From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #124 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, August 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 124 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:14:52 -0600 From: David Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Devin Thorpe wrote: > Is a test of "appropriate" nudity whether or not it is intended to arou= se > erotic emotions? > > Is it possible that someone could create art that is not intended to ar= ouse, > but that does arouse someone? I think so. > > If so, then who bears the responsibility to avoid arousing, erotic imag= es, > the artist or the viewer? I think the viewer. It has to be both the artist and the viewer. You can't tell me that a wr= iter or director who creates a sexually explicit scene specifically designed to a= rouse the audience can abnegate responsibility by saying, "If the audience gets aroused it's their own fault. I didn't do anything." The opposite extreme are those who are easily offended, in which bare sho= ulders are a local scandal. Unfortunately, we ususally, as LDS people, end up a= t this extreme. As I've thought about why we do so, I think many members interp= ret the strong statements against pornography as a bar to nudity. For example, (love the new Ensign database!) President Hinckley in April = 1999 conference said, "You may expect that the adversary will work on you. You, of all men, must exercise self-discipline, standing far apart from sin and evil of any kind in your own life. You must shun pornography, shut off the television set when it carries salacious entertainment, be pure in thought and deed." Putting pornography and TV watching in the same sentence seems to indicat= e that TV is where you find porn. Pres. Hinckley in April 1998 said, "You must not fool around with the Internet to find pornographic material. You must not dial a long-distance telephone number to listen to filth. You must not rent videos with pornography of any kind. This salacious stuff simply is not for you. Stay away from pornography as you would avoid a serious disease. It is as destructive. It can become habitual, and those who indulge in it get so they cannot leave it alone. It is addictive. "It is a five-billion-dollar business for those who produce it. They make it as titillating and attractive as they know how. It seduces and destroys its victims. It is everywhere. It is all about us. I plead with you young men not to get involved in its use. You simply cannot afford to." Granted this was a talk to the young men, but the charge certainly applie= s to all members. The question then becomes what is pornography "of any kind?= " Course there have been some church leaders who have spoken outright again= st nudity as well. Elder Ballard in October 1992 conference lumped nudity in with pornograph= y when he said, "Political unrest, warfare, and economic chaos prevail in many parts of the world, and the plagues of pornography, drug misuse, immorality, AIDS, and child abuse become more oppressive with each passing day. The media busily satisfies an apparently insatiable appetite of audiences to witness murder, violence, nudity, sex, and profanity. Is not this the day of which Moroni spoke when he recorded: =93Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.=94 (Morm. 8:35.) And then he prophesied of conditions of the world as they are today." I'm not trying to define "pornography" or to get close to the line - but = I can see how some members interpret these statements as shunning nudity in all forms. I'm sure this is the idea that led to BYU banning Rodin. Perhaps= these members are mistaken in their interpretation. (I know a few LDS painters= who swear that you can't teach drawing or painting without learning the human= form - and it is impossible without viewing nudity.) However, I agree with Jaso= n Steed that in the majority of art today, nudity is used in sexual situations in= which the producer/writer intends to arouse the audience. This makes it extrem= enly difficult to justify watching nudity because there are so few examples of= nudity being used to glorify God and show the true beauty of the human form. Still, I'm not offended if I read a story about someone nude or a tastefu= lly done sex scene. However, I would get increasingly more offended if that a= ct is painted, sculpted, directed in a movie or finally acted out on stage? Do= es the medium matter here, or am I just nuts? Dave Hansen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:29:42 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity I remember a nude sex scene in "Wings of the Dove," the adaptation of the = Henry James novel starring Helena Bonham Carter. It's toward the end, when = the main character's machinations to achieve a marriage have failed, so = she turns to sex to bind the couple together. It shows them getting the = act underway, but then the act fails. I thought it was a powerful = statement that sex does not solve problems, and that without emotional = rightness and engagement sex can fail. It would have been ridiculous to = try to do the scene without the characters naked, and the scene was = powerful and moral. I also remember a scene from "The Ice Storm," the excellent movie directed = by Ang Lee. It shows a nude adulterous liaison that seems almost comically = perfunctory and empty, and it highlights the emotional and moral bankruptcy= of the characters. I also remember some powerful sexual-context nudity in = "Election," a great film that I thought was MUCH better than Oscar-winning = "American Beauty" last year--this film's sex/nudity was far from titillatin= g and instead highlighted the absurdities of the character's situation and = indeed of the human condition.