From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #965 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 965 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:38:35 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] "Johnny Lingo" Directors, Producers Profiles Brad Pelo is also former CEO of Bookcraft, so there's a major Mormon lit = connnection. This was prior to the sale of Bookcraft to DB. He is sort = of a friend of mine. It's an odd friendship; I like him very much and = think he likes me too, but we really really don't understand each other, = not even a little bit. We worked together for over a year on a project = that we both cared about deeply, and one that had I think tremendous = positive potential, and we had hours of in depth conversation about it, = and in the end, I don't think we were any closer to having a meeting of = the minds than we were in our very first conversation. I would say that = he has had some involvement with film development. I haven't seen Johnny = Lingo and would love to be pleasantly surprised by it. But I tried to = express to him once why I detest the original film, and he didn't get it = at all. Just didn't understand what I was talking about. And he tried to = tell me why he likes this project, and I didn't get it either. Basically, = he's a businessman, but one who is very favorably disposed towards = artists, and I'm an artist, and favorably disposes towards businessmen, = and we share the gospel too, and yet: In the immortal words of Strother = Martin, 'what we have here is a failure to communicate.' Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:06:50 -0700 From: "Elizabeth Walters" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward If you're not gonna let the movie see the light of the day again, could you at least shed some light on what the movie was about and why it leaves such a bad taste in your mouth? - ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com >> Richard Dutcher wrote: >> "My first movie, "Girl Crazy" was garbage. I like to think I've grown a bit >> as a filmmaker." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:23:25 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward I vote yes to a public viewing of "Girl Crazy." Actually, wouldn't it be fun for a bunch of us to read or display some of our early work and reveal what garbage we've put our names to? Sounds like a fun AML session to me. ________________ 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: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:41:06 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: FW: [AML] Black History Fireside Margaret, Why do you feel you did anything wrong? I get two impressions: First, this man would not have accepted anything you said about your = research, sources, or testimony (let alone that the word offended you). = He would not have begged the Prophet's (Spencer W. Kimball) pardon when = he would use the Savior's name in vane. Think about that when you ponder = this incident. Second, did the Spirit tell you that you needed to repent and stand up = to this man? If your tongue was not loosed then it was not your place. = Maybe Darius would have responded (not reacted - I know and love him for = that) differently. That is his calling to do so. That doesn't take = anything away from you. We love you, Margaret. You have done a great work and much good will = come from it as time goes by. That doesn't get rid of the ugliness of = the world around us and especially the so called Saints who perpetuate = lies. Follow your husband's advice and let it go. If it really bothers = you then do this in your personal prayers: Tell Father you feel you did something wrong when you were confronted by = this man and his bigotry. Tell Him you would like a second chance to = right this wrong (in your perception - remember we are much harder on = ourselves than Father is). Ask for His forgiveness and be prepared for = the Answer and for any the chance to confront this again (especially the = same man). Also, ask Him to lose your tongue when appropriate and let = His Spirit speak through you to their hearts. If you do not need to repent for this then ask Him to let you know that = you stand approved in His sight and ask why your tongue was not loosed = to call this man to repentance. I would venture to say this will bring = the personal revelation and not the request for forgiveness/desire to = repent. You already know this but never forget to seek the Spirit and listen to = what it tells you to say even in difficult situations like last Sunday. = The Lord knows who will listen and who will not. Don't cast your pearls = before swine...there are a lot out there, too. Love, Jerry - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:27:25 -0600 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: R-Rated Movies Just for tweaks and grins, I thought I would mention that there is a drive-in movie theater in Texas that claims to be family oriented, and as a policy does not screen R-rated movies. I've spoken with some Church members from there, and they confirm that the theater is true to its word. If the movie is rated R, they will not screen it. The theater is not run by those of our faith, but it is deep in the heart of the Bible belt. A short blurb from their website below. Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com __________ Gatesville (Coryell County) Texas The Last Drive-in Picture Show (located 1 mile south of US 84, on TX Hwy 36) One of the oldest of all the remaining Lone Star Drive-ins has been through a few name changes over the years: it first opened as the Circle S back in 1950; became the Town & Country Drive-in 14 years later; and was renamed The Last Picture Show in 1989. The Drive-in is open 7 nites, throughout the year except Christmas eve, and is usually screening a double feature each nite. The same family has been keeping the screen lit-up in Gatesville, Texas, for 37 years, and it's very much a family-oriented venue (as policy: no R-rated movies shown). There are still some old speakers here for nostalgia lovers, although the audio is provided primarily with FM (88.1) radio. Admission for any number of passengers: $10 per car on Fri/Sat nites during summer - June/July/August; $5 per car other nites during summer months, and all nites other seasons. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:30:13 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Clark Goble wrote: > It is really hard to intellectually justify any spiritual > edification in _Blade_ or _Terminator 2_. What is it about Mormons that think they need to be on a spiritual high 24/7? My sanity would explode if I attempted that lofty goal. Human beings need variety. We need breaks from work to relax, and yes, we even need breaks from spiritual edification. Why can't we shuck the false Puritan doctrine that a spiritual life cannot include fun? I don't NEED any intellectual justification to rationalize Terminator 2 into some kind of spiritual edicifation. It was fun to watch, and that's all the justification I need. > Let's at least be honest about what these movies do to our ability to > feel the spirit. Yes, let's be honest. How much spirit do you feel playing ward basketball? How much blasting away at Bambi's mom sometime around October? How much when you're trying to drive your friends into bakruptcy while playing Monopoly? How much while watching "Singles Ward"? How much spirit did Joseph Smith feel when wrestling or pulling sticks? Why does recreation need to be a spiritual feast only inside the movie theater? I've felt the spirit sometimes while watching a film, and those were choice moments. But most of the time when watching a film, I don't feel much of anything one way or another as the spirit goes. I just enjoy myself. And there ain't a thing wrong with that. If I were to be totally honest, I would say that most of the time when people think they're feeling the spirit withdraw because of a movie they're watching, they're really just having an emotional reaction to the dissonance between what the movie is showing and some emotional baggage they acquired in their upbringing. But since saying that might violate list guidelines, I won't say it. - -- 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: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:39:59 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Unity and Community Scott Parkin wrote: > What does unity mean in terms of the Mormon community? Does it really equate to > essentially similar political or social views as so many Mormons seems to > believe? Can our community support a unity of purpose that may be expressed > through a very strenuous diversity of approach or even ideals? I've thought about this much, often in terms of what the cosiety in the celestial kingdom is like. I swear, if the unity in the celestial kingdom is of the conformist variety, then I understand well the truism that we will be placed in the kingdom where we can be most happy, because I would be miserable in such a celestial kingdom and would gladly march down to the terrestrial. (Unless the conformity came about because everybody thought like me. But then you'd be miserable there.) I believe true unity comes about through unconditional love and refusal to judge. Live and let live. Agree to disagree. Not through coercion to make people think like me. This list has probably done more to teach me how to do this than any other experience in my life. There are people on this list that I disagree with vehemently in political and social issues. Yet I care about them personally and get along with them and hope for their successes. Thom Duncan and Eric Samuelsen are excellent examples. These are very liberal people, and I am very unliberal. Yet I care about them and cheer them on in their endeavors and hope for their successes. And when in their presence, somehow manage to get along with them fine. This in my opinion constitutes celestial unity, not forced conformity. - -- 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: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:23:16 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Unity and Community Jacob Proffitt wrote: > As a wildcard, though, you can toss out a lot of the above if you have a > respected authority that can resolve disputes (and has the desire to do so). > If there is a refuge of final appeal that all agree has absolute authority, > then you can suffer any number of schisms and factional strife secure in the > knowledge that if it were strong enough and important enough then this > authority would step in to resolve the conflict. I'd hate to use this deus > ex machina in a fictional work, though, because God (the only authority that > could actually unify the majority of Mormons) doesn't seem much interested > in solving our problems for us. But isn't that the ultimate indicator that the "appeal to authority" approach is not the desirable one, if God avoids it so completely? Appealing to authority never taught anyone love or compassion or patience or nonjudgmentalism. It just creates winners and losers and submission. - -- 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: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:31:04 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Music Clarification Letter Steve Perry wrote: > Below is the text from a letter from the 1st Presidency dated November > 7, 2002, regarding "Music for Church Meetings." Thanks for this clarification, Steve. At face value, this is a perfectly reasonable document. Unfortunately, it's loaded with cultural booby-traps that can cause people to go too far. Let me elaborate: > "Inspirational music is an essential part of worship. Absolutely! But