From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #884 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, November 5 2002 Volume 01 : Number 884 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 01:48:58 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Book of Mormon movie (DN) Deseret News Friday, November 1, 2002 Book of Mormon coming to silver screen Filmmakers plan a series of adaptations of the book's stories By Jeff Vice Deseret News movie critic If all goes as planned, the recent spate of Mormon movies may be joined in theaters next year by _the_ Mormon movie. Filmmakers held a press conference Tuesday to announce the start of production on "The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume 1," the first of a series of ambitious feature-film adaptations of stories from the book of scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But don't look for movie stars to play the leads, filmmaker Gary Rogers says. "I think a celebrity would actually detract," Rogers said. "Tom Cruise playing Nephi or Jack Nicholson playing Lehi just wouldn't work. They bring too much baggage with them, not to mention their enormous price tag. "The Book of Mormon is the draw here, not the actors." Rogers, a veteran in the television industry, has written a script and will direct the first movie, which he said was inspired by Cecil B. De Mille's Oscar-winning 1956 version of "The Ten Commandments." "Stories found throughout the Book of Mormon are among the greatest stories ever told," Rogers said. "Now for the first time, you will be able to see these great stories come to life in an epic, multimillion-dollar motion picture on the silver screen." Rogers said his objective is to not only produce a film that is "true to the book," but one that also has "great entertainment value" and will leave the viewer with a profound desire to read the source material. It will be the first "volume" in a series of movies that will cover events recorded in the books of Nephi. Still, he acknowledged that it is a risky venture. "Several people have said to me that this is career suicide; 12 million people have read the book and already have a film in mind." But, he added, "Just as many people have told me that they have been waiting their whole life for this movie." The funding for the production is already in place. Rogers, the founder of International Television Productions, recently sold that company to devote his attention full time to producing "The Book of Mormon Movie." He has also recruited independent financing. In addition to announcing the production, Rogers held the news conference to announce an open casting session for the movie in the Salt Lake Hilton Hotel on Saturday from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Casting requirements can be found on Rogers' Web site at www.bookofmormonmovie.com or by calling 557-3515. The score for the film will be composed by Robert C. Bowden, former musical director of the Mormon Youth Symphony and Chorus and former associate conductor of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Plans are for Bowden to conduct the London Symphony Orchestra for the film's soundtrack, the same orchestra used by Oscar-winning composer John Williams for the "Star Wars" scores. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Broadband?=A0Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.=20 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 23:59:00 -0600 From: LDS Film Festival 2002 (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] LDS Film Festival Program & Finalists MAILBOX NEWSLETTER #8/2002 http://www.ldsbox.com feedback@ldsbox.com GET READY FOR THE 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002 NOVEMBER 13-16 | PROVO CITY LIBRARY IN THIS ISSUE: 1. FESTIVAL PROGRAM PROMISES BIGGEST LDS FILM EVENT IN HISTORY 2. GET READY FOR THE 24-HOUR-INSTANT-FILMMAKING MARATHON 3. FINALISTS FOR FILM AND SCREENPLAY COMPETITION SELECTED 4. PRE-FESTIVAL SCREENINGS THIS WEEK AT BYU IDAHO - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FESTIVAL PROGRAM PROMISES BIGGEST LDS FILM EVENT IN HISTORY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002 will take place November 13-16 at the historic Provo City Library. The festival program includes screenings of over 50 short films and documentaries, many Q&A's with the filmmakers, a dozen FILMMAKER'S PRESENTATIONS and workshops, a 24-HOUR-INSTANT-FILMMAKING-MARATHON, an LDS FILM FORUM with presentations by LDS scholars and a panel discussion. This is the biggest LDS film event in history. Don't miss it! Invited guests include Kurt Hale and Dave Hunter ("Singles Ward," "The RM"), Adam Anderegg and Micah Merrill ("Charly"), Lee B. Groberg ("Sacred Stone: The Temple at Nauvoo"), Dean Hale (Distributor of "God's Army," "The Other Side of Heaven"), Ryan Little ("Out of Step"), Gary Rogers ("Book of Mormon Movie"), Nathan Smith Jones ("The Work and the Story"), and many, many more. The theme of the 2ND LDS FILM FORUM is "Fantasy and Reality in LDS Media." Five presenters have been invited to discuss the roles of reality and fantasy in LDS media past, present, and future. The presentations are followed by a panel discussion about "The LDS Cinematic Audience." The panel examines the nature of the LDS film audience: exactly who and where they are, what it is that they "want," and what further steps may be necessary to truly establish an audience and, therefore, an identity for "LDS cinema." For an outline of the festival program go to: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/program2002.php - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. GET READY FOR THE 24-HOUR-INSTANT-FILMMAKING