From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #396 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 Tuesday, July 17 2001 Volume 01 : Number 396 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:03:42 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] (On Stage) Provo Freedom Festival Parade On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:07:49 GMT, cgileadi@emerytelcom.net wrote: >What I always hated the most were those floats with little girls dressed= scanty=20 >doing hip-swinging BYU-cheerleader moves to blaring prerecorded music. = =46or me=20 >that was ultimate vulgarity. But again I think it's a cultural thing, = our=20 >barely-disguised fascination with skin and sublimated suggestiveness. My mother recently reminded me that I once marched in this parade = twirling a baton, in my blue and silver-sequined costume. This was naturally years ago--I was probably six or seven--and has really nothing to do with the above anecdote, since despite being scantily clad in our leotards we were definitely not swinging our hips. And we had to walk. Yuck. But it did make me think about the ways in which the parade has changed while ultimately remaining the same. I haven't been to the parade = since...hmmm, probably since I was a baton-twirling tyke. Thanks for the memories, = Eric. I loved it. Melissa Proffitt (who has been in more than her share of parades, but thankfully never as = a beauty queen) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:29:51 -0600 From: luannstaheli Subject: [AML] Michael O. TUNNELL, _Brothers in Valor_ Since people on this list have commented they aren't always aware of YA books published by LDS authors , I thought I'd encourage you to check out Michael O. Tunnell's new YA novel Brothers in Valor: A Story of Resistance published by Holiday House in New York. It's based on the true story of three LDS boys living in Hitler's Germany. Michael is an English professor at BYU. I've only just started the book, but I was already impressed that on the third page of text he has already identified the characters as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. [LuAnn Staheli] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:29:39 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art Andrew Hall wrote: > >> All this talk about instiutional art tells me that we should have a = poll on >> the subject of the best and worst in art sponsored by the Church. >> >> So, tell us your favorite piece(s) of instituional Mormon art, as well= as >> your least favorite(s), and why. What makes them good or bad? One of the recent BYU Studies had James Christensen's portrait of Christ = in the Garden of Gethsemane on the cover. It's--I can't think of a good adjective. Spectacular--but without the spectacle. Beautiful. = Haunting. I want a print for my living room. On July 3rd I went to the MTC with my family; my baby brother, ten years younger than me, is going to Norway. He's the fourth missionary from our family but this was the first time I've been to the big farewell thingie they do. They showed a little film with shots of different people = receiving their calls, heading off on their missions, etc. I loved it! I have no idea what the point was--maybe just to make us all feel better about = saying goodbye for two years--but what I liked was that it was real people just being filmed doing real things. It was cute. And the final shot of two missionaries trudging along into the sunset got me choked up. So I'm sentimental. So what. And the reason this mattered was because I'd recently seen a = Church-produced film that I really despised. I don't know what it's called, but it was shown at Enrichment night in June (I came in late so I missed the title). It's this "family" talking about how to behave as a family, how to treat your kids, how to discipline in love, interspersed with other "couples" = and "families" giving other anecdotes. I hated it because the subject matter was so important and the advice was so good, but the "family" was just = too attractive! I was constantly aware that these were a bunch of actors. Compare that to filming real kids opening their mission calls--okay, = sure, they knew they were being filmed, but it seemed way more natural somehow. I realize that this seems at odds with my stance on true stories not = being inherently more valuable than fictional ones. The difference in this = case was not that it was real people, but that the fictional people struck me = as so obviously...faked. And maybe it was because I'm becoming more = sensitive to the potential power of fictional stories that I was annoyed at the way this one fell short. Melissa Proffitt (back from vacation, and don't you people have anything better to do than fill up my mailbox?) