From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #963 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, February 3 2003 Volume 01 : Number 963 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:35:05 -0700 From: "Eric Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Richard Dutcher said, "I did not recognize these caricatures as any Mormons that I have ever known. And, yes, I was in a singles ward for three years. Some of the movie "Mormons" may have dressed the same, but aside than that, they were aliens to me." There may be problems with various aspects of the film, but it's certainly us. Aside from general Mormon jokes, here's just a few things I saw in The Single's Ward that I also saw in the BYU 183rd ward in the last year. And in some cases, such as Cami, the proximity to the real life appears unintentional on the filmmaker's part. Girls making scrapbooks for every little thing that happens. Ward activities committee calling everyone to try to do something in the talent show. No one showing up for an Elder's quorum service project. People doing all sorts of things to get someone to come to an activity. Geeky guys who won't stop going after every girl around. People getting engaged in less than a month after they meet. Sports metaphors in church lessons. Gross stuff at Break the Fast gatherings. People trying to get people to sign up for a service project. People breaking into their own apartment. (Frequently) Girls marking up their ward directories. People pretending to be excited at another's undesirable mission call. Roommates being mad and acting rude toward someone their roommate is mad at. Stupid games devised to ask people out. A hundred people squished into one apartment to watch a movie. (Frequently) An Elder's Quorum President letting it known that he is president. People offended by God's Army. People being offended by any jokes about Mormons. (Including The Single's Ward) Girls crying about how much they love their roommates in testimony meeting. Girls, who think they're spiritual, actually being prissy and jerky. Girls, who think they're spiritual, going after a less active guy just because he's good looking. Girls, who think they're spiritual, getting uptight about Mormon jokes. Girls, who think they're spiritual, talking about how much the Lord NEEDS them in the mission field. Girls, who think they're spiritual, making guys wait for them until they get home from their mission. The only thing from The Single's Ward I've never seen, actually, is guys with mission pictures of them on the pot. :) Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:48:26 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Black History Fireside You know, I really love Eric Samuelson. Even though he consistently identifies _Standing on the Promises_ as _Children of the Promise_ (which Dean Hughes wrote). Seriously, Eric and I have an eternal and precious friendship--and I promise, Eric, that I will have _Mount Vernon_ finished by the time I return from Chicago. The points Eric raises in his post are exactly what I've been thinking--though I go beyond where he does because I'm more radical than he is. However, I need to see my son's science fair now, and so cannot respond more than this. Thank you, Eric. I have really enjoyed what I've read of your play and look forward to finishing it. For the rest of you AML folks, Darius, my foster son and I are headed to Chicago tomorrow for 10 days of firesides and presentations to folks there and in the suburbs. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:07:34 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Susan M: > (A rated R movie at the campus theatre? Does BYU edit movies, or something?) > > They used to, back in the old days (i.e., until 1998). Then they found out that, whoops, they didn't actually have permission to be doing it after all, so they stopped. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:46:01 -0700 From: Knudsen family Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Dutcher's in the video. His scene was the one on screen when I began the video where I left off with my UVSC folklore course. I have tons to say about the good aspects of this movie, but I'm afraid I'd be asked to leave the list. I will say that I think this fairly well represents LDS Singles culture, all the good, bad, and ugly in a very condensed piece. I'm a fan. I laugh and laugh. So what, what's wrong with light and fluffy and sophomoric at times? I read an article in the Deseret News stating (not quoting) that many of those of the Greek heritage from Greece were embarrassed with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," saying that their culture was not represented at all. Of course not, this was American Greek, not Greece Greek. It's all in the eyes of the beholder and the presenter. Ronda Walker Knudsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:26:25 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Evangelical Movies (was: Singles Ward) At 03:50 PM 1/28/03 -0700, you wrote: >I've seen both Left Behind movies - and I think they are better shot, better >acted and have a higher level of professionalism in them. They aren't >great by >any means, but they are somewhere between OK and good. I