MARATHON - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The LDS FILM FESTIVAL is launching its first 24-HOUR-INSTANT-FILMMAKING MARATHON. Get together with a group of friends and be part of this exhilarating competition. We have slightly changed the time and date for this event. On Wednesday, November 13, at 10.30 a.m. you will receive a theme for a short film, and on Thursday, November 14, no later than 10.30 a.m. you hand in your finished film. That same evening your film will be screened and judged at the 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL. You will be allowed to use any equipment of your choice. You have only 24 hours to write, shoot and edit your film. Your finished film can be no longer than 5 minutes. No more than five people (cast and crew) per group will be allowed to take part. All films must be completely original. The entry fee is $ 20.00 per participating group. All participants contribute to the prize money that will be awarded to the winner of the 24-HOUR-INSTANT-FILMMAKING-MARATHON. The best film will also be part of the "BEST OF 2002" program and tour around the world. This is your chance to become an accomplished filmmaker in 24-hours... More rules and regulations regarding the 24-HOUR-INSTANT-FILMMAKING-MARATHON will be announced shortly. Please email us at feedback@ldsbox.com, if you are interested in participating. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. FINALISTS FOR FILM AND SCREENPLAY COMPETITION SELECTED - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 short films have been selected as finalists for the 2ND LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2002. Four competition programs including the long awaited Female Filmmakers program will be screened during the festival. The very best films will be selected by both a jury and the audience for the "BEST OF 2002" program, which will be screened on Saturday, November 16. The screenplay competition will now be divided into two separate competitions - a short scripts competition and a feature scripts competition. Due to a generous donation by R. Don Oscarson we were able to raise the awards money to $ 2,600.00. Don is a strong supporter of young LDS artists. We were overwhelmed by this year's entries in both the screenplay and film competition. The selection of the finalists was not an easy task. Some films barely didn't make it into the festival due to time and space constraints. We encourage everyone to keep making films that matter. To view the finalists for this year's festival competition, click on one of the following links: Film Finalists 2002: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/finalist1.php Short Script Finalists 2002: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/finalist2.php Feature Script Finalists 2002: http://www.ldsbox.com/cgi-bin/finalist3.php - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PRE-FESTIVAL SCREENINGS THIS WEEK AT BYU IDAHO - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On invitation of the theatre department, the LDS Film Festival will visit BYU-Idaho November 8 and 9 to present finalists of this year's and last year's festival program. Two 2-hour screenings are scheduled. Additionally, workshops and presentations are planned for Saturday, November 9. Participating filmmakers are Bryan Lefler (USA), Andrew Black (Scotland), Jason Faller (Canada), Jason Conforto (USA), Magnus Henriksen (Norway) and Christian Vuissa (Austria). They will answer audience questions and prepare workshops and presentations for those interested in the filmmaking process. You either signed up for our newsletter or were recommended to us by a friend. If you would like to unsubscribe from future LDSBOX mailings, simply reply to this message with the word REMOVE in the subject line. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:28:46 -0500 From: Kimheuston@aol.com Subject: [AML] Epiphanies Greetings, friends. I am writing a novel about Dante's daughter and in the course of my wanderings have found many references to moments of grace during which an individual glimpses the workings of the world and has a sense that all is well. Reynolds Price, C. S. Lewis, Thomas Merton and many others seem to have experienced episodes like this. Have any of you? Or do you know of someone who as who might be willing to explore it with me? Thanks. Kimberley Heuston - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:15:27 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: RE: [AML] Teaching at BYU Fred Pinnegar said: "I didn't say that BYU was open. My point was that the concept of academic freedom is an illusion. The state school serves the interests of the state, and the church school serves the interests of the church." I started this whole thread with my comments about BYU in regards to Mormon culture likes and dislikes. I commented in that thread that I felt that BYU was governed by a sense of fear. I maintain that it is. And in response to Fred's comment (above), I would absolutely agree. My problem is that I don't believe that BYU serves the real interests of the church. I think that too many professors and too many students perceive the interests of the church to be retaining people in membership and that this is accomplished by refusing to explore ideas or theories that could threaten someone's testimony--by avoiding the "dangerous" territories of secular learning. Yes, feminism is taught at BYU. so is Marxism, psychoanalytic theory, reader response theory, deconstruction, structuralism, and most any "ism" you can think of (I'm talking about the English departmet since that is where my experience was and since