From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #695 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, April 30 2002 Volume 01 : Number 695 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:43:44 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Sex drives the plots of nearly all Disney children's films.< Maybe it's naive of me, though its a naivet=E9 I like to preserve, but it seems to me there's a small, perhaps subtle, but definitely significant, difference between sex and romance. A story without romance lacks a critical, perhaps the most important driving, element of all plots, IMO, and I am glad to see Disney include it in their children's stories. It is only when the focus of romance becomes the sack that I would agree with Eric's analysis, and that includes the Hunchback, where the obsession can still be labeled "love." I admit, I'm a terrible romantic, but to me, behavior is the dividing line. A kiss is romantic behavior, a roll in the sack is sexual behavior. I like films and fiction that emphasis appropriate behavior, and dislike those that encourage inappropriate behavior. So, when it comes to most PG-13 films these days, where the message is "I love you, so we should go to bed," I'm as disgusted as Eric is about Hunchback, nay, more so. But IMO, most Disney films encourage appropriate behavior, and my hat's off to them for that. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:33:21 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art >It's a difficult question. I think I find myself coming down more on Eric's >side of the fence, myself. Given a choice between too much support of the >arts and not enough, I'd rather do too much. But is anyone addressing the MORALITY of forcing people (all law--including tax law--is the use of force or the threat thereof) to support IDEAS? The philosophy upon which the Constitution rests would say that it is not; thus we have seperation of church and state. A religion deals with ideas in an attempt to cause one to meditate upon these ideas, to change his thinking or belief system concerning them, and to inspire him. The same is true for art. As far as religion goes, it does not matter how much good a particular faith may do, how much better off the population in general may be because of that faith, or how large a majority of the population may believe that faith: the philosophy upon which the Constitution rests (that of the NATURAL RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL) prohibits the use of law --meaning Government use of force or the threat thereof--from supporting ANY particular religion. The same case can be made, point by point, for art--ANY art at all;the principles in each case are the very same. In the 1800's, Mormons had their civil rights violated for decades because they were seen as a threat to the community, because they were a small minority, etc. The Federal Government worked actively to legislate the LDS Church out of existence because it was seen as a threat to the public good and an affront to the concept of "common law" (an English concept that many politicians in the 1800's embraced even though founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson rejected it as incompatable with the Constitution.) None of the arguments made for the violation of the rights of Mormons were consistent with the philosophy upon which the Constitution rests. It is the rejection of this philosophy and an acceptance of the same arguments used by 18th century anti-Mormons that serves as the conceptual foundation supporting the notion of Government supported arts. I asked the question in an earlier post and will ask it again: As a professional artist who struggles like all others to find employment, why should I--when work is found--be forced to pay even one cent to my competitors in the field? Where is the MORAL JUSTIFICATION for taking one penny from me and giving it to another artist whose work, ideas and philosophy may be completely opposite to my own? If you can morally justify this attack on my rights, upon what principles and values does such a moral code rest? If you can tax me to support someone else's art, then why can't you tax me to support someone else's religion? ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:11:00 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Competitive Righteousness A few years ago my social circle called competative righteouness "humility contests." I got it from my grandfather, who attended BY High School back when. I don't care about being humble, myself, because I don't understand humility. I do understand pride all too well and I look at it as a negative-positive. To be humble one must avoid pride, and since all sin and all crime is based on pride just avoiding (major) sin and crime is as close to humility as no matter, in my opinion. I used to boast about being arrogant, which some took as a backhanded way to express humility. It wasn't; there is no doubt that I am (still) arrogant. Read any of my posts you like--you will see that I am utterly convinced that I know what I'm talking about, no matter the topic. My favorite example comes from my own experience. I had a missionary companion who once told me, "Elder Wilson, I