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:29:41 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] AML Writing Group/Feedback Wanted D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Or take a look below my signature and join an existing one. Thanks. I had not see that. I will consider it, although I'm probably not a candidate for it right now. One review a week is more than I can manage at present, but I will keep it in mind for the future. Rex - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:46:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Colin Douglas Subject: [AML] Inquiry: Fresh Comp at U of U [MOD: I'd like to request that anyone responding on this topic reply directly to Colin, as list volume is rather high at the moment.] I want to look into the possibility of teaching one or two sections of freshman comp at the U of U and would like to talk to someone who has taught it there recently. Anyone? Colin Douglas cbdouglas@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:31:08 -0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] GILMORE, _Shot in the Heart_ (Deseret News) Deseret News, Monday, July 16, 2001 Gilmore film has producer tiptoeing among the Mormons By Scott Pierce Deseret News television critic PASADENA, Calif. =97 Utahns may or may not be upset and/or offended by an upcoming movie about the 1976 execution of Gary Gilmore, but the executive producer of the movie certainly seems to think they will be. Which partly explains why most of "Shot in the Heart" was filmed in Baltimore. Of course, that may also be explained by the director's undisguised antipathy toward the Beehive State. Executive producer Tom Fontana has a history of working in Baltimore ("Homicide: Life on the Street"), but that's not the only reason "Shot in the Heart" traveled to Utah only to do some location work. "Well, we were actually a little nervous about how the Mormons would deal with us," Fontana said with a laugh. "So we kind of tried to sneak in and out of town as quickly as possible." As for director Agnieszka Holland, an Oscar-nominated ("Angry Harvest,"=20 "Europa, Europa") native of Poland, she unhesitatingly declared, "I'm not a big fan of Utah myself. And I love Baltimore." Her unhappiness with Utah has to do with her belief that "it's very difficult to find a drink there." "There's lots of alcohol in Baltimore," Fontana interjected. "And there's a lot of bars in Baltimore around the set," Holland added.=20 "And, discussing the project, we decided that we have to go for the booze." Hmmm. . . . Holland did travel to Salt Lake City to film the exteriors for the telefilm, based on the book by Gilmore's brother, Mikal. "Practically most of the exterior locations we shot in Utah, with great help from a local crew," she said. "And I especially appreciated that all the Teamsters were women in Utah." Hmmm . . . you can't get a drink in Utah, and all the Teamsters are women. "Shot in the Heart" is still in post-production, but there does indeed seem to be the potential that it will stir up feelings in Utah. Mikal Gilmore's book delves into the family's heritage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, and that's apparently prominently displayed in the movie. HBO's notes on the film describe Gilmore's mother, Bessie, as a "devout Mormon" who believes in ghosts; later, Bessie and her sons receive help from "a mysterious black man" whom she believes is "one of the three Mormon Nephite angels"; one scene is described as "1857: Mormon Danites take a man from his home, lead him deep into the woods and slit his throat. The man is a sinner whose blood is being spilled as a means to his salvation." "I think especially in Mikal's book, this link to the mythology of the Mormon roots in the family is greatly important," Holland said. "And we tried to express it in some way. But, of course, I think it's a universal, human story. And it's only (a) secondary aspect to me that I had to explore a bit of the Mormon religion." "You read the book and you say, 'Wow, that could have been anyone of my family. It could have been my brothers,' " Fontana said. "Because the hurts and the unsettled scores and the bizarre secrets that families hold are there, I think, for each of us. "I mean, the whole Mormon thing, what was extraordinary for me was that it could have been Catholic, you know? In the sense of the presence of religion in his family was palpable." Hmmm. . . . E-MAIL: pierce@desnews.com =A9 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:35:14 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers Darvell: >Now maybe that's Neil Labute's passion, I don't know. But it was NOT the >same >passion that I saw in _God's Army_ or _Brigham City_, but I bet it made more >money. > According to Internet Movie Database, "Your Friends and Neighbors" (the Labute film in question) grossed $4.71 million. "God's Army" grossed around $2.1 million and "BC" considerably less than that. It's worth noting, though, that "Your Friends and Neighbors" had a budget of $5 million and, what's more, is more or less forgotten now, a mere three years later. (Not like "In the Company of Men," Labute's other, more famous film.) "God's Army" made back what it cost, and was a groundbreaking film besides. Let's hear it for passion! Eric D. Snider - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:55:22 -0500 From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Michael O. TUNNELL, _Brothers in Valor_ >I thought I'd encourage you to check out Michael O. >Tunnell's new YA novel Brothers in Valor: A Story of Resistance published >by Holiday >House in New York. It's based on the true story of three LDS boys living in >Hitler's >Germany. >on the third page