that is what Fred discussed in some of his posts). There are some "isms" that are avoided (like queer theory, which, contrary to some people's opinions, has a lot ot offer other than support for homosexuality). Although these controversial ideas are discussed, I don't think they are discussed fully (I'm speaking from my own experience here--both at BYU and at other schools). I think that there are parts that are left untouched. there are texts, both theoretical and literary, that are not taught because their subject matter is not acceptable. I find that problematic. And I find that contrary to the interests of the church. We are supposed to seek after things that are beautiful. But we are also supposed to seek after things that are true. Sometimes truth brings with it ugliness. There is no avoiding that. And I think understanding truth, even with its sometimes dark underbelly, helps us understand the world and the Gospel better. I find avoidance of certain ideas because of a fear of causing a student to question the gospel too closely or in such a way that they may walk away from it to be contrary to the interests of the church. We are taught in the NT that fear and love cannot coexist. If BYU were truly in line with the interests of the church, the students and the faculty there would not fear loss of testimony. they would understand that all truth can withstand questioning. and that there are truths other than those we normally associate with the gospel that we whould pursue. John Remy had some questions. first "Must one be an active, temple-recommend wielding member to teach at BYU? Are there examples of non-LDS tenured professors at BYU? (I honestly don't know.)" There are examples of non-LDS tenured professors at BYU. One of my best friends is one of them. But if you are a member of the church and are teaching at BYU, you are to have a current temple recommend or (if unendowed) be worthy to have one. This is actually connected to one of my objections to BYU as an institution. I've looked at their application to teach (I was looking into teaching in their freshman comp program while I was waiting to go back to grad school). They seem to care far more about "worthiness" than about qualifications to teach. The vast majority of their application was about whether or not I am a temple recommend holding, active member of the church than about my experience teaching, my education, etc., etc. For an institution of higher education (regardless of whether it be a private, religious institution or a state-sponsored school), I find that reprehensible. These two qualities should at the very least be equal. I personally feel that even in a religious institution one's professional qualifications are more important than one's religious qualifications. Here's John again: "Also, are there differences for how tenure works at BYU and in public universities? I am assuming that the concept of tenure is to protect the professor's job while allowing them academic freedom. Can you be fired for publishing opinions/reasearch that the Church might leadership frown upon (or does losing a temple recommend result in the loss of a tenured position)?" yes, a BYU professor can be terminated for expressing opinions that are allegedly contrary to teachings or opinions of the church. There is lots of wiggle room there. I can think of a lot of different opinions that are perhaps not acceptable to some church leaders but that could be expressed without causing a professor to lose his or her job. But there are certain hot topics that would probably lead to termination (and i think they are probably very politically motivated, too). There are also instances where leaders objected to the content of creative works which led to termination of professors' jobs. Of course, I'm not party to the committees who make such decisions and all of my information is based on heresay so perhaps I'm wrong. But I do know that professors can lose their jobs for things they have said or written that are contrary to the church. and i do believe that losing a temple recommend can result in losing a tenured position. John again: "Can professors be fired from secular universities for similar ideological reasons?" In theory, no. In theory, a professor at a state school, for instance, can write and say just about anything they want to without risking their job. they might make things uncomfortable for themselves, but usually they won't lose their jobs. There are probably ways around this and I'm sure it's happened, but I think it's more difficult than it would be at BYU. At BYU, the powers that be are the powers that be. There's no getting around that. Public institutions are a little more evenly keeled than that. One day while I was an undergrad at BYU, I ran into an acquaintance in the CougarEat. We had a lit class together that semester and she and I started talking. I had applied to grad school and she was asking about my plans. she asked if i would ever teach at BYU. I told her no and, when she asked why, I said that I didn't want my spirituality to become political. Her response was to make my politics spiritual. It made me mad because it was so flippant and it assumed that I was not letting my spirituality affect all areas of my life. I honestly don't want my spirituality to become political, although my politics are most definitely influenced by my spiritual beliefs. One of the things I value most about Mormonism is that it allows me to be the final authority on my spiritual well-being. I am taught principles and then left to live my life in accordance with them to the best of my ability. the very last question we're asked when we go to a temple recommend interview is whether we consider ourselves worthy to enter the house of the lord. i think it's the most important question we're ever asked about our spirituality. I object to anyone, no matter who they are, applying a pat definition of what is or is not spiritual to my spiritual life. I will not let my employment be in any way determined by such a situation. I find it utterly unaccaptable and not in line with the principles or the interests of the church. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:32:12 -0800 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call If that's the case, I bought a bootleg copy of 'Legacy' at my local LDS bookstore. ;-) The video has been out for some time, so if there were problems, they were resolved. However, I can't think what the problems would be specifically. Usually a SAG actor gets paid for the job and that's it unless residuals have been previously negotiated to my knowledge. I think that's an ongoing fight SAG has with securing rights concerning videos. I would also guess the Church tends to be careful about things being hammered out before shooting starts to avoid such entanglements, but I have no personal knowledge concerning 'Legacy' so someone who actually knows would have to address that issue. I would also tend to agree with Thom on the whole project probably being underfunded, ergo greatly impacting the probable quality of the finished product. Which might bring us back to the question of how to get decent funding for "Mormon Cinema" if we hope to watch it grow and improve. I understand Peter's frustrations with unions, but since it's an industry town out here, we just accept that they are part of the process. I can't remember however, ever seeing a union rep on set telling a writer or director what to do, or demanding certain conditions be met and sometimes I wish that had been the case, especially where children on set are concerned. They get to pay the same union dues the adult actors do. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:58:21 -0600 From: "Kumiko" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] More Mormon Movies Andrew Hall: >Mary Jane Jones, Richard Dutcher, Preston, can you correct any of my figures? The table you presented is mostly correct, although a few items could be updated... Notably, the final box office figure for "Brigham City" was $905,073. The best budget estimate I have for Brigham City is $900,000. It is not our intention that this data be difficult to obtain. Andrew may have missed the LDSFilm.com summary page for box office gross and budget data, located at: http://www.ldsfilm.com/lds_box.html Some of your other budget figures are close, but could be improved slightly. Most of the budget figures you see for LDS-themed feature films on the page at http://www.ldsfilm.com/lds_box.html were given to us directly by the producers. For some of these we have breakdowns for production budget vs. P & A (prints and advertising). We update this page each Monday evening or Tuesday when new data is available from EDI. Preston - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:42:51 -0800 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Single Bishops/Novel Fantasies How very much I would like to see that scene too. Or a scene where the battered spouse or children refuse to sustain him. Or the emotionally abused spouse of a control freak shakily raises their hand. Or the people cheated by this person in business dealings. I'd like to see these things perhaps with all my heart. Or any number of scenarios. Or perhaps at some point where everyone in the congregation can think of something they have done as well, harrowed up in their own memories of the things they have done and should not have or worse, the things they should have and did not. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:52:23 -0500 From: "Jim Cobabe" Subject: [AML] Re: Single Bishops An alternative scenario, freely adapted from an earlier screenplay-- A Stake President offers a woman to be sustained as the stake Relief Society President. Many in the congregation are aware that she habitually treats her husband and her children in a harsh and abusive manner. It can hardly be a secret when her raging screams are heard thoughout the neighborhood on so many late nights. Notwithstanding this, hands are raised in unanimous agreement. "Any opposed?" Silence. The Stake President quickly finishes his business. As the meeting closes, the woman is all smiles. She's been through this kind of thing before, many times, and is pleased that her popularity will so effectively cover a multitude of sins. Of course, everyone knows that women are never abusers of children. Jim Cobabe jcobabe@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/~jcobabe When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor= =20 less. _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.=A0 Join now!