consider myself to be a very, very humble person. You should follow my example and be humble like me." I stopped priding myself on my arrogance after that, because he outdid me so easily. Come to think of it that was an exclusionary statement. Fellas who didn't do a mission must now be excluded because I mentioned my mission? Perhaps I'm being too sensitive. In the words of Eliza Doolittle, not likely. I believe it says in the Bible, "There are none righteous, no not one." Anybody who's convinced of their own righteousness is in big trouble anyway, so there's no point in being offended that they're trying to arrogate their righteousness. Joseph Smith said, "...and I say unto you that there is more rejoicing in heaven over the sinner that repenteth than over the ninety and nine just persons that are so righteous. They will be damned anyway, you cannot save them." Any time someone tries to impress everybody with their righteousness you can have a nice comfortable feeling that, like Socrates, at least you know that you know nothing. The heroes of all my own fiction are far better men than I am. I have a series of novels I've been working on in which the main character is a stew of the Cid, William Marshal, Galahad, Captain Moroni, with a dash of Simon Montfort. Despite the fact that at times he's almost insufferably good, he's quite modest. He doesn't brag and is embarrassed that everybody is so impressed with him, and rarely talks of his great deeds, of which there are many. At the same time when he's right he's right, and he will bend for nobody, all the way to the Emperor. Gets him into all sorts of trouble, because a (relatively) righteous man is always in for a good deal of suffering. I really tortured him in the second book, and in the third it's getting to be even worse, though at least his wife is safe this time. I'm tired of reading about anti-heroes in fiction, and so I created a real hero. An anti-hero requires great and marvelous talent, which isn't so common as anti-heroes themselves these days. A dash of human spice is probably a good thing, but it's gotten ridiculous. I don't want to read about a rotten bounder who saves the world. I'll take Samwise any day. This question which seems so personal is also a literary problem. Sort of the Latin versus the Germanic hero. The Latin hero is modest and noble, like Cincinnatus. He leaves his farm, takes up the sword, saves Rome, then when all men are calling for him to be king he says, "There is no King in Rome," and goes back to the farm. Twice. Probably the reason why George Washington chose his name for the Society of Cincinnatus. It's a far cry from Beowulf or the Eddas. There the heroes extol their own virtues and boast of their great deeds to every admirer. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" combines the two, and that is really what has come down as a "typical" hero. It's not Harald Hardrada juggling swords while stepping from oar to oar on his longship. It's nobility in affliction, and modesty of expression, and duty, honor and integrity above all. Gawain has to recount his adventures for the Green Knight before he has his head struck off, and he doesn't seem modest at the moment. It's a hard middle road, but one that works in life as well as in fiction. Modesty yes, but honesty is more important. Truth above all--light reveals, and when it does there's no point trying to hide from it. Some people will always look at life as if it's a recipe where you check off the ingredients and everything will fall into place. They tend to be surprised when the cake doesn't rise, because they neglect to take free will into account. The fact is that reading the scriptures every day won't win a place in heaven. I don't read the scriptures every day--I just read the standard works once a year. Even on my mission I found it impossible to spend half an hour on the Book of Mormon. After I'd read the Book of Mormon for the ninth time in six months I just couldn't do it any more. I'm fast. I've read the entire thing in one sitting. It doesn't mean that I'm not righteous because I don't read a few verses every day. There are bigger reasons. Am I kind, virtuous, noble, kind, gentle, compassionate, reasonable, honorable, kind, honest, considerate, loyal, courteous, kind, courageous, reverent, patient, trusty, kind, understanding, generous, affectionate and kind? Don't answer that! And don't mention all the stuff I left out. Hopefully the point is well made. Paying tithing, attending meetings and reading the scriptures are good things, but they are not enough to make one good. A person who thinks they've overcome the entire list above (with all the additions that I left out) had better do a little soul-searching. I always wonder at people who are straining at the gnat and wish I was that bold. The fact is, however, that despite effort, and knowledge, and desire, I still do an unkind thing almost every day. And if I don't do it I think it. Sometimes dozens of times in a day. So why on earth would I be worrying that somebody else has daily scripture study time and I don't? Like as not they're trying to master the virtues too, and that's their method. Doesn't make me feel any more unrighteous than I did after