who defines what's inspirational? We've seen on this list how very disparate types of music inspire different people. > When prayerfully selected, music can invite the Spirit of the Lord, > increase devotion to the gospel, and lead to greater spirituality. Would that more members noticed this line, and allow prayerfully selected decisions to stand without the intervention of personal biases on what is appropriate or not. > We remind stake presidencies and bishoprics that they may consider both > the hymns and other appropriate music when planning meetings. The > hymns of the Church are the basic music for worship services and are > standard for congregational singing. However, in addition to the > hymns, other appropriate selections may be used for prelude and > postlude music, choir music, and special musical selections. Another booby-trap, that word which I have come to despise over few others: appropriate. Who decides what's appropriate? By whose standards? > May you be blessed in using inspirational music to enhance worship and > strengthen members of the Church." Which music is inspirational? What music strengthens members? Who decides? Words like "inspirational" and "appropriate" will continue to be interpreted according to certain cultural biases, which ends up making this perfectly reasonable clarification of church policy toward music relatively meaningless. - -- 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: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:39:43 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Nominations for AML Awards It's also VERY important to remember the AML's focus on belletristic literature, not ALL written literature in Mormonism. To remind myself again what that word means, I just looked it up and found "literature that is an end in itself and not merely informative." That is certainly a fuzzy line, but it's one we need to monitor as closely as we can. Fiction, poetry, and fictional drama and film are obviously belletristic. (With Irreantum, I've chosen not to pay any attention to documentary film, as of now.) Memoir and personal essay are usually belletristic because they use narrative art forms similar to fiction, in terms of rendering scene and description and plot, etc. With devotional literature, I don't want to see us get involved with devotional stuff that doesn't have a strong belletristic element; in other words, stuff that is meant primarily to inform about the gospel as opposed to rendering experience artistically, if also "upliftingly" and "appropriately." There is already a Mormon History Association, and I think we can pretty much leave straight, informative biography and other forms of historical writing to them and their annual awards. Straight informative journalism has little overlap with the AML's focus, but humor and other kinds of more personal, artistic newspaper columns clearly intersect. It seems like the only kind of informative writing the AML should get involved with is informative writing ABOUT belletristic literature. I'm frankly unsure of why we gave a lifetime award to Hugh Nibley; isn't he clearly in the realm of pure scholarly information, not at all belletristic? I don't see a need for Irreantum to review Nibley's biography at all, although if he wrote his own autobiography, for some reason that would seem different. Maybe that doesn't make any sense; I guess I just fall back to the position that biography seems like it's 100% in the MHA's camp, so why dilute that. Also, there's no need for the AML to duplicate or overlap too much with Dialogue and Sunstone; let's leave the general intellectual and scholarly stuff entirely to them. However, I do see us in aggressive, head-to-head competition with them for the very limited quantities of good Mormon fiction; in fact, my goal is to exceed Sunstone's prize money for Irreantum's annual fiction contest, which with the government's help seems more plausible than approaching Sunstone in circulation, although circulation is perhaps a more valuable enticement for fiction writers. I don't feel quite as competitive about personal essays and memoir, since there's so much of that floating around in Mormonism, but I hope Irreantum can get the best, or at least a fair share of the pie. Poetry I just simply don't read, not even what gets published in Irreantum, beyond skimming for obvious typos; I don't have time, energy, and interest for riddles. (OK, that's really awful, but that's where I'm at; luckily Irreantum has a good poetry editor in Harlow Clark. I'm the same way about sports, and nearly that bad about politics and anything to do directly or indirectly with horses. Also, while I watch about a movie a week, I have almost completely blocked out broadcast and cable TV from my life, except for rare Simpsons episodes, and I consider that discipline an almost mystical source of personal power. So my reach does not extend to either extreme of the cultural spectrum, poetry on one end and TV on the other, and that leaves me more time and energy for the books, movies, mags, and music in between.) Anyway, let's remember who we are and return with honor. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:50:38 -0800 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Re: Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:51:43 +0900 >From: "Kari Heber" > >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. I've been on CleanFlix' side of this argument because, as a moral principle, I think...or thought...that consumers of media ought to have the freedom to choose the form in which they consume that media...or medium...or...well, whatever. I've changed my mind, and do so based on a legal principle I'm reluctant to put forward, for fear someone might notify the "bad guys" in this fight. But, ego being what it is, I'm going to go ahead and describe the legal principle anyway. When I write a book (or an email message, for that matter), the law hands to me a basket of rights called "copyright." In that basket is every possible right that could relate the replication or distribution of my creation. (The law explicity *doesn't* give me the rights called "fair use," but all the other rights are mine! Mine! Mine!!! [m-wha-ha-ha]) In that basket are rights such as First North American Serial rights, and Third Botswanian Film rights, and...well, every conceivable right. It's as though the legal system handed me a basket of golden eggs. I can sell all of those rights, or keep most of them and sell a few, or sell all but three of them. In short, under the law they're mine until I sell them. Interestingly, the law does NOT name or enumerate those rights, which is the basis of the argument I'm about to make: Just because a right isn't named, or historically recognized, doesn't mean it's not in the basket. While I was arguing with my film-loving husband on behalf of the Clean-Flicks folk, I said to him, about one of my own books: "If Amazon wanted to make a large-print copy of _Mormons on the Internet_ and stick a "for the hard of seeing" label on it, and then shred one original copy for each large-print version they sold, I couldn't do a danged thing about it. I would lose a copyright infringement action, because I'm not out any money. In fact, I get more money, because they bought copies of my book. I have no standing to bring suit." I then realized I was completely wrong. The Hard-of-Seeing large-print version of my book belongs to me [or, arguably, to my publisher. I'd have to check the contract], but not to anyone else. Maybe I *do* want to publish a large-print version, and sell it for three times the usual price. [greedy, greedy.] Clean Flicks may not steal my First North American Large Print right. Nor could they steal my First North American Edited Verson right. Or my second. Or third. They're my rights to give or sell, not Clean Flicks' to assume. Interestingly, the movie makers don't seem to have seized on this argument. So lets don't tell 'em. - --lmg - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:02:11 -0500 From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward [MOD: Kudos to Laraine for taking up the pen (keyboard?) in a thoughtful defense of _Singles Ward_. Sometimes, I worry that we on AML-List come across as too homogeneous in some of the views that are expressed. Sometimes, I think that's because people on a particular side of an issue are articulate and speak first, and so others may be reluctant to share their differing views. This isn't anyone's fault--it just happens, and I'm very glad, for example, that Eric Samuelsen and Richard Dutcher expressed their opinions of _Singles Ward_ in the vigorous tones they used. But it makes contributions like Laraine's all the more valuable. Please, all of you, remember: differing views are not only welcome, but essential. It's a key component of what makes this a good place to be. In my opinion.] In defense of The Singles Ward. I have to listen to my conscience and offer a more far-reaching defense of the film. Is The Singles Ward great cinema? Not really. Will it go down in the annals of film history as a masterpiece? Tarkovsky it ain't. But it breaks new ground in the genre of Mormon cinema, and I think that deserves some attention. I apologize for not taking the time to find proper attribution for the ideas I list here, though Eric Samuelsen and Richard Dutcher are implicated. These are some of the comments I've read that have had me thinking a lot the last week as I've been following this thread: 1. The characters are flat and evoke no sympathy, are even hateable. 2. It could be parody, but if it is, then it isn't funny. 3. One might want to leave the Mormon church or hang oneself out of embarrassment for its representation of Mormon culture. My responses: 1. I don't exactly find the characters hateable. In fact, I really related to Cammie, the female lead. In fact, I would aspire to be more like her. Why? Because she's got some genuine commitment to the church. But she's also pretty open-minded. She's grounded, works hard, is friendly and caring, and in spite of a sort of self-righteousness is willing to give Jonathan, the male lead, a chance when she sees his more charming qualities. She listens to him, she doesn't freak out when he tells her he's been divorced, she's willing to go listen to his comedy act and even enjoys it. When Jonathan goes rushing after her at the airport as she's leaving for her mission, she stays cool and makes the reasonable choice. And she articulates what I see as the central tenet of the film: it's not about expectations, it's about choices. Remember that line from the dialogue in the parking lot outside the comedy club, in the second half of the film? It's an important exchange. And it moved me. I really related, as a divorced woman in the church, to what Jonathan said with "hey, wanna go to the celestial kingdom, hop in, we can go together." That's probably why I got married, at too young an age for my own good. And I've been bitter about it for a long time. I bet a lot of church members get married for that reason. Expectations. A set of perceived norms. But Cammie points out it's not about complying to an externally imposed set of norms, it's about choices. This is the postmodern imperative. And Singles Ward operates as postmodern art in a number of ways. Hence, to my next point. 