=20 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 01:05:33 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] SAMUELSEN: _Peculiarities_ (Review) As it turns out, our humble moderator altered the heading I first sent in with my original post, which listed "(review...sort of)" in the subject line. I didn't really write a review so much as a reader response piece, an attempt to figure out what I thought of Eric's play by writing it down (an exercise that didn't really succeed in that primary purpose, btw; I still don't quite know what I think of the play). Ben Christensen wrote: > I also enjoyed the universality of _Peculiarities_. I've never gotten > married and divorced over the weekend only so I could have sex, I've never > been a 23-year-old girl despairing because I'm not yet married, I've never > had NCMO with anyone, and I've never been in a near-adulterous situation, > but I could still relate to the emotions portrayed. In that sense, the play > was very real to me. My brother, who is a very-much-not-sexually-repressed > atheist, also saw the play and identified with the emotions of the > characters--particularly the loneliness and the feeling of being manipulated > by someone else. I didn't see the universality of it. Specific reality, perhaps; but I didn't see universality. Different strokes, I guess. As it turns out I've experienced a number of NCMOs (without the self-loathing or ugly codependence), had considered the Tahoe idea (but never found a partner willing or cynical enough to spring it on; ah the difficulties of being an unattractive man at BYU), left BYU as a single man with the realization that I would probably die a virgin (while I came to accept the fact, I can't claim that I was ever at peace with it), and have felt enormous guilt for reaching a level of deep emotional intimacy (though never physical intimacy) with a woman who was not my wife. Theoretically I'm four-for-four in either direct or near experience with each of the vignettes. Yet I still felt ambivalent at the end. Not angry. Not attacked or marginalized or misunderstood. Just unengaged. Eric says he didn't want to either ask or answer questions with _Peculiarities,_ that all he wanted to do was depict the very real situations he saw every day. That was his choice as an author, but I still have the right to ask why he chose to only depict rather than expand. The result of his absolutely legitimate artistic choice was my ambivalence as an individual viewer. I can't argue whether he should have done it differently, but I can offer my own viewpoint on how effective the result was for me. I suppose this is one of those fundamental questions of the purposes for story. Some say that a story should be more than a mirror of reality, that it should create a framework for thoughtful consideration that reality often fails to give us and thus should act as a sort of super-experience. Some say all stories present a viewpoint--aka an argument--even if that viewpoint is that the world is absurd or that meaning can only be found in the mind of the reader/viewer. Some say that any attempt to impose either an argument or an interpretation on a story is to manipulate events to become little more than propoganda or artistically wrought polemic. If I had to pick a camp for myself, I guess it would be the middle one--that every story intends to communicate a viewpoint; now the question is how well that viewpoint is presented, and how honestly and elegantly it's delivered. For me as a single, non-representative viewer, my reaction was that I thought the play was honestly and elegantly delivered, but that I wasn't sure what viewpoint it was offering. To my mind the play offered no viewpoint; it merely illustrated some kinds of true relationships with style and wit and snappy dialog. As I've thought about it I guess my disappointment comes because I feel like Eric pulled his punches in _Peculiarities,_ and I'm not sure why. I've come to expect Eric's stories to aggressively pursue a specific question. I listened to a staged reading of his play-in-progress, _Mount Verson,_ three days prior to seeing _Peculiarities_ and was treated to a vigorous argument about the politics of racial equity that had me squirming in my seat for over an hour and questioning all my own assumptions. _Gadianton_ directly questioned the morality of certain kinds of business decisions, and _Singled Out_ asked some very pointed questions about how people in an allegedly enlightened culture (mis)treat each other. So the lack of pointed questions (for me, at least) was a fairly strong jarring of my expectations and I couldn't help but wonder why he chose such a different mode of presentation here. There's nothing wrong with that; every artist grows and changes and experiments. But where I came in expecting a difficult exploration of causes and effects and results, I saw instead four vignettes related by theme but otherwise making few arguments for or against anything (other than depicting four sad and at least partially damaged couples). I expected something different than I got. What I got was well done, but dissatisfying to me as an individual consumer. Not a criticism of either craft or craftsman; just one viewer's observations offered as counterpoint to the numerous positive reviews he's gotten here on this list. One point of loyal dissent, as it were. > Obviously, not everyone will identify with the play, but > the affected audience extends far beyond sexually repressed single BYU > students. I admit freely that part of the reason I wrote my review was to troll for responses. I want people to argue, to tell me that I missed the very obvious questions Eric explored--then tell me in clear terms what those questions were so I can rethink my response. I like, admire, and respect Eric as both a person and an artist. But he missed me on this one. I'm looking for excuses to change my ambivalence to embarrassed recognition (doh! it was so *obvious*) followed by profuse apology. Otherwise, I wrote to ask some general questions--and hear the answers. Thank you for your response. I hope others will add their bits as well. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:00:49 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] More Mormon Movies Andrew Hall wrote: > What do you film-type people think? Which [Book of Mormon film] do you have > higher expectations for? I expect to puke at both of them. Neither sounds like it will be anything like how I think a Book of Mormon movie should be. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:21:53 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Single Bishops Kathy Fowkes wrote: > Sordid details of reality. This post kind of stayed with me until I saw this > scene in my mind that I would like *very much* to see in an LDS novel. A > Stake President offers a man to be sustained as the new bishop of a ward. > Hands go up in agreement. "Any opposed?" And first one, then a second hand > goes up, slowly, then more determinedly in the first rows of the middle > section. The hands belong to the new 'bishop''s teenage daughters. [etc.] I absolutely love this scene. I'm storing it in my psyche, and in about three weeks, I'll have completely forgotten its origin and start believing it was original with me. Then I'll be able to write it into a novel and you'll get your wish. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:56:37 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Generalizing from Experience It is my understanding that history has been being rewritten by the victors since time began. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- > > Did the governments of the world come up with the ideas to rewrite history > promoting their own versions of the story, or did Orwell give them the idea? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:28:29 EST From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: Re: [AML] Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call Why do we even need this movie? This thread and the parallel whining on the list about the lack of popular response from members of the Church to movies/books/plays that are more "difficult" convince me that what we are really up against is a general illiteracy of our greater society. Sadly, I think there is a fairly large group of people who do wish that instead of being asked to read the Book of Mormon they could watch the video. (Even though BOM is accessible to a 4th grade reading level) I don't see this as a problem affecting just church members. Mormons are not uniquely disinclined to read. I'm not certain that we can ever obtain a society where the majority want to read anything (a mystery, a romance), never mind wanting to read something challenging. The idea of alternative publishing options is a bright hope to obtaining copies of works of art that may not be popular enough to interest a mainstream publisher. In the meantime I make a living writing a terrific newsletter for a commercial property management company. On a personal LDS note, I can see even the worst BOM movie being praised in Sunday School as having "made me finally have a testimony of the Book of Mormon." (It's already been done with cartoon videos for children but most adults feel a little embarrassed confessing that what they know about he BOM they learned watching their child's video.) Cathryn Lane - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:08:58 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Teaching at BYU >There are two non-LDS full professors in the psychology department. I >believe that non-LDS faculty are held to pretty much the same >standards as >the rest of the faculty. Not exactly. They don't have to pay tithing or hold a temple recommend. In fact, they don't have to attend Church at all. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:31:21 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] More Mormon Movies Andrew asked a great question: >What do you film-type people think? Which one do you have >higher expectations for? Looking at the people involved, the >Voice from the Dust project looks like it will be more >professional. Neither group strikes me as particularly >creative, however. To me, this is a very easy question. Neil Newell is a fine writer. Peter = Johnson is a respected professional director. Reed Smoot is a superb DP. = That team has a chance to make a very interesting film. Given the names = attached, I suspect that it will be fairly traditionally Hollywood in = approach, but it should look great, and the story has a chance to be told = engagingly. =20 The Gary Rogers team has, as far as I can see, nothing to recommend it. = I'd love to proven wrong; maybe Gary Rogers is Peter Jackson and we've = just never known it. But it seems to me likely to be embarrassingly = amateurish. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:30:07 -0700 From: "Jim and Laurel" Subject: [AML] AML Conference Question I did not get to the conference till after lunch, but got an email from a friend this morning asking me "what were the names of the two people who spoke about submitting to Bookcraft and another LDS publisher" (she couldn't remember the name of it, but it wasn't Horizon.) If that question makes sense, can anyone that was there during lunch fill me in so I can get back to her? Thanks! Laurel Brady - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:26:33 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Y'All Need to Get Out More Hello Everyone, I wanted to post and say first, how terrific it was to meet so many of you at the writer's conference on Saturday, and put faces to names in the flesh. We had a small but fun dinner Friday night at Sizzler. (I *am* sorry about the late notice on that.) Thank you for inviting me to come out. It was very cool to actually attend. It's been a LONG time since I visited Utah. I've lived in Missouri for ten years, and my last very short trip out to the West was four years ago. It was very interesting to me--as somewhat of an "outsider"--to listen to some of the things Eric and