I took unholy glee in quoting Joseph Smith above. The fact that some people are self-righteous doesn't give me a license to rub their noses in it. I've got my own problems. I've got to work out my own salvation in fear and trembling. Instead of being offended by a desperate attempt by a fellow sinner to feel more righteous take pity on them. They're just as weak as the rest of us. If anyone is truly deceived in themselves, barring some unusual opportunity there's really nothing any mortal can do. A man convinced against his will and all that. So be kind and have pity. God's kindness is the model, and his kindness and patience are literally incredible. Is it so much to ask, after he has such patience with our every sin, that we show a little patience in return? I don't think so. It's the least we can do. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:50:19 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Art and Money > >But if properly subsidized, good repertory theatre companies could = >flourish in every medium sized town. >(A town the size of Provo/Orem, for >= >example... > >Perhaps it should be noted that Orem DOES have a good theater company, = >-The Hale Center Theater- which operates quite well _without_ any = >subsidy, as do all the several Hale theaters. > >I say let the people vote with their feet and dollars about the art they = >want to see. I have to point out that the Hale Center Theater has a very narrow focus (light romantic comedy). I have gone to the Hale Theater and enjoyed myself (not all the time, but quite a few times). My parents generally have season tix. But if that was all that was available I think we'd all pull our hair out for boredom. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:46:19 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Disney Morals? <<< I really noticed this in the Princess Diaries. Notice the lovely subplot with Julie Andrews and the chauffeur? Remember the back story; the Princess's mother was in love with Julie Andrews' son, the Prince, but they couldn't work out a marriage because she was this free spirited artist type and so they broke up, but always longed for each other. So royals can't marry commoners without screwing up both their lives; that's the stated premise of the movie. Meanwhile, Julie Andrews has this thing with the chauffeur. Big state dance; the chauffeur (!) cuts in on the Prime Minister! And everyone smiles knowingly, because, you know, we're all decadent Eurotrash royalty and that's how things work. There's clearly a romantic relationship between Julie and driver. Okay, so Anne Hathaway invites her guy friend to the state dance, and they have a kiss by a fountain. Nice moment, right? Romantic sighs all around. Because Anne's learned her last big lesson from Granny. Lesson learned; if you're royal, you probably can't marry. But if you're discreet about it, you can have a little something on the side, and everyone will be fine with it. >>> I didn't get the same impression at all about this movie at all. I guess it depends on how you approach it. I thought the grandma and the chaffeur had a perfectly innocent relationship--both were interested but never acted on it. I think you're reading too much between the lines. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:06:13 -0600 From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] Sorensen, _The Evening and the Morning_ I'm sorry that I don't have time to write a real review, but I just want to put in a plug for the best book I've read all year, Virginia Sorensen's _The Evening and the Morning_. I love her style--sort of Wallace Stegner meets Virginia Woolf. I love her affection for Utah landscape. I love her ability to create several believable characters and points of view (a young girl, an older woman, a blue-collar jack Mormon who loves his wife). Just a really interesting, worthwhile read. I would like to hear comments from others who have read this book. I sensed a tone of condescension towards full believers in the gospel. It may have been more towards unquestioning believers, or those who remain loyal to the church out of fear. I'm not sure. And I'm too lazy to re-read. But I'd like to hear what the rest of you thought of Sorensen's attitude towards faith in the gospel as expressed in this book and in her life in general. (Is Kate's attitude the same as Sorensen's? Have I misunderstood?) [Darlene Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:15:18 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Free Irreantum Sample If you've never before seen a copy of IRREANTUM, the AML's literary quarterly, send me your street mailing address and we'll send you a complimentary copy of the winter 2001-2002 issue (yes, it's late, but it's finally off the press). Reply directly to me at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:11:17 -0500 From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Needle's review of "What Is Mormonism All About?" is excellent. I agree with his assessment of inaccuracies in the book. But I believe they are only inaccuracies from an empirical or academic point of view. Every statement made by W.F. Walker Johanson that Needle points out as an inaccuracy seems to me to be an