of text he has already identified the >characters as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. By any chance is the book about Helmut Huebner and his friends? I recently ran across a book that was a collection of the official Nazi papers on various "criminals" who were executed for resistence activities. (Sorry I can't remember the title; it was just in a stack of books someone was getting rid of.) In his official report, one of the strikes against him was specifically that he was a member of the "Mormon movement." So, it wouldn't be surprising that the author would mention it--it means Tunnell did his homework. [MOD: This incident is also the subject of at least two plays by professors at BYU: _Heubener_, by Tom Rogers, and _Heubener against the Reich_, by--I'm not sure, Alan Keele? The Tom Rogers play, at least, deals centrally with his relationship with the Church.] Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:56:29 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Ronald WALKER et al., _Mormon History_ This evening (Saturday), I picked up a great book at Borders. It's from the U. of Ill. Press, and it's called "Mormon History." Its authors are Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker and James B. Allen, with an additional essay by our friend Armand Mauss. It's published by Univ. of Ill. Press, and is a bit pricey ($32.50). It documents the history of the writing and telling of Mormon history from the beginning to the present day. I read some of it at the store, and it looks just great. History buffs will certainly enjoy it. [Jeff Needle] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:03:25 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Jacob Proffitt wrote: > A part of the problem I have with the "sex is > good" theme is that it tends to gloss over the "sex is powerful" > reality. Including sex in your art runs the risk of overwhelming > anything else you are doing--the more explicit the more overwhelming. I'm trying to think of stories that were overwhelmed by sex appearing in them. I'm not counting stories where sex was the main theme of the story--of course those were overwhelmed by it, but on purpose. I'm trying to think of ones where the sex was not intended to overwhelm the story--as far as I can tell--but did. Randomly thinking of stories with sex in them: Orson Scott Card, Songmaster A homosexual act of sex between a homosexual character and the main character, who did it more out of compassion to the other character than anything. The scene played out on-screen, not behind closed doors. It was only as graphic as needed, and was immediately followed by a scene of unintentional violence. The violence overwhelmed the sex scene, actually, and the whole scene certainly did not overwhelm the book. Orson Scott Card, Wyrms A sex scene that can arguably be called bestiality, where the female main character has sex with the large, wormlike alien creature who constitutes the villain. She participates because of a power that is overwhelming her, not by choice. Again, the scene happens on-screen, with as much details as necessary but no more. I'll bet some of us here would call it graphic, however. This scene is the climax to the book, but does not overwhelm the rest of the book any more than it should, being a climax. In fact, I thought the whole scene of confronting the villain was a bit more anti-climactic than it should have been. Orson Scott Card, Lovelock A monkey artifically made intelligent and basically used as a pet/slave (a common thing done with animals in this future) begins to despise his supposedly loving human masters. He discovers that his sexual functioning has been tampered with, causing him to feel pain instead of pleasure, apparently as a form of birth control. In defiance, he masturbates, enduring the pain, as an act of rebellion. A strong and significant scene in the book, again shown live, that has as much impact as it should and no more. Film, The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter A lonely teenaged girl who finally makes a boyfriend ends up having sex with him in the usual unintentional way teenagers end up having sex. Before and after the sex is shown, but not the sex itself. They are bothered by it and wonder what they should do next. A touching and melancholy scene that doesn't come close to overwhelming the story. Alexei Panshin, Rite of Passage A teenage girl who has lived exclusively in space all her life starts visiting some planets. She hooks up with a boy, and things play out as expected. Pretty much the same treatment and results as the film above--nowhere near overwhelming the book. Romeo and Juliet Wedding night sex, which we pick up on the morning after. Nothing overwhelming about this. Fits into the story perfectly. See if you can guess the origin of this story... A man who barely escapes the destruction of the city he lives in with his two daughters (but not his wife, who dies), flees into a wilderness area. His daughers, believing the whole world has more or less come to an end, fear that they will never be able to bear offspring. They get their father drunk and have sex with him, because they figure that's the only way they'll ever get pregnant, since they believe no