Jeff had to say in their discussion group on Art and Audience. As I sat and pondered on what they were both saying, an idea percolated that I hope I can put into words properly. First, the way they both described some of Mormon culture seemed to fit the basic description of a dysfunctional family. . . . Something that is full of past secrets nobody wants to talk about. Present secrets and sins nobody wants discovered. An attitude of covering up and wanting to "always look our best." A fear of being found out for less than perfect. Are we, indeed, suffering from a cultural dysfunction that needs to be healed? Can we, as artists, faciliate that process, and how? I think the answer is yes, by being honest about ourselves. To get to the subject line of this post. . . (I didn't want to speak up too much Saturday since I'd pretty much used up my word quota.) As Jeff talked about his surprisingly wonderful time at an Evangelical Christian service (BTW, I'd have given a LOT to have been there, very cool), I remembered having a similar spiritually uplifting experience at my sister-in-law's worship service in Seattle. And also being surprised by the beautiful spirit there. Then realizing that duh, of course we don't have a monopoly on the Spirit. And man, we could use a little of the sincerity and honest WORSHIP in our meetings that they have. There is a basic difference between Them and Us. In my opinion, they exhibit a willingness to be humble enough to admit that we're all sinners, that we *are* in need of God's grace, and our desperate need for the Savior to heal us--things we do not openly show one another too often. The discussion went from there to Eric's admitting, yes, he would be worried what non-members might think of a play such as his Peculiarities, even though the non-member response to LaBute's "Bash" was not the half-expected "Oh, all Mormons are gay bashers" but a more thoughtful, "I wonder what's inside me," introspective type of response. I think you'd be surprised what non-members actually think of us. It's much more positive and encouraging than you know. I think Utahns oughta leave the state more often to find this out. Work outside Utah for at least a five-year stint Abroad--as in, some other state in the Union (and no, Idaho doesn't count--take a risk.) No, your 2-year mission doesn't count. Regular work. (And while you're at it, stop calling Every-Location-But-Utah "the mission field." That alone is a very excluding term, isn't it, and hardly accurate??) Now, I'm not offended in the least by any of this stuff--I just think it's funny. As in weird *and* humorous. I have lived in that "mission field" my entire life except for four years attending BYU. Most of my friends growing up were not Mormons, and I still have several close friends who are of other faiths. Let me just say that getting to know our dear 'Gentile' friends simply for who they are (unlike Jeff's Amway friend: as prospective distributors, giving up when the prospects don't come around to our way of thinking) is a marvelous blessing. Y'all should try it. Here's a heretical idea. Make some nonmember friends without involving the missionaries. Just to be friends. Get to know each other. I'm recommending this, along with my subject line, because I think that many of us--even out here in that great big "mission field"--don't socialize enough with others to understand in even a miniscule way what those others really think of us. They are much less harsh than you might think. The friends I know, anyway. It's very good, Out There, for us right now. It is my hope that in the near future we LDS artists will be able to bag the agenda completely (of looking good, worrying about being good missionaries) and be allowed by the production and publishing companies in Utah *and* New York, to tell true stories--things as they really are--without being either anti-Mormon expose's or whitewashed sweetness. I've heard the comment from more than one non-member who said they "didn't think they could be *that* good." If we debunk the myth--that we're so much better behaved than all the other good people in the world--and that IS a myth--how much *more* honest good might we be able to do? I hope to see more movies like Brigham City. I hope to see more art of all mediums where Mormons are presented in an accurate light. I'm tired of inaccurate portrayals. I could probably write a Catholic character in confession and get it darn close to accurate, though I've never been Catholic, because of the very familiarity with the customs and trappings of Catholicism. I'd like to see enough saturation of Mormon characters everywhere that a non-LDS writer could actually get us straight. Wouldn't that be great? Some viewers worried over scenes in Dutcher's work that show a baptism or a priesthood blessing--as in, "what will people think?" Not me. This is silly. What will they think? They'll think, "So *this* is what Mormons do." Why *not* represent a fictional sacrament meeting? If we show these things more often, more openly, we will not be such a mystery. That pointless mysteriousness is what leads people to think we're a cult rather than a religion. They'll learn, "Sacrament, that's like Communion, right?" Right. And, "So that's how you baptize people. Okay, I get it." Right again. Without having the pressure of a missionary at their side saying "So. . . how did you like the service?" Worrying about what people will think is pointless. Just write and be true. Good things will happen if we do. I'm sure of it. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo/linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #884 ******************************