authentic representation of the opinion held by a large number of mainstream Latter-day Saints. I think that most Latter-day Saint readers who are not as well-versed in comparative religions as Mr. Needle (and myself, frankly) will find "What Is Mormonism All About?" very accurate indeed. Based on Needle's review (I haven't read the book) it appears to me that "What Is Mormonism All About?" is not a good comparative religions text (something it does not purport to be any way), but it does offer a useful, accurate look into very mainstream Mormon thought on a variety of subjects. I might point out something which Needle didn't mention, but which he is no doubt aware of. A small minority of Latter-day Saints are quite knowledgeable about other religious faiths, and don't share exactly the opinions that Johanson has expressed. But most Latter-day Saints are not so knowledgeable about this topic. Average Latter-day Saints probably know more about other religions than most Americans, but this simply means they know slightly more than next to nothing. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Preston Hunter www.adherents.com - ---------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:01:57 -0700 From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: [AML] Mormon-News Query Does anyone know if Kent Larsen's Mormon-News is still up and running? I haven't received any news updates from them since April 4th. Thanks, Frank Maxwell Gilroy, California - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:41:07 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Eric Samuelson said: "Besides, to finally drag this discussion kicking and screaming back to Mormon letters, we have an instance near and dear to us all where a patron funds--and exercises control over the content of--lots and lots of art. Not meaning to criticize the Church, but how many of us really are all that fond of the institutional art that results. To the extent that Mormon culture is defined by institutional art, it's a pretty dismal lookout." To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) produce/publish good edgy mormon art. Who funds them? I haven't done the research to be able to say firmly that they are funded only by private patrons and donations and sales etc..., but I'm fairly confident that they are. (I do know that the funds for the fiction contest Sunstone runs annually are provided by a private patron of some sort) Can anyone correct me? On that note, since I'm comparing the church in our mormon arena to the STATE/NEA in the national arena,=20 (on the premise that the NEA causes to be produced a mass of work homogenous in its political correctness and that the church also produces a mass of work homogenous in its inoffensive/propaganda-like nature)=20 perhaps I should be jumping up and down with joy over the fact that the church stopped publishing fiction in its magazines and doesn't doll out grants to member artists. Perhaps the call for greater more vibrant work by Mormon artists is being answered by the church deciding to _not_ become the mormon NEA. Thus encouraging (forcing?) the members to do it on their own and therefore have a stronger more vibrant and more diverse artistic tradition down the road, one not stifled by the church as a content approving sugar daddy.=20 - -Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:53:10 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:34:11 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" writes: > If, on the other hand, our valuable tax dollars are wasted a tad > more prodigally on the Arts, what would be the result? > > Right now, theatre is an elitist activity, because the average > middle class family can't afford tickets. It's mostly New York > based, with mega hits touring to the hinterlands. But if properly > subsidized, good repertory theatre companies could flourish in every > medium sized town. (A town the size of Provo/Orem, for example, > could easily support a theatre, a ballet company, a symphony and an > opera house). Ticket prices would be modest enough that a family > could attend all such events regularly, and could have a voice in > repertoire. > > Museums would flourish, and would maintain very low admission fees, > probably with free admission to school kids. A balance between > great works of the past and of the present would be part of the > regular cultural diet of families. A child who wished to become a > musician, or an actor, or a sculptor, could actually be encouraged > in that dream. It'd be like deciding to be an attorney or a doctor, > difficult, and with considerable traning required, but a viable > profession for someone wanting also to raise a family. So how > elitist is this dream? How democratic? Ah, this reminds me of a story. A dozen years ago I went once a week to a warehouse down by the waterfront in Skedaddle, climbed 4 flights of wooden steps on the east side, sweeping as I went. When I got to the fourth floor I would clean the lunch room then do some light cleaning as I moved through the sewing factory to the south side of the building, and descend Everest as I swept my way down the stairs. (The guy who owned the building had climbed Everest and had phrases from the