2. Frederic Jameson in some famous essay distinguishes between parody and pastiche. Pastiche, he says, is parody that's lost its sense of humor. And why has it lost its sense of humor? Because humor implies that there is a norm against which to judge the parody. Of course, a lot of people who read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" a few centuries ago really didn't get it--they thought he was serious about eating babies and stuff. A lot of Singles Ward critics seem to think it tries to be a serious portrayal or psychological exploration of Mormon culture, somehow. But doesn't anyone else see this? It's pastiche. The film is borrowing all the cultural tropes of Mormon culture, especially singles culture, to expose it as flat. But it refuses to offer an alternative. It implies that all of Mormon culture is flat. The only alternative is in the imperative to make everything about choices. In the DVD, the menu screen displays all the cast members, and at the click of any menu item, the red VW from the film races by and all the characters fall over, exposed as cardboard cutouts. If there is an essence to "the gospel," or to Mormon Culture, or The Church, then, the film seems to say, it is ineffable, unrepresentable, unfathomable. Maybe it's real. But you can't portray it on the screen. These self-reflexive moments, moments that expose the medium a la Brecht, for what it is, making us aware of where we are (in a theater with sticky floors and squeaky seats, or on a living-room sofa with roommates guffawing here and there) pop up all over the place in the film narrative. From the huge pile of R-rated movies that Jonathan rents after he turns cynical and "wicked" when his wife leaves (I was rolling on the floor at that scene!), to the purchase of the large-screen TV, to the mention of Saturday's Warrior and God's Army (a nod to the tradition in which the film itself operates), to the multitude of cameo appearances from Mormon celebrities (whom we generally know from the screen time their faces have logged over the years), to the device that has Jonathan constantly address the off-screen space of the audience. One of the best moments in the film comes towards the end, when Jonathan has his all-night soul-searching experience up in the foothills overlooking the Salt Lake Valley. He steps out of the car, addresses the camera to explain how, for the first time, he realizes... He's interrupted by his roommates who just happen, inexplicably, to show up. They ask him who he's talking to. Jonathan shrugs it off, tells them he's practicing a new routine. One of them replies, "OK, but it sounded like a seminary video or something." Yeah! It makes fun of all the sappy Mormon media out there. Including church-produced videos. But perhaps independently-produced works. I would venture to say that certain elements of even Richard Dutcher's films are at issue here. Which takes me to my third, and last, point. 3. It's significant that we never get to hear what Jonathan finally realizes and what is the source of his transformation. I generally complain that church members always tend to talk about how wonderful the church is, and how much their neighbors are missing out, but never seem to get around to explaining how or why or what is so real to them. And in spite of the fact that Sonja Johnson, in her second book (after Housewife to Heretic, can't remember the name) legitimizes the theme of the "Suddenly, she realized..." syndrome that tends to be denigrated in Patriarchal Culture, I still have to wonder if there's any way to make the epiphany experience work on screen. Jonathan, in Singles Ward, never gets to say what he figures out. And that's good. Because what could he possibly say that wouldn't be trite, regardless of how true? And I think this could possibly be a response to Richard Dutcher, who stretches it sometimes, I think, in the sermonizing moments in his work. I mean, I was put off by the fact that Elder Allen in God's Army got his conversion in a single night. At least in Singles Ward there was no overwrought line like "Father!" to tell you what he figured out. Perhaps anyone who is not an insider would be puzzled by Singles Ward. But all sorts of Utah residents who are not church members would recognize the types they see in Mormon culture. And perhaps they would also recognize the type, the stereotype, of the person who chooses to leave Mormonism. Jonathan's wife experiences a crisis of faith and immediately turns to alcohol and cigarettes. Real life? No. But it's what Mormon culture seems to expect. I love the scene at the beginning of the film where she has a cigarette dangling from her lips as she stuffs her suitcase into the trunk of her car in the parking lot of BYU married student housing. Probably on her way to serial murder. What I love about Singles Ward is that it does not hold back on what it is. It doesn't try to pretend to be anything other than what it is: a commercial product meant for the Mormon consumer market which thrives on surface material. And it offers one more choice, an advocate for the infinite array of choices that is, ultimately, at the heart of the gospel. To be fair, I have been a lot more moved by watching Eric Samuelsen's and Richard Dutcher's work. It's more sophisticated. More inspiring. But Singles Ward should get some credit for its playfulness, and for incorporating, whether intentionally or not, a lot of key elements of avant-garde cinema. - --Laraine Wilkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:22:10 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Eric Russell wrote: >The only thing from The Single's Ward I've never seen, actually, is guys >with mission pictures of them on the pot. :) I haven't seen the film, but (to my great regret) I have seen this. (Although I have to say that the scene where all the missionaries are laughing hysterically at really stupid jokes in "God's Army" is a much subtler, and to my mind, much funnier way of demonstrating what happens to a young guy's senses of humor and propriety when they're cut off from popular culture for a couple of years.) Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:14:17 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Matthew Lee wrote: > > What about the excellent non R movies? Why focus on > the exceptions? Isn't it better to learn to live by > the rule and let the exceptions work themselves out? Because I reject the "rule." I don't believe in it. I don't believe it's a requirement for Mormons. > Why the sense of superiority over those who > maintain a blanket policy not to view rated R movies? > Superiority is certainly the underlying message many > of you have sent. As opposed to the superiority displayed by those who consider themselves holier than us because they meticulously avoid R-rated films? I don't begrudge anybody deciding not to watch R-rated films. But I do prefer to have them make that decision based on true information, and not on a misconception. What I object to are those who are coming across superior to me because I do watch R-rated films and they don't. > You've implied that you are immune > to the sexual images, the extreme and gruesome > violence, and the crude humor contained in many R > rated films. Not immune. It would be a bad film if I was immune to what's going on up on the screen--if I had no emotional reaction to it. But I don;t accept the presupposition that emotional reactions, even to negative things, is automatically a bad thing. Nor do I accept the presupposition that R-rated films automatically have prurient sexual images or gratuitous violence, or that crude humor is automatically bad. > I don't believe anyone is able to maintain a > level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day > while willfully viewing things that normally merit an > R rating, for the sake of entertainment. It's a > contradiction to the principles by which the Holy > Ghost operates and communicates with man. I categorically reject this assertion. > I understand that there are some powerful events > in history that cannot not be accurately portrayed on > film and receive a G, or PG rating. Some of these > maybe considered exceptions but I wonder how much > trash people are exposing themselves to while holding > up the exceptions as justification. Here comes more of the "smut" terminology that presupposes R-rated = trash. This is a false presupposition. > I wonder, how long did it take before the > uncomfortableness of the sex scene wore off? It still hasn't worn off, depending on the scene. If it's intentionally prurient, I'm still uncomfortable. > Or how > long did it take before you began to look forward to > the crude humor? I think I always liked crude humor. Of course, you're probably thinking of dirty jokes full of horrible words. Crude humor includes much more than that, and often what's called "crude" simply refers to parts of life that people are squeamish about and has nothing to do with morality. > Do you guys have kids? How can you > teach them the standards of the gospel and hope to > maintain any sense of credibility while watching David > Lynch films, The God Father, Boogie Nights, or many of > the other movies that have be listed in this thread? And yet, somehow they _are_ learning and living the standards of the Gospel. Whereas I've known a whole bunch of kids who grew up in conservative, strict, straightlaced homes that ended up living quite rowdy lives where standards of the Gospel are considered irrelevant. I believe it's because those homes taught the wrong things: avoiding R-rated movies, for example, instead of teaching by principle what to avoid and letting them choose for themselves. > If I was a betting > man I would place a wager that the majority of the > replies to this will be to criticize my approach and > my standards of judgment rather than to answer my > questions. I hope I didn't come across that way. I tried to answer your questions. > How about listing some of the non R rated films > that contain messages equally as powerful and well > presented, but without those elements that we have > been counseled to avoid? We could, but Mormons don't teach a false and superficial principle about avoiding them, so they aren't relevant to the current discussion. As I mentioned when I made my list, I had to scratch out quite a few of them because I researched and found out they were not rated R. They had powerful messages that affected me positively, but not being R-rated, were irrelevant to the discussion, so I didn;t include them. But they still exist. In droves. We're not saying R-rated is superior. We're saying rating is irrelevant. Quality and message is what's important. > Here are three to start; > Empire of the Sun, Les Miserables, and the Walt Disney > version of Hercules. I agree with two out of three of these. Walt Disney's Hercules was offensively asinine. - -- 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: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 07:49:51 -0800 (PST) From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Ok, I think we've established that "Singles Ward" was not a well-made film. I went to see it at the dollar theater as a ward singles activity. Everyone else in my group thought the movie was hilarious and some of them laughed until they cried. Despite the film's obvious and many flaws, it appeared that many people liked the film because they recognized themselves, or those they knew, in the characters. My personal quarrel with the movie is that all the characters were caricatures, and this was highlighted by the fact that the only two "normal" characters in the movie were also the two who were stunningly good-looking (by the standards of us singles, anyway). All the other, one-dimensional characters were made to appear physically unattractive in some way. I hope it wasn't intentional, but the sneaky, underlying message here is that singles-land is populated by geeks, nerds, social rejects, fat women who steal cookies off cars, etc. etc. and they are all homely. Of course Jonathan and Cami end up together; they are the only ones good-looking enough to deserve each other. The ending of the film was even worse. Not