other men are alive. A strange and disturbing story of incest--did it overwhelm the book? I don't know. Was the message of the Old Testament overwhelmed by the story of Lot and his two daughters? Heck, I could go on and on. The bottom line is, sex in literature is only as overwhelming as the author chooses to let it be. A competent author, anyway. Maybe someone who doesn't know what he's doing will let the sex overwhelm the story. But I have read or viewed many sex scenes, off-camera, on-camera, hinted at, partially shown, or graphically represented. If the quality of the storytelling overall is good, I can't think of any sex scene that has overwhelmed the story any more than it should. It's no coincidence that all of the above examples I gave are from stories that I recommend. Saying we should shy away from sex because it's powerful seems like the exact wrong approach for an author. What, we want impotent stories? Yes, sex is a powerful part of the human experience. All that means is we'd better write about it. Write with skill, so we're getting the exact amount of power for our story, and not letting the power overwhelm it. I think, since sex is such a powerful part of our lives, that it's hard to fully and truthfully develop a character without letting the reader know something about that person's relationship to sex. Maybe know a lot, maybe a little, maybe just hints. But how can we utterly ignore such an integral part of a character's life? I'm still coming to the conclusion that a body of literature (not necessarily individual works within that body) that doesn't include sex is telling a lie. - -- 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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:10:25 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons Kellene Adams wrote: > I didn't think we were talking about people being portrayed as perfect. > Rather, the good writing we're talking about is not trying to portray people > as perfect but simply as people struggling with that natural man side of > them and striving to become perfect at some point (most likely in the next > life, not this one). What I'm hearing some people say (and I could very > possibly be interpreting incorrectly) is that portraying this > struggle--particularly in the realm of Mormondom--is boring. And that's > what I can't agree with. I'm also getting the feeling that some of us feel > that portraying that struggle is boring because we doubt the sincerity or > credibility of these people. Can't speak for others, but this is not what I meant. When I talk about "perfect" characters, I'm talking about ones who have "arrived" and have no struggle (nobody arrives in mortal life), or for whom the struggle is dishonestly easy to overcome, or who have no discernable weaknesses or faults. We call these characters "cardboard" or "one-dimensional." Good people struggling against challenges--honest challenges--is eminently interesting. Just don't cheat me with one-dimensional good characters, or with challenges that are too easily overcome or overcome through unbelievable means (often the same thing). Since we've beaten up on poor Jack Weyland recently, I might as well beat a little more on him, and not bloody another author. (Remember, I'm talking about a Jack from twenty years ago. I haven't read much of him recently. Maybe he's better now.) In the world of Jack Weyland, the Mormon boy meets a non-Mormon girl, and literally days later, she's taking the discussions from the missionaries. Of course she ends up baptized. This just doesn't happen in real life. This is an extreme example, but it's happened all too often in LDS literature, if more subtlely. Maybe I'm just a hopeless reprobate, but the struggles in my life don't wrap up in neat little packages. They are messy, and after being resolved, still leave messes behind that continue to plague me. Whether caused by my own sins or by circumstances beyond my control, it's the same. I don't expect literature to completely reflect the chaotic nature of life--that's part of what's so appealing about fiction: it can tidy up our view of life a little so we can make better sense of it--but it's an insult to me if the tidying goes too far. Then it simply becomes unbelievable, and that makes it boring. "Ferris Buehler" worked, not because the charmed life of the main character was believable, but because it was a satire of that kind of character--it was a farce. Realistic literature must do better. No charmed lives, please. Mad Max was a good man. He was a loving father and husband. He hated the ugly existence his job as a law enforcement officer immersed him in. When his family was killed by vicious bikers in a post-apocalyptic Australia, he became dead to the world, a loner who wandered aimlessly. But his goodness kept coming out. When he tried to be calloused toward others, he still ended up caring for their well-being. When he found a paradise in the midst of desolation where he could have lived his life in comfort, he forsook that paradise to save the lives of some foolish children. He was always putting his own life at risk for the benefit of others, and always sacrificing a better future for himself so others could have one. Mad Max is a fascinating