climb on the walls. I later saw one of the phrases in a National Geographic article, part of an exhibit about mountain climbing at the downtown library.) This building was right across the parking lot from a big round stadium where a bunch of multi-millionaires calling themselves the Mariners--despite the fact that surely none of them had ever spent time on a ship's crew (maybe on their sailboats or yachts)--played games. I attended a few games there, but only because D.I., where Donna was a supervisor, and where I worked a few times, occasionally got tickets to hand out. We couldn't have afforded tickets otherwise. When I was up in Skedaddle with my brother Dennis in October that stadium had been replaced with a larger stadium--the public funding was considerable--not so that the public could have subsidized tickets, but so that the Mariners could sell more expensive tickets. But I don't have to travel all the way to the state that has no R to find publically funded private buildings. If I ride TRAX from Sandy to downtown SLC I pass one stadium, come close to the Salt Palace, wholly publicly funded, which housed a stadium for a couple of decades, until a new one was built so that the non-Jazz playing players could make more money. And there are many other buildings between Sandy and downtown which were built with public participation, even if that participation was only something like a five-year tax exemption to lure the business into SLC. But I don't even have to travel to Salt Lake to see public funding benefitting private enterprises. If I take the 862 bus to the end of the line at the Lindon Gateway Center, I step off into a Special Improvement District which the City of Lindon bonded $2.4 million to put in, so that businesses would locate there. One reason they did this was the promise of a 16- or 22-plex movie theater and its attendant tax revenue. They were not happy when that project fell through. Other things have taken its place, but they don't generate sales tax. There is some talk of a new movie plex, but who knows. But I don't even have to go two miles to the Gateway Center to find some public moneys invested in private enterprises. I can walk 1/4 mile out to State St. then another 1/4 mile north to where I used to home teach the Youngs, and I'm standing in a Redevelopment Authority (RDA) project which includes a Smith's Grocery and Gas getter, a McD's a Blckbstr, a bank, a pizzeria, harecutter and several smaller shops. So, a question for those who object to forced support for the arts through our taxes, do you also object to public participation, through direct funding or SID bonds or tax deferrals or RDAs or other means? Why or why not? And for those who support public funding for the arts, do you also support public funding in its various forms for stadiums or buildings for other kinds of private enterprises. Why or why not? Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:53:36 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] JOHNSON, _Belief_ (Deseret News) Deseret News Friday, April 26, 2002 Leisure reading By Dennis Lythgoe 'Belief' By Stephanie Johnson St. Martin's Press, $26.95. A prolific writer for radio and stage, Johnson is a New Zealander who has just published her first book in America. This novel is set in the late 19th century, when William McQuiggan, a New Zealand farmer, has an epiphany. It causes him to leave his Australian wife and newborn twins and travel to America in search of God. Converted by Mormon missionaries, he takes his family from Auckland to Salt Lake City. Once there, Myra, his wife, is overwhelmed by both his religious zealotry and his slow mental disintegration. The lush New Zealand landscape makes a suitable background to show the hostilities and difficulties involved in relocating from beautiful, forested land to the desert of Zion. If Mormonism is not always treated accurately, it is not done with a heavy-handed anti-Mormon approach. This book should be interesting to Mormons who have spent missionary days in New Zealand. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:08:19 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LDS Cinema (SL Tribune, Deseret News) Salt Lake Tribune If You Can't Take the Heat, Write a Letter or an E-Mail Sunday, April 28, 2002 BY SEAN P. MEANS This week, our readers weigh in on LDS cinema and its critics: You quote Richard Dutcher [in your April 21 column] as saying "I don't want Mormon cinema to be Utah cinema." My question to him is: Then why do you make Mormon cinema that is Utah cinema? "Brigham City" is definitely targeted to a Mormon audience. It could have been a good movie, but its emphasis on Mormon religious observances diminishes in the eyes of many the ordinances Mormons hold dear (passing the sacrament, blessings, etc.). Also, the observances are either not understood or misunderstood by those who are not familiar with the Latter-day Saint view of the world. Indeed, the movie was classic "Utah" cinema. Had it been filmed as "Anytown U.S.A." with a generic religious population centered around a generic church organization without being so specifically "Utah" and "Mormon," it would likely have had a great appeal to the entire moviegoing population