From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #888 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, November 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 888 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:34:17 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call ___ Eric ___ | It's silly to say that Hollywood's preference for attractive | people isn't sexist. ___ If it applies to both sexes then it isn't sexist. It might be wrong. It is discrimination. But it isn't sexist. Call me the semantics police. ___ Eric ___ | And it looks as though this Book of Mormon film is buying into | that, the most infuriating part of popular culture, this all | out sexualization of women even in the most absurd contexts. | Why not, instead, show some interesting, diverse faces and body | types? ___ Because you are one of the few people who prefer looking at unattractive people in movies. Since the point of a movie is to make money, attractive actors is paramount. You may not like this fact of society, but it seems odd to criticize film makers for making movies people want to watch. Often the line for profitability is difficult to reach as is. Things like this are needed. Unless you have 10 million you want to give the film makers to make the film your way and let profits be darned. ___ Eric ___ | As for what the characters in the Book of Mormon looked like, | we know that, don't we? Or at least we have two choices. They | looked like the native peoples of the Yucatan peninsula. Or, | they were distinctly and clearly Semitic. So why is this being | cast in SLC, instead of southern Mexico? Or Tel Aviv? ___ As I said, films don't typically focus on how authentic characters look. Unless the audience expects a certain appearance, film makers will make characters look basically like the target audience. They do all sorts of things like this. Ever notice the standard policy of making "foreign languages" be all spoken with a British accent? They almost never make the accent sound like the real accent unless it is an accent spoken in English. Films take corners like this all the time. Phone calls, for instance, are highly stylized and many aspects of film seem to borrow from phenomena in dreams. But the point is, "Who Cares?" Did it bother you that the characters in _Gladiator_ didn't look particularly Italian? ___ Eric ___ | When it comes to making a movie about the Book of Mormon, I | just have two words to say: Battlefield Earth. ___ There's some truth to this. I think it is impossible to make a good movie of the Book of Mormon because there is too much there. Perhaps a story of Nephi coming to America. Or a story of Ammon. Perhaps even a story of Moroni. But the whole thing? What's the point? [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:42:01 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Generalizing from Experience ___ Robert ___ | The archetypal example of governments attempting to | rewrite history comes from 1953 (3 years after | Orwell's death). ___ It isn't just the winners who rewrite history though, the famous quote notwithstanding. Often the losers rewrite their history or at least write it in a fashion that justifies their existence. Josephus' history, while not a formal rewriting of the kind Orwell suggests, is certainly a rewriting to the Romans to try and justify the Jews after the end of the revolt. (Josephus was part of a group who, when defeated by Roman troops, was supposed to have committed suicide. Everyone but he did) One could argue that to a degree our own history is "rewritten" or at least presented with a lot of spin-doctoring. And that was because of our "losing." First in Missouri and then in the 1890's in Utah. Compare the histories that usually get told about us with the more careful histories. A lot gets left out or at least de-emphasized. An even better example was some of the recent "re-writing" of Canadian history regarding Indian affairs of the 19th century. Many sections were blacked out for political correctness. Who were the winners and who were the losers in this case? What about the efforts of some groups to portray all Indian tribes as peaceful and very environmental? Certainly revisionist history by the losers. Note that I'm not saying that revisionist history is always bad or good. However it tends to be done across the board and not simply by the winners. I think people get upset because people in positions of power often get to influence others more with their histories. However lines of power are difficult things to pin down. What sometimes appears the weaker position of power isn't always. Look at how whispering campaigns can often destroy people in positions of power. Anyway, getting back to the original point. Rather than saying history is constantly being rewritten by the victors we might rather say history is constantly being rewritten by everyone. Rewriting history is simply a different way of trying to spin doctor what you want. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:20:06 -0800 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] The Role of the Reader I've read Michael's excellent manuscript, and he's right-It's not the same old feel good Mormon novel. It makes you think! And without dissing the Church, just some of the people that claim membership in it. The preaching here would really shake some people down to their support hose and then some. Publishers take note. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #888 ******************************