=20 The kind of fiction, film, and drama that speaks most to me tends to be = contemporary in setting and shows human (meaning good/bad) characters in = all facets and spheres of their lives, including the nude and sexual. How = can an author/director set up a full, realistic account of human characters= and not include nudity and sex? That would be like a scientist trying to = make up a compound but refusing to include carbon (I don't know my = science, so maybe that example's weird--but I hope my point comes across). = My own fiction tends to contain too much sexual frankness, but I'm = experimenting to find the right mix (my idol is John Updike, who includes = much graphic extramarital sex, and while he doesn't outright glorify it, = he tends to make it seem acceptable and inevitable and low in consequences)= . By the way, my other two favorite movies of recent memory have been = "High Fidelity" and "Wonder Boys," both of which affirmed family morality = via a circuitous route that probably brought along more people than a = straight-ahead moral approach would have (if either of those R-rated = movies had nude scenes, I don't recall them). "Wonder Boys," which had a = poor theatrical run, is to be rereleased this fall, and I highly recommend = it--and I'm currently reading the novel it's based on by Michael Chabon, = which is also superb, and the movie seems to follow it quite closely so = far and is coming back to me unexpectedly vividly as I read. It's one of = those rare novel/film synergy treats. And while I'm on the subject of movies, I wanted to elaborate a stitch = more about "The Blair Witch Project" (which contained no sex). The movie = made a powerful enough impact on me that a couple of days later, I = actually started tearing up in a restaurant with a large group of people = after I zoned off and started thinking again about the characters and = their experiences. It's rare I tear up IN a movie, and tearing up days = afterward is unprecedented in my experience. And the movie came back to me = forcefully just last month as I camped with my wife and young kids in a = remote mountain location--"Blair Witch" did for camping what "Jaws" did = for the beach. You should have seen me sweeping the weeds and trees with = my flashlight stuck out the barely-unzipped tent flap. Chris Bigelow =20 * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:04:13 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity David Hansen wrote, of his wife: >She is perfectly willing and able >to view nude paintings and sculpture without feeling threatened, >but = theater >or movies with nudity are, by and large, out of bounds. This >makes me = believe >that most opposition to nudity is cultural rather than doctrinal. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. =20 >I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater >where = nudity >would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Let me give some specific examples from the most recent London season: 1. David Edgar's new play Albert Speer, begins as Speer and his fellow = Nuremberg co-defendents arriving at Spandau prison. The prison officials, = force them to strip, and then to put on the clothes worn by Jewish = prisoners in Auschwitz. So we had a brief moment of nudity, in which = these convicted war criminals are treated in a humiliating and degrading = fashion, including nudity. It was a very powerful theatrical moment, and = you were, as an audience member torn, between sympathy for these men and a = general feeling of 'hey, they deserve it.' Not even remotely offensive, = not to me anyway, and not to the forty BYU students I had with me. Would = I, as an LDS actor, perform nude in that scene? Absolutely, without a = moment's hesitation. 2) The Mysteries, at the National. In this production, we saw Adam and = Eve in the Garden of Eden. A huge tub of dirt was rolled onto the stage. = (The audience and cast mingled on-stage throughout the production, so that = the action took place among the spectators; they'd just clear a little = space in the middle of the crowd and do a scene. Fabulous piece of = theatre). Anyway, God (who was up on a fork lift) summoned them, and Adam = and Eve rose up from out of the dirt, starkers, and completely innocent. = I was close enough, I could have touched them both. It was a wonderful = moment, not remotely offensive, and our students, again, thought it was = great, in a production that was a spiritual feast. Would I, as an LDS = actor, be willing to play Adam in such a production? Without a moment's = hesitation. (Not that there's much demand for an Adam of my age, weight, = and dimensions!) =20 3. Wit, on the West End. Terrific new play, about