of the country. I personally dislike the idea of parading sacred Latter-day Saint ordinances across the movie screens in general-attendance movie theaters. These things are much more delicately treated in our church films. Perhaps I am a majority of one, but I have in fact heard many others express the same sentiment. -- Paul B. Winn "God's Army" is Mormon cinema, but it is not Utah cinema -- it was shot in Los Angeles, and its main character was from Kansas -- and its popularity outside of Utah (albeit largely, though not entirely, with LDS audiences) bears witness to that. Making "Brigham City" more generic may have broadened its appeal, but it would have destroyed the story. The main character, Wes Clayton (played by Dutcher), is both the sheriff and his ward's bishop -- and it is the conflict between those roles that creates the= =20 movie's tension. Making Wes a generic preacher would not have worked, because in most other churches, a minister doesn't hold down another job. I thought the LDS rites Dutcher showed illuminated Clayton's story, making it as specific to his character as a Catholic baptism did with Michael Corleone in "The Godfather" or the opening synagogue service did to the single Jewish woman in "Kissing Jessica Stein." It was unfair to quote [in your April 21 column] the single excerpt from The New York Times as representative of movie reviews of "The Other Side of Heaven." The Times' politically correct reaction is predictable and has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. -- Robb Cundick Alas, it was representative. The Rotten Tomatoes Web site=20 (www.rottentomatoes.com), a clearinghouse of movie reviews, listed a lowly 24 percent of critics -- seven out of 29 -- giving "The Other Side of Heaven" a favorable rating (and I was one of the seven). Most complained about the way the Tongans were relegated to second-class status in the film -- but others also talked about its corniness and flat characters. [In your March 10 column,] you wrote: "[Kurt] Hale told me he made 'The Singles Ward' for $400,000. That's double what the 2002 Sundance Film Festival entry 'Tadpole' cost, and it had Sigourney Weaver and Bebe Neuwirth going for it." You failed to mention that "Tadpole" was filmed on Sony HDCAM, basically a hopped-up home-video camera. So now eliminating the 35mm camera costs, 35mm film stock costs, 35mm processing=20 costs, and (since it was projected in the video format) 35mm transfer costs -- you save a few bucks right there. Maybe even the difference of the cost between "Tadpole" and "The Singles=20 Ward." Did I also mention that they were able to get around the tens of thousands of dollars in New York City permit fees and insurance fees required by those permits because they filmed on video? They were able to make their shooting look more like a tourist shooting a home video and not a movie shoot to avoid the police. Add those costs in, you well exceed the budget of "The=20 Singles Ward." Now you have at least a $1 million movie with Sigourney Weaver and Bebe Neuwirth going for it. -- John Moyer, co-writer, "The Singles Ward" "Tadpole" was shot in hi-def and Weaver deferred all of her Screen Actors Guild fees and wages, so your comparison may have still been a bit biased. Regardless, like we told your partner Jeff Vice, we're not bad guys, and we hope you'll be able to view our films in the future fairly. -- Kurt Hale, director, "The Singles Ward" So the makers of "Tadpole" took advantage of the new technology and you didn't. Boo hoo. As readers may recall, I made the comparison to "Tadpole" after "The=20 Singles Ward's" makers complained that I compared their little movie to big-budget movies. They, again, miss the point -- a movie's budget has little to do with its quality. As for Mr. Hale's comments, two points: I reviewed your first movie fairly, even if you didn't like the results; and, regarding Jeff Vice, my counterpart at the Deseret News, I quote from any number of buddy-cop movies: "We're not partners!" Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune Desret News Friday, April 26, 2002 A nightmare for Dutcher: video's cover By Chris Hicks If you go to a video store this weekend and see "Brigham City" on the shelf, notice the cover art. You might see Richard Dutcher holding a gun "Dirty Harry"- style, with co-stars Wilford Brimley and Matthew A. Brown behind him, and a faint LDS Church steeple in the upper left-hand corner, along with the theatrical poster tagline: "Nothing attracts a serpent like paradise." Or, you might see the dripping-blood title "Brigham City" above an eyeball peering out of a leather mask, and outstretched bloody fingers, along with this tagline: "Your neighbor is a serial killer. Welcome to your worst nightmare." More correctly, "Welcome to Richard Dutcher's worst nightmare." Video retailers have their choice of the two covers, but the "Dirty=20 Harry" art came only after Dutcher asked for an alternative. "Brigham City" was Dutcher's second LDS film, after writing, directing and co-starring in the surprise hit "God's Army," about Mormon missionaries in Los Angeles. "Brigham City" =97 with Dutcher in the lead role of a sheriff and LDS bishop in a small Utah town =97 is a conventional