character. But only because he's well-rounded. Acting tough, always wanting to wash his hands of humanity, but never able to deny his true good self. The second Mad Max film was the best of three. The plot never lets up on Max. Whenever things seem to be going his way, all hell breaks loose and destroys any hope he may have had. I can still remember the thrilling shock I felt as I watched that movie for the first time. It was so refreshing to see a hero that lived the antithesis of a charmed life. Mad Max's struggles were never easy to overcome. Jack Weyland's Charly doesn't hold a candle to that in fascination. Even less so the male protagonist in that story, so forgettable that I don't even remember his name. It's really all just a question of good characterization, not this bandying about of moral issues we've been doing in this thread. The facts are, no one is perfect. The best of us have some faults. Everyone has struggles to deal with. Those struggles don't resolve into tidy little packages wrapped up in a bow. So our fiction should reflect this. If fictional people seem too good to be true, or if struggles are resolves too easily, or too tidily, they ring false. That's all. And every individual reader will have their own idea when the ringing starts sounding false. So here's the simple, tidy, wrapped-in-a-bow solution: everybody write about whatever characters they want to write about, and everybody else leave them alone to do it. By the law of averages, all kinds of characters will be written about. Now is that so hard? - -- 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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:25:40 -0700 From: Julie Kirk Subject: Re: [AML] Artists vs. Illustrators Since I am still at CSU Fullerton working on my MFA and teaching life drawing there, I hear this question all the time. Frankly, (in my humble opinion- ha ha) it is way over talked about in the art world and reeks of the snobbish attitude in art that alienated a majority of the populace from the "art world" in the 70's and 80's. I think the problem here is that it is subjective, so subjective it is beyond our being able to come up with a definition of art vs. illustration. For me, if the art reaches a level of a couple considerations, then it is worth looking at - who am I to figure out what the intentions are with the person who made it? I tend to think, after visiting many gallery openings and museuems, and having a few of my own, then listening to young art students argue these philosophies in school, that the viewing audience is the one with the "I know all and am omnipotent" complex, and the artist is the poor slob who puts his efforts out there on the line to be crucified. All I look for is real emotional intent and a level of use of technique that shows mastery and real involvement on the part of the artist. At that point I decide that I'll look at the paintings some more, but I sure wouldn't want to catagorize them illustration or art. On the subject of Dali vs. Minerva Teichert - I'm pretty familiar with both for various reasons and, other than a handful of paintings, don't really think too much about the rest of the work. I am quite interested though in Teichert's life and philosophies and they have had a huge impact on my own - - to me that is the real contribution she made to art. Of course, if I were to chalk her or Dali or anyone else up to being illustrators, not artists, then I might not have found that connection, so maybe what we need to do is not worry so much about the catagory and instead look for the value. Julie ********************************************* Mothers of teens know why animals eat their young. Julie Kirk http://juliekirk.com http://www.streetpainting.net - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:01:18 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers Darvell wrote: >It's kind of like this: it's better to have sex with someone whom you = love >as opposed >to doing it in a hotel for money. It's basically the same act, but the >intent and >the rewards are so much different. Writing for the love of writing is so >much better than >prostitution writing. But with the writing market of today, even the LDS >market, prostitution >writing is what sells. and if you want to sell, you have to write what = the >masses want. I understand what Darvell is saying here, but it's a false dichotomy, I = think. I've accepted commissions on occasion, and what I've found is that = I pretty quickly become enormously passionate about a work I'm being paid = to do. And while I won't say that you don't compromise your standards, = you do end up fighting pretty passionately with the client about words you = care about enormously. It isn't at all like prostitution. It's a lot = more like an arranged marriage. =20 I have an ancestor who joined the Church when she was fourteen. Her = parents kicked her out, so she moved in with her married sister, who had = previously joined. Her sister died in childbirth, leaving my ancestor = alone in a house with her brother-in-law and 4 small nieces and nephews. = She married the brother-in-law, became pregnant, and then he died. So = there she was, in Nauvoo, age 16, with five small children to care for. = At that