an American Lit = professor who is stricken by, and eventually dies of, cancer. She's a = John Donne specialist, and her own readings of Donne poems form a lovely, = deeply tragic counterpoint to her discussions with her oncologists. At = the end of the play, as she dies, she stands before the audience, and = drops her hospital gown, and is revealed there, her body ravaged by = disease (major makeup job) in the nude. Kathleen Chalfont played the = prof, and she's a woman in her mid-fifties, I'd say. It was a stunning = theatrical moment, again not at all offensive. I loved it. Three examples of inoffensive nudity. I could name a dozen more. Nudity = is a legitimate artistic tool, for both theatrical and cinematic artists. = I'm absolutely convinced of it. We do have a cultural bias against it, = and that's not something we should ignore; cultural forces are powerful. = =20 Eric Samuelsen=20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:03:25 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Eric wrote: >I sense that Jason and I could go back and forth on these issues for quite >some time. And I also sense that we probably agree more than we disagree. I write: I think so, too. Eric wrote: >I took the admittedly extreme position of arguing that all art is Good. I >still think this is a defensible position, but what I would prefer to say >is that almost all art works can be defended on moral grounds. If they can >be so defended, they oughta be. And to label a certain work of art 'good' >or 'bad' is to judge, perhaps unrighteously. > I write: Perhaps the difference, fundamentally, is in our definitions of "art." I tend to have a somewhat 'postmodern' view that breaks down barriers between what is traditionally labeled "art" and other forms/modes of expression, etc. that traditionally have not been so labeled. In other words, these days it is possible (and theoretically/philosophically legitimate) to claim comic books, pornography, epic poems, soap operas, novels (of all kinds), advertisements, films (of all kinds), Sat morning cartoons, sitcoms, historical documents, plays, and so on, as falling under the somewhat all-encompassing label of "art"--though the more proper (accepted) term would be "text", as "art" still carries those hierarchical connotations that are being broken down. Because I tend to define art this way, while maintaining a belief that much of what I've listed above is (or at least can be) immoral, "bad," or "evil," it is not hard for me to claim the necessity of judging between the good and the bad, nor is it unreasonable in my mind to disagree with the notion that "almost all art" can be defended on moral grounds. A great deal of it, perhaps--but I would not say "almost all." The "Uptown Girl" example is a good one. And I don't want to be misunderstood: in no way would I advocate "judging against" that song. But not because someone can defend it on moral grounds. On the contrary, I'm not advocating the censorship of any/all art that isn't directly linked to the Gospel and its proclamation, etc. (That WOULD be verging on fascism!) Rather, I'm in favor of attempts to censor that which is decidedly "bad" or immoral. As I see it, "Uptown Girl" may not be Gospel-oriented, but neither is it promoting sin and wickedness. I wouldn't censor it in any way, not because a girl 'connects' with it, but because it's basically harmless. On the other hand, music that can convincingly be argued as being "evil," or promoting those things which some may call "sin," or which (at least) promotes or encourages thoughts and actions that may be harmful to people/communities/families/society--say, for example, Marilyn Manson--this sort of art, though some may defend it on their own relativistic moral grounds, is (by my Mormon standards) "bad." [And I don't mean "bad" as in I don't like it; I mean "bad" as in "evil."] Thus, I am in favor of forms of censorship with regard to this sort of thing. That doesn't necessarily mean banishment (I do believe in freedom of speech and choice)--but certainly I would favor a more strict rating system. (I favor the same with regard to movies, though the rating system as it stands is far too relativistic, IMO.) Your example with the writing class is also good. And again I wouldn't want to be misunderstood as claiming that judgements made regarding "good" writing (as in "effective" or "artful", etc.) are the same as judgements regarding "good" writing (as in "moral", or at least "not immoral"). Obviously we make the sorts of judgements you're talking about--between "good" and "bad" writing, or art--but here you're talking about taste, not morality. Taste is ABSOLUTELY relative. I can have a thorough taste for Marilyn Manson's music, for pornography, for movies that glorify violence and make criminals into heroes; these things might exhilirate me, move me, etc. I might say they're "good." But in terms of morality, and not taste, it seems to me fairly clear that these things are NOT "good." Eric wrote: >But I am very very very reluctant to question anyone's testimony. If >someone tells me that a certain work of art has done them good, or caused >them to do good, I think it would be the height of presumption to say >they're wrong. I write: I'm not sure I was suggesting we question anyone's testimony. And yes, someone may be moved to do good by a work of art that is "bad." But again I think the WofW rule applies. Though "bad" (morality-wise, not taste-wise) art, like alcohol, may cause or inspire good in a few, the potential it has for "evil" is enough for me to be in favor of censoring it. Eric wrote: >Absolute truths, in a gospel context, are very very rare. And are, without >exception, reflected in almost all works of art, IMHO. One can make a case >for any work of art reflecting the profoundest truths of the gospel. And >if such a case can be made, sincerely, by someone, then that is that >someone's testimony. I write: You might have to explain this further. What do you mean by absolute truths being rare in a gospel context? And how do "almost all works of art" reflect these absolute truths? Of course, if you're defining "art" more narrowly than I am, than this might be easier for me to conceive; but still, how is, for example, the absolute moral truth that sex is sacred and should only be enacted within the bounds of marriage reflected in, say, "almost all" of the movies and novels these days? (Assuming your narrower definition of art, I won't even ask about advertising, pornography, etc.) I wrote: > >Granted, > >it is difficult--VERY VERY difficult--to discern that truth, and to >make > >judgements, but nevertheless we are commanded to do so (it's >"judge not > >_unrighteously_", not "judge not"). IOW, I think it's our >responsibility >to > >judge what is good art and what is bad art. Eric wrote: >I would argue instead that it is our responsibility to look for the good. >Always. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, OF GOOD REPORT, or >praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I think it is always our >obligation to look for the good, to seek the face of our brother or sister >in the work of art he/she has created, to understand his/her testimony and >respond to it. (I do make an exception for pornography, but it is an >exceedingly uninformed exception, because I don't know enough about >pornography to know what it is I'm talking about.) I write: I agree that we should look for the good. That's why I would NOT censor something like "Uptown Girl"--or much of the art out there. But along with looking for the good goes recognizing the bad, and when the bad is recognized, I think something should be done about it. Your exception for pornography, by the way, is what prompted my assumption that your definition of "art" might be narrower than mine. Eric wrote: >Having said that, I suppose I'm also convicting myself of hypocrisy, since >my job involves telling people 'your work of art isn't working very well.' >But I strive never ever ever to tell a student that his/her work is morally >degrading, or anything like that. I prefer the word 'effective.' I say >'this is what I perceive you trying to do. I don't think you're >succeeding. Here's how to make it better.' I think that's a responsible >way to react. I write: I agree. Again, good/effective and good/moral are two different things. I also teach writing, and when something isn't working (according to tastes and conventions, which are relative), I don't censor that in any way, though I try to help the writer to improve it. However, if a student is using language or conveying views that might be considered sexist or racist, I DO make sure to point these out in an effort to educate and enlighten (and, essentially, censor). As a writing teacher, I should be engaged in helping my students to be better writers--but not in helping them to be better Nazis (to use your example). I wrote: > >Art is action, it is thought, it > >is attitude and world view--and as Mormons we know that it is not >just >possible, but _necessary_ that there be both good and bad >actions, >thoughts, attitudes, and world views. And it is part of our > >existence/experience to learn to judge between the good and >the bad. Eric wrote: >I agree. And, yes, there are works of art that reflect a world view that >might and should be condemned. I'm mostly speaking from my own experience, >understand, and have never actually read any pro-Nazi art (to use an >extreme example.) If there are works of art that are directly didactic in >their approach,and which preach evil, those works should be condemned. I >agree. I don't know any works like that (well, one does seem them >periodically on MST3K), but am willing to admit to the theoretical >possibility that they exist. But I do think that the nature of art is such >that these sorts of works are likely to be pretty rare. I write: Why does it need to be "directly didactic" for you to condemn it? Can't a work be immoral/bad without being directly didactic? In fact, I believe art is potentially MORE powerful, the less directly didactic it is--thus, shouldn't we be wary of that which is immoral/bad in a more subtle but potentially more destructive manner? I wrote: > >I understand (and even, to some extent, applaud) the reluctance >to judge >wrongly, the hesitency to dismiss what might in fact be of value. Eric wrote: >Good. This is a common ground on which we can build. I write: Yes. Again, I'm not advocating rash waves of censorship here. I think we need to be willing to closely analyze all forms of art and to be humble and careful in our judgements. But I also think that close analysis will reveal a much higher level of immorality (in both frequency and intensity of occurrence) in "art" (the broad definition) than is perhaps presently recognized by the average "reader." Two examples (and I won't choose easy ones, like pornography): 1. Advertising: Watch it. Closely. Watch the ways in which men and women are portrayed--especially women. Rampant sexism--and by this I don't mean inequality, I mean disrespect, objectification, irreverence, etc.