murder mystery with unconventional religious trappings. While the film's thriller components are pure Hollywood, the LDS elements, especially the ending, as the sheriff comes to terms with having to shoot someone, is about as far from "Dirty Harry" as you can get. It's a bold look at the empowerment of faith and a validation of religious beliefs, something you'll never see in a Hollywood movie. So, after selling the film's North American video rights to Spartan=20 Home Entertainment, imagine Dutcher's chagrin when he saw the box art, which looks like a cross between "Jeepers Creepers" and "The=20 Texas Chainsaw Massacre." "I laughed when I saw it, and I didn't think they were serious," Dutcher said by telephone from his Provo office. "But I did give them the right to market it as they see fit. When I signed the deal with an L.A. distribution company, I lost control over how it's marketed. Being so independent as I have been, it was kind of hard, but at same time I trusted that they would know what they were doing." Dutcher was able to talk Spartan into the second cover, which better represents the film =97 but he worries that the horror cover= "may=20 sell more copies, but the people that would enjoy this film might not rent that cover as it stands. My hope is they're right, that this is the best way to get it into as many stores as possible. "Unfortunately, the alternate cover will probably only be seen in LDS bookstores and the Jell-O belt." He also added, "I don't know =97 maybe it'll become a little cult thing =97 'Which cover do you have?' " Actually, Dutcher didn't go to Spartan =97 Spartan came to him. "That= =20 was interesting. They pursued us on this deal. They called us and wanted to make the deal. That's how the discussions were opened. I thought that was a real compliment to the film =97 a company= =20 that had absolutely no Mormans working there." (Spartan primarily releases straight-to-video exploitation thrillers= =20 starring such "actors" as Shannon Tweed and Hulk Hogan. But it does have in its catalog another film that deals with Mormons =97 the fact-based 1992 TV movie "Deliver Them From Evil: The Taking of Alta View," starring Harry Hamlin and Teri Garr in the story of Richard Worthington taking hostages at Alta View Hospital in Sandy. Spartan's video title is "Take Down," not to be confused with the 1978 comedy shot in Provo by Mormon filmmaker Kieth Merrill.) An interesting byproduct of "God's Army" and "Brigham City" is the proliferation of Mormon movies that have followed: "The Other Side of Heaven," "Out of Step" and "Singles Ward" already this year, with several more on the way. And on May 20, Dutcher starts shooting his ambitious Joseph Smith biopic, to be filmed in western New York and Canada. Of his becoming the godfather of LDS cinema, Dutcher says, "I have mixed feelings. Naturally, I have a particular vision in hopes for what Mormon filmmmaking will be, and some of these films give me anxiety. But of the other films, this little 'Out of Step' movie that hardly received any kind of release at all, I was very pleased with that. I was also very pleased with the production values of 'The Other Side of Heaven.' I think that's been a good film for the Mormon genre, the Mormon niche, just because kind of looks wonderful." But he does have a concern about the market being big enough to accommodate so many all at once. "It is kind of thrilling," Dutcher said. "When 'Out of Step' came out, I picked up the paper that day and saw that three LDS movies were playing in theaters the same weekend. But I don't understand why= =20 they all were all out in the same market at the same time; three films fighting for the same audience. I'd prefer to see one come out after another. That's one thing I think the Mormon film community will have to learn, to be cooperative and not competitive." Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:24:58 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art > > I do object to government supported crosses dipped in Urine, If the artist is saying, in such a piece, that, in his opinion, Christianity has failed modern man, isn't that an opinion we should respect? (And one with which we agree, being the Restored Gospel, after all). Believing Christians have pictures of a bleeding Christ on a cross and don't find them offensive. Is the difference in bodily fluids that is offensive? I wrote a one-act once in which Santa Claus was an alcoholic, having lost faith in humanity. Was I saying that Christmas as an institution is horrible? Was I even saying that I personally don't like Christmas? No, I was saying that there are aspects of Christmas which, if not checked, can make it a less than wonderful holiday? I would have been offended if someone, seeing this play, had thought that I was perhaps anti-Christmas? And even if I were, shouldn't I have the right to express that? Yes. But should I expect the government to pay me money to say it? By all means, especially if it's an unpopular view. Today's unpopular views have a tendency to become tomorrow's orthodoxy. Those that don't die off and become an interesting footnote in history. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #695 ******************************