point, it was off to Winter Quarters. En route, she became the = plural wife of Stephen Markham, a fairly prosperous man who is a minor = footnote in LDS history. Now, when she married Stephen, she was 16, he = was 59. How much in love were they? How much was this a marriage of = convenience? And yet they lived together for another 30 years, and I = suspect grew to love each other very much indeed. (Unfortunately, we = haven't a journal from either of them, but we do have other accounts of = their marriage, and it was a happy one.) (Come to think of it, I should = write about her sometime. That's a pretty great story, come to think of = it.) Well, that's commercial writing, I think. You end up falling in love with = the work every bit as much as if you'd thought of it yourself. >I think it might be helpful here to compare Richard Dutcher to Neil = >Labute. >I >recently saw that _Your Friends and Neighbors_ by Neli Labute was on >my >satellite dish, so I decided to see what all of the commotion was about. = I >watched about five minutes of the beginning and changed the channel. I >didn't like it. I occasionally swtiched back to see if I had missed >something, >and I still didn't like it. It wasn't an LDS story and wasn't something >that I >considered appropriate for me to view, and I'm pretty liberal when it = >comes >to viewing movies. >Now maybe that's Neil Labute's passion, I don't know. But it was NOT >the >same >passion that I saw in _God's Army_ or _Brigham City_, but I bet it made = >more >money. Friends and Neighbors, which is based on Neil's play Lepers, is very much = a work of passion, absolutely. I have no way of knowing whether it was = exactly the same passion that prompted Richard to make God's Army, but I = know both men pretty well, and I can't tell a difference between their = respective passions. Neil likes darker subjects than Richard likes. = That's the main difference between them. I also suspect that God's Army = made more money than Friends and Neighbors. They were in the same = ballpark, at least. Friends and Neighbors was a small art-house film, low = budget, aimed at a film-lovers audience. =20 >Did Labute write and direct that movie for himself or for the movie = >>viewers >"of >the world?" (I personally cannot say, but I have my opinion.) Nei wrote Friends and Neighbors in an effort to expose the petty vanities = and betrayals and cruelties and brutalities people inflict on each other, = and the rationalizations we employ, while pursuing sex. It's a film that = asks us to examine our own behavior in relation to the behavior of = characters who, although articulate and successful, are essentially = shallow and pleasure seeking. Friends and Neighbors is far too ugly a = film to have been intended for any kind of popular audience. Compare its = treatment of sexuality and the highly romantized (and wholly phony) = treatment of sexuality in Pearl Harbor. =20 You clearly disliked Friends and Neighbors and clearly liked God's Army = and Brigham City. I like all three films (and also Neil's In the Company = of Men, which we may as well include for the sake of symmetry). But I = don't perceive any essential difference between them. They're all = passionate films, made by committed LDS filmmakers, trying to do good in = the world. Neil's films are dark, and Richard's are kinda quiet, with = somewhat nicer characters. That's about it.=20 Look, I want to write about subjects I'm passionate about, and I also want = to make some money at it, especially this week, with my sprinkler system = shot. Those desires are not mutually exclusive. I wish I could write a = Work and the Glory. I wish I could write a Pearl Harbor, or a Frazier, or = a Grisham thriller. I can't write any of those things, not because I'm = too committed to my art or anything, but because I haven't a gift for any = of them. I wish I had a really lucrative commission right now. I'd do a = darn good job with it, if I had one, I think and hope. I also wish = something I've written would go mainstream. Some people's talents lend = themselves to writing stuff that's really popular. It'd be great if I = could be one of those rare folks who could write stuff that's fabulously = good AND popular (Elmore Leonard comes to mind; my idol.) Meantime, I = (we) keep on truckin'.=20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:26:18 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Re: Artists vs. Illustrators (was: Andrew's Poll: Church-Sponsored Art) OmahaMom@aol.com wrote: > > If Christensen is the one who did the Parable of the Ten Virgins, he didn't > do his homework very well. Although the people look exotic & Eastern, most > of the peoples in the Middle East wouldn't have had a pig in their midst. > Certainly the women that the Savior told about waiting for the Bridegroom > wouldn't have had a pig with them. Pork is considered unclean for food, as > an animal needs to have a cloven hoof AND chew its cud to be considered > acceptable. Moslems won't touch pork either. Christensen wasn't creating a realistic portrayal of the parable, but an impression. That's the difference between art and illustration. Anyone with good technical skills can create a realistic and accurate portrayal of reality, but it takes an artist to add that indefinable something that takes the work to a higher level. Carl Bloch is a religious artist who, while portraying realistic images, creates religious "moments" through the use of color, light, and the way he arranges images on the canvas. Harry Anderson is a religious illustrator who creates great looking and realistic portrayals of people but without Bloch's "feeling." I don't know any other way to explain it. