisto".

Wikipedia tells me that Mephisto and Mephistopheles are one and the same. Both refer to the demon (whose picture you can see here). Sometimes Mephisto is seen as the devil himself. The term comes from German folklore and was first seen in print as the demon in the Faust legend. The name is familiar to me in part from Faust but more because of the movie, "The Mephisto Waltz (which I wrote about in this post).

So: a devil, a demon. But why name the worm after this creature? I wondered if it was because the mythical hell lies deep beneath the Earth so I googled my way to this reference:

". . . Halicephalobus mephisto, an entirely new species, with the mephisto portion given in reference to its residence in the underworld" 

Mystery solved and the meme of mephisto is passed on to another generation . . . well, to science and work geeks, anyway. Oh, and you.

Have you ever liked the movie more than the book?

I asked myself this question the other day and I think the answer is a qualified "no". I've never liked the movie version of a book more than the book itself -- though some movies, like "2001: A Space Odyssey", certainly equaled the book. When a movie breaks new cinematic ground, as 2001 did, it's difficult to balance the heft of the movie against a simple story told in words. "The Exorcist" and "Jaws" also fall into this category, where the movie is so much bigger than life that it's virtually impossible to compare to the book. This is why I vote with a "qualified" no.

The other day, regular commenter Annie mentioned reading "84, Charing Cross Road" while watching the movie, and noted that it was, line-for-line, the same as the book. I've seen that sort of fidelity in a few movie adaptations. "Rosemary's Baby" is extremely loyal to the book. Even the visuals match what is described on the page. Although I love the movie, I can't say it's better than the book. Ira Levin, the author of "Rosemary's Baby", is one of the greatest masters of the English language, as far as I'm concerned. And Roman Polanski, who directed Rosemary's Baby, is also no lightweight, making a comparison of the merit of the two works no easy task. Still, I vote for the book. It seems I always do.

You don't see this sort of page-to-screen accordance very often. If you did, it would be easier to compare book to movie. In fact, many movies are so unfaithful that they sometimes lose the very concept of the book. The movie, "A Home at the End of the World", was a major disappointment. It's ending is so unlike the book's conclusion that I was shocked. It seems they excised the meaning of the story to avoid a slightly uncomfortable ending. I don't know how Michael Cunningham, who wrote the book (and is the best writer in America today), could have allowed this to happen. In any case, the book is far superior to the movie and I believe that's always the case (with a well-written book).

There's so much more in the language of a book than there can ever be in a visual experience like a movie. Cinematography is a far less exacting thing than language because visuals are an approximation. Words, on the other hand, are precise tools with exquisitely clear meanings. For this last reason, it doesn't surprise me that I can't think of any movie that seemed better than the book. Can you?

Sunshine

I watched Sunshine last night. It's a classy movie from 2007 that could have rated a 9, but they mucked it up so bad that I have to give it a 6. It's sad because they had a great idea and a ton of money to pull it off. 

On some levels, the creators of Sunshine did a good job -- but they didn't pay attention to their script. The main concept, that a spaceship is taking astronauts on a mission to restart the fusion reaction in our dying sun, is a good one. Sunshine takes the viewer on a magical, ultra-floodlit two-hour trip to the sun. No one ever promised that before and the movie delivers, in a visual sense. The look is unmatched, so fiery and bright that you may be tempted to close your eyes now and then.

And Cillian Murphy is perfect for the lead. He's such a strange, ethereal-looking guy and a good actor, to boot. You easily believe that he is a genius/physicist capable of saving the world. And the movie's certainly got drama -- if the mission fails, all life on Earth will be destroyed. You don't get much more dramatic than that. With all that going for it, you'd think the movie would be great. It's not.

The problem is that, while Cillian is perfect and the ship's captain, Cliff Curtis, is good, the dialogue and the absurd sub-plots are terrible. I wish the director had spent more time fine-tuning the secondary story to make it believable. Because it isn't. They brought in a ridiculous idea to fill up the middle of the movie, and completely ruined it.

Yet the movie still shines. It's the look: it's brilliant, gorgeous, startling. Since the story takes place on a spaceship, the audience is watching actors and CGI sets for most of the two hours, but the look never gets old. There is great computer animation in Sunshine. Nothing looks fake. The music is also delightful, providing an appropriately magical tone for the story. It reminds me of the soundtrack to Solaris (which is a far better movie). 

They tried with this movie but failed. If you're a sci-fi addict, you'll want to watch it just for the visuals. You can always fast-forward through the idiotic sub-plots. As usual, I reveal no spoilers in my reviews.

Anyone out there have a different opinion of the movie? Remember, this could be your unlurking day, the grandest moment of your entire life!