--exists in advertising. Also racism, class prejudice, and the promotion of irresponsible and (by our standards, which I believe are absolute and not relative) immoral sexual activity. One example in particular: A magazine ad portraying a well-dressed (business suit and pearls), obviously wealthy and attractive woman (thirtyish). In the woman's lap is a man's foot wearing a hulking boot. We don't see the man, just his leg propped on the woman's lap, and the woman is making as though to take off the boot. From the man's pantleg and boot, we judge him to be not-so-wealthy or well-dressed as the woman. The advertisement is for the boots. But what is the 'text' _saying_? That a woman, no matter how much she has achieved (successful executive perhaps?), no matter how classy or stylish or attractive or wealthy she may be, is still there only as the "object" of the ad, good for displaying a product, and, more pointedly, good for taking off the man's boots. I think this is at least disrespectful and distasteful, if not immoral. (Is sexism immoral? Is this absolute or relative? Good questions.) 2. Sitcoms: Again, watch them. Closely. They promote all of the above, maybe more. Watch, for example, a week's worth of sitcoms and try to come up with one honest, respectable, admirable father-figure. Usually, father's are portrayed as saps, dunces, deadbeats, idiots who don't know what's going on around them, or who verbally abuse their wife or children, etc, etc, etc. Is this moral/immoral? And what about sexual relationships? Honesty and integrity? (So much sitcom humor is derived from a lie or a deception, if you pay attention--and though some may have a 'moral' that advocates telling the truth, often the playful, inconsequential results of the otherwise very serious deception outweigh any attempt at didacticism in the end.) Find a sitcom that reflects/promotes any absolute moral truths that we believe in. Now, again, I'm not suggesting these should all be condemned/censored publicly. But I do think, at the least, we need to be careful readers/viewers--aware of what's being hurled at us. Then, at the least, we can personally censor things. And the same kind of careful reading needs to take place in the "narrower" realm of art--meaning (in literature) poetry, plays, and novels. The "anti-hero" is so prevalent in American literature that we hardly use the term anymore--it used to refer to a hero who did not possess the traits traditionally viewed as heroic. But now this is almost commonplace. We just say "hero," even when we're referring to a protagonist who is, say, a jewel thief who lies, steals, and sleeps with four women in one novel/movie, and whose 'triumph' is over the antagonist (the "bad guy") who is a police detective trying to catch him--and we cheer when people are killed, things are destroyed, we get mushy when he realizes he's in love with the first woman he had sex with, despite his flings with the other three... Isn't this in some way a subtle reflection/promotion of immorality? Eric wrote: >I'm not quite saying anything goes. I just want to defend works of art >that aren't often defended. I don't know that I've often seen an immoral >movie. I suppose I have seen a few that I thought were pretty >questionable. Mostly forties and fifties musicals. I write: You're not sure you've seen an immoral movie? Are you differentiating between "an immoral movie" and "a movie that portrays/promotes immorality"? I can see how one might do so. THere are, admittedly, many works of art that portray or USE immorality, as a contrast perhaps to the moral--and these can be distinguished from works that reflect/promote immorality. But I'm a HUGE movie fan, and I have studied film and film theory as a grad student (as well as literature)--and I wouldn't hesitate a moment in saying there are ALL KINDS of immoral films (and works of literature) out there. TONS of 'em. Eric wrote: >I think I do think there's something qualitatively different between an >attempt to encompass the human experience into a philosophic system, and an >attempt to explore the world creatively in a novel or play, but that's >probably not an area where we're going to agree. I write: This is in reference to my suggestion that art and philosophy (and science, etc) are not so different from each other, I take it. I agree, there IS something qualitatively different about these things, that's why I called them different _ways_ or _modes_ of knowing--if there wasn't anything qualitatively different about them, they'd be the same. I don't think they're the same, but I also don't think they're as separate as you suggest. The artist and the philosopher (and the scientist, the historian, etc) both attempt to explore and explain, they just do it in different ways. This is all very interesting stuff. And I DO think we probably agree more than not--I sense we both have a tendency to play devil's advocate in taking somewhat more extreme stances than we might truly adhere to. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:24:44 -0400 From: Dean FH Macy Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Mormon Depictions in Movies Shawn and Melinda Ambrose wrote: > I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon > characters portrayed? > > I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it Clint > Eastwood sings, beautifully. Not Clint Eastwood. It was Lee Marvin who sang beautifully. Actually I discovered when I worked with him for the movie he enjoyed singing, albeit gravelly. 'Paint Your Wagon' was his singing debut. And he was 'born under a wandering star.' - -- Dean FH Macy, Lit.D./Mus.D. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Specializing in Management of exceptionally talented youth in Music" EPI Records - NetWork Films - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Making children do something they don't want to do is the job of the parents. If that doesn't work, there are always juvenile detention centers." - Mike R. - - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:59:50 MDT From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing >From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" > >Anna and the King: there's a story that's been told several times before, >and really doesn't need to get told again, except that Jodie Foster wanted >to. Agreed. For those of us who live in the Kingdom of Thailand, the movie is a sad mockery of the monarchy. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the facts knows that Anna created a fictional past when she arrived in Bangkok since she was running away from some ugly truths. Then long after the she left Bangkok she created a fictional account of her dealings in Siam: She was one of several teachers, not a governess; it would have been highly unlikely for her get as close to the king as she implies; it would have been impossible for her to show the disrespect to the king that is portrayed in the film, and she would have had very few direct dealings with him (she dealt primarily with his children); her influence on his thinking was grossly exaggerated since most of his forward-looking ideas were formed long before she arrived; her portrayals of life in the royal household are at odds with all contemporary accounts by dispassionate western observers, etc., etc. Ah, but now much of the the world has a distorted view of an enlightened man. Yul Brynner dancing around would be like Jefferson dancing the Can-Can while crafting early American documents. And now we have some fool being smitten and then set straight by Jodie Foster. (Some balance came back when Time magazine considered King Chulalangkorn the most important Asian of the 20th century). I guess Jodie Foster wanted to advance her agenda of the foolishness of men? Okay Thom, tell us once more that art does not have to deal with historical facts. regards, Bob Hughes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:46:00 -0400 From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Nudity I don't know if this has been mentioned yet (I'm a month behind in reading these posts-sorry), but men are generally more visually oriented than women. I went through all our old Relief Society and Priesthood manuals to dispose of them. It interested me to discover that while the Relief Society manuals had only one picture (on the front), the Priesthood manuals had at least one full page (5" x 8") picture with every lesson. Now, I think this fits with the evidence in our larger society and in our literature: men tend to have more pictures of scantily dressed women around, whereas women tend to read romance novels. Women generally are more hearing oriented and can focus on many things at one time (i.e., mothers). Men generally can focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else, which means they get a lot done on that one thing (i.e., career). I don't want to debate the fairness or unfairness of it; men and women are different and you'll have to work with what you've got. It is possible to write about sex and not be embarrassing or offensive to your own self. Anyone else, it's Russian roulette. Everyone brings their own baggage to the issue. (My luggage, fortunately, is lightweight and occasionally uplifting.) I love being a woman and I'm thankful not to have to deal with the responsibility of the priesthood on top of all this home making! Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:55:08 -0600 From: "mjames_laurel" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies > I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon > characters portrayed? My husband tells me there's some reference to Mormons in "Fletch." And he remembers there's some movie (who knows which one--can't remember the name) about a fellow in the army taking a train somewhere who runs into a guy in a bar who said he was from Orem, Utah. He saw this one when he was a senior at Provo High, and remembers it because the audience cracked up. As for my contribution, there's a truly awful, early 80's movie starring Meatloaf and Alice Cooper (I think the name was Roadie, but I'm not sure...) there were a couple of very crude, falling-down drunk young men of missionary age sitting on the hood of a car, holding beers and yelling insults to passers by. They were only visible for seconds, but were very clearly and blatantly wearing BYU t-shirts. My BYU roommates and I thought this was hysterical. (Years later, I convinced my husband that was the funniest movie ever made, so he went to a great deal of trouble to find and rent the video. On this second viewing I saw it is actually not funny at all, and a really bad movie to boot.) Laurel Brady - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 23:18:33 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > Let me illustrate. A friend of mine is a seminary teacher, and he asked students to bring in the works of art that, to them, were the most spiritual, the most inviting to the Holy Ghost. This was to be an oral presentation to the class, and the first girl brought in a tape recorder, and played Billy Joel singing Uptown Girl. Uptown Girl is a fun, bouncy little rock number. I don't personally think it's one of Billy Joel's best songs, and would hardly consider it 'spiritual.' Then the girl explained: her father had loved that song, and he used to sing it to her when they rode in a car together, and he'd sing it to her as a bedtime lullaby. And then her father died, and she was terribly distraught, and then, at the funeral, she prayed for peace and for an assurance that she would see her father again. And then, in her ear, she heard him again singing Uptown Girl. And so, for her, that song was associated in an immediate and direct way with the plan of salvation. This absolutely intrigues me. I think it would be a fascinating experiment to try over and over again, and particularly with members of the church who feel strongly that there is a decisive line between good and bad art. Even among "traditional," "orthodox," "hard-nosed," "prudish" (whatever adjective you want to use) members, I think it would be an eye-opener to see what a variety of art is perceived as inspiring. I think it would end up humbling a great many hearts to see the variety (assuming the heart in question isn't too hardened to humble). I think it would end up humbling a great many of us on the list if we witnessed that experiment. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 23:28:10 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Devin Thorpe wrote: > Is it possible that someone could create art that is not intended to arouse, > but that does arouse someone? I think so. > > If so, then who bears the responsibility to avoid arousing, erotic images, > the artist or the viewer? I think the viewer. I'm beginning to wonder (which is why I started the topic in the first place) if our extreme aversion to nudity isn't actually causing many of the sexual problems we've adopted that attitude to avoid. Let's face it, growing children are going to be curious about sex. As they reach puberty, they are going to be driven by a strong biological imperative to be curious about sex. If we desperately hide all information about sex and our bodies from them, they _will_ search for it in other ways. What chance is there those ways will be positive? By being shameful and secretive about sex and nudity, are we creating the sexual deviants we are trying to protect ourselves from? I'm beginning to believe we are. Which puts me in the interesting position of doing a complete 180 on my attitude toward nudity in art. Not long ago I basically considered nudity in art immoral--in film at least--with a handful of rare exceptions. Now I'm beginning to wonder if wholesome depictions of nonsexual nudity and moral sex in nontitillating ways in our art wouldn't actually be a good thing to do for our increasingly polarized society: polarized at the extremes of excessive prudishness or vile prurience. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:45:57 -0400 From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Good Writing Part of the reason I've never made a serious effort to support myself financially solely by writing is because I have a pragmatic streak a mile wide (inherited from my father, who, while very intelligent and creative, said of literary work, "You can't eat it."). Society in the United States has become wealthy enough and technologically advanced enough to financially support many, many artists, entertainers, writers, and philosophers. But in many other societies, if you want to write full time you'll have to starve. Your physical and mental labor in those societies is more needed to support life directly, not to just encourage life. With this in mind, I have difficulty justifying spending full time writing, though I would love to do so. It seems an intangible way to work, yet I love to read and to watch movies and listen to music. Have you ever met this difficulty? How do you answer it? Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #124 ******************************