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:24:17 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Morality and Art Jacob wrote: >In general, I tend to agree with you, Eric, though from an entirely >different perspective. But I think that this paragraph is the point >where we differ most. I think the key here is the phrase "intending to >do evil in the world". What does that mean? The problem is in defining >evil. If you let everyone define evil for themselves, then it is >impossible for anyone to ever intend to do evil. =20 Oh, sure, that's obviously true. It's just that I'm an absolute knee-jerk = art defender, no matter what. I just think that art is the sublimest = thing about being a human being, the single most important gift God ever = gave us. I love all of it. That doesn't mean that I love all art works = equally; obviously I don't. But I love the work of artists, I love the = fact that they're working, even if what they end up doing is something I = don't care for. Anytime anyone attacks any artist, for whatever reason, = my immediate impulse is to defend the artist, to find what's good in their = work. It's just a reflex. Same as true of all books, indiscriminately. = So in Sunday School, when we have a lesson on the School of the Prophets, = it just bugs the heck out of me when someone so much as suggests that = there are books we shouldn't read. I find that inconceivable at a = fundamental visceral level. I'm a book worshipper. (God exists because = books exist; He really IS The Word). It is simply not possible for me to = conceive of the existance of books I shouldn't read. =20 That's a naive and ultimately indefensible position, I realize (in my = saner moments). Of course I'm aware that the butchers of Auschwitz = relaxed in the evening with Beethoven string quartets. I'm aware that = there exists such a thing as child pornography. But child pornography = isn't in my frame of reference. Since it's not something I ever encounter,= and since this conversation, on the List, is between people who aren't = engaged in it, I tend to discount it. >But if you define evil >even so loosely as "actively harms another for personal gain" then I >think that there are artists who intend to do evil in the world. Some >"artists" really do think "by providing the vile images some people >crave, I can get money". =20 Yes, quite so. I guess I put 'pornography' in a different category than = 'art.' But there are surely pornographers who don't. And I do know that = there are a great many pornographers who defend their work quite articulate= ly. I don't defend their work, and am as inclined as you are to see = rationalization abounding. But even for pornographers, I'm uncomfortably = aware that a) they defend it, and think they're doing good in the world = and b) some people who consume their product also testify that good has = been done. =20 >How about that Neil Labute play you enjoyed in >England? Did the artist character intend to do evil? I think she knew >that she was actively harming the young man for no other purpose than >her selfish project. =20 Well, yeah. But then she defends it pretty articulately. What's so = disturbing (and good) about Neil's play is that he defends the work of = someone he clearly detests, and defends her work with some genuine = insight. >I think that she was evil, but that she didn't >care. I think the existence of evil art is an important question and >one that we had better be very careful about tossing a negative at too >carelessly. Okay. Sure. But please, let's err on the side of charity. Let's assume = good will until such an assumption becomes absolutely untenable. And = remember that some of us think dark harsh ugly art is the very best kind. >How else do you explain the disconnect with >network executives who release press statements that "of *course* our >album/sit com/movie couldn't motivate a youngster to do evil--where >*are* his/her parents, anyway?" and then spend the rest of their career >convincing other businesses to give them lots of money so that they can >motivate youngsters to buy products with his album/sit com/movie? Or is >it just businessmen who actually intend to do evil in the world? Of course a more convincing stance would be 'we never intended anything = like this to happen, and are appalled that our album/sitcom/movie prompted = this.' I mean, did the Beatles ever, for a moment, think that the White = Album would inspire Charles Manson to commit mass murder? Of course not. = And in fact, they're right. Manson killed because he was an evil, = power-seeking nut, who happened to find in some pretty wonderful song = lyrics a rationale for doing something he wanted to do anyway. Eric Samuelsen - - 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 #396 ******************************