enjoyed them >more than >I didn't (though the first one was better than the second one). I didn't know there was a second one. Was it based on the second book in the series? barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:50:55 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit Kari Heber wrote: > If I have the right to buy a copy for personal use, and "do whatever the > hell [I] want with it," as Scott says, then don't I have the right to take > it to someone and pay them to edit out the parts I might find offensive? I know part of my resistance to the idea is that I don't trust the CleanFlicks folk to edit out objectionable material any more than I trust certain filmmakers to provide valid material. Why should I trust CleanFlicks' esthetic? They don't know the thoughts of my head or the extents of my concerns. How can they know what I would consider morally corrupt and what I would consider artistically necessary or conceptually difficult but worthwhile. I probably differ from Scott in that I don't have a problem with people either editing their own videos or paying a service to do it for them--as long as the product is clearly marked to show that it has been altered from its original production with a permanent mark that survives the product packaging and clearly indicates who did the cutting. But in the end, I'm no more comfortable with letting CleanFlicks determine my threshholds and tolerances than I am in letting Bob Guccione do it. I'm the only one who can make those kinds of evaluations. If I'm not sure I can trust a film because I've heard troubling reviews or word of mouth on it, then I have to make a moral decision or value judgment about whether it's appropriate for me to see it at all--and have the strength of will to miss out on some things that I might have enjoyed because I'm not willing to take the chance. I'd rather see it for myself (thank heaven for video rental and satellite TV) and make those evaluations myself. Because in the end, I'm the one who is responsible for my own moral outlook. Not the filmmaker. Not CleanFlicks or its competitors. Me. Scott Parkin (a completely different Scott) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:05:09 -0700 From: Sam Payne Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward on 1/28/03 10:56 AM, Jerry Tyner at jerry.tyner@qlogic.com wrote: > Richard Dutcher wrote: > > The only LDS film so far that I have truly despised is "Singles Ward." > > One thing I think we all need to remember is that these movies have been > first films for most of the directors. My first movie, "Girl Crazy" was > garbage. I like to think I've grown a bit as a filmmaker. > > I have great faith that the other directors will grow as well. If we give > them honest and frank criticism, and if they listen. I have to share this. I teach Seminary in St. George, and inspired by this thread, I asked my class in the few minutes before the devotional today why they all seem to like Single's Ward so much (they do. every single freaking one of them. "Brother Payne, why don't we ever get to watch Singles Ward in here?" might be the single most asked question in my seminary classroom, followed closely by "how far can we go before we need to talk to the bishop?"). Their response was neither more nor less than "When that one guy does that one thing, it's kind of funny." So there you go. I asked the same group of kids what they thought of LDS-themed movies in general. The conversation went on for awhile, and one kid said he didn't like the fact that Richard Dutcher and Matthew Brown were in both God's Army and Brigham City. He also thought God's Army should have hired missionary-aged actors "I mean, come on," he said, "that old Pops guy as a misionary? I didn't like that" The girl behind him poked him in the back and said, candidly, "Are you kidding! I think he's hot." Anyway, the whatever-point-whatever million dollars that Singles Ward made (and lots and lots of what God's Army made) came straight from the pockets of these people. These are the warm bodies who are attending these films. - -Sam Payne P.S. I told the girl who thought Richard was hot that I could tell him so (since I belong to this list and all), and she was at first mortified, and then brightened and said "do you think that if you do, he could get me tickets, like to The R.M. or something?" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:00:11 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:51:43 +0900 "Kari Heber" writes: > There is a passage in the article that summarizes the argument of > directors as having the "moral right to force his audience to > experience the movie only as he intended it." And it sounds like > Scott agrees. Yep. Though "force" is really impossible isn't it? I can only "force" you to _purchase_ it as I intend it to be purchased. I've got nothing to do with your experience. > Does this mean that once I enter a movie theater that the director > as the authority to prevent me from stepping out to the bathroom > or snackbar? Think about it for a second. Didn't I say that once you've purchased it, it's yours? If you bought the ticket to get into the theatre, then you have purchased it. I'm out of the picture now in terms of your personal experience with my art. Love it, hate it. Walk out, throw eggs at the screen. I don't care. > If I have the right to buy a copy for personal use, and "do whatever > the hell [I] want with it," as Scott says, then don't I have the right > to take it to someone and pay them to edit out the parts I might > find offensive? Exactly my point. Do that, that's fine. There are a few things I'd do that with myself. Just don't try to resell it and keep my name on it. Let's go back to something Rich Hammett said: As long as 1) you are still being paid for your contribution, and 2) it is marked as being modified from your original creation, where is the moral issue? Why do you want to own and control the ideas you send into the marketplace, instead of having them evolve? First, when I licence you to market my work, I will make it a condition of the contract that you may not make changes. If you do you have broken the contract and that is not only illegal, it's immoral. Second, I do not want to own ideas, I want to preserve MY UNIQUE EXPRESSION of the ideas that float through the universe. Listen, if you believe in evolution then you understand that it doesn't occur in a lab. You don't bring in a sparrow and pluck all its brown feathers and replace them with red feathers and claim you have precipitated an evolution. Ideas evolve when you RESPOND to my expression of ideas with your own expression. So you see, I was anything but flippant or sarcastic (a useless rhetorical device in my opinion) when I said "If you don't like my art the way I made it, then don't buy it. Make your own." I stand by that. I think it's sheer laziness for people to emasculate another's labor in an effort to "improve the work" just so they can say what they think ought to have been said. If you have something to say -- say it yourself. Do not piggyback on the labors of others. It's parasitic, debasing to both parties ... and it's wrong. Just plain old wrong. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:58:52 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Center Street Theatre Promotion? >-----Original Message----- > >Well, I'm glad you are getting some things going. I haven't >actually attended a play at CST yet (I didn't want to see >MTOE, I wish you had. Scott Bronson did a great job at updating the show and adding entertain value to it, while downplaying some of the more preachy moments.. >and I've already seen JN), but I find my thoughts and >hopes returning to the theatre fairly often, and I'm >definitely going to go see TWWW. Yes, you are!. See you Friday night. > I realize that I would be >really disappointed not to have this theatre around, and I >almost feel like I should make a $40 donation to make up for >missing the first two plays, which was simply selfish and >small-minded on my part. Where would I send that? Center Street Theatre P.O. Box 1498 Orem UT 84059-1498 Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:07:49 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit >-----Original Message----- >Does this mean that once I enter a movie theater that the >director as the authority to prevent me from stepping out to >the bathroom or snackbar? Will I need my hands tied down so I >can't cover my eyes during scary parts. Should I be gagged so >I can't talk to others and prevent them from possible missing >a second or two of what the artist/director intended them to >see/hear? How will you force me not to avert my eyes from the >screen, eye direction monitors and electric shocks in the >seat? If I find your piece of "art" boring, will you utilize >the same mechanism to keep me from nodding off? None of that is relevant, because you will not be physically changing the work and selling it other people. >Here's another situation, if I am deathly afraid of snakes, is >it wrong for me to pay someone to read National Geographic >before I do and staple together any pages that may have >pictures of snakes? This obviosly is altering the content, and >someone else is making money doing so. No. That would be not copyright infringement. First of all, you "own" the magazine. You can color in it, dip the pages in chocolate, all you want. It's your magazine. But the second you charge money for making any of those changes, that's when you've broken the copyright laws. The Church is very particular about this and I think we members ought to be as well. In the hymmbooks, you'll notice that the occasional hymn is copyrighted by someone other than Intellectual Reserve (the Church). Those other copyrights mean that you have to get permission from the copyright owner even if you want to do something as simple as xeroxing the pages for the choir. No such restriction is required for Church copyrighted materials. > >If I have the right to buy a copy for personal use, and "do >whatever the hell [I] want with it," as Scott says, then don't >I have the right to take it to someone and pay them to edit >out the parts I might find offensive? Personally, I don't see a problem with that. What I DO see a problem with is when you can walk into a video store and rent videos that the owners of that store have pre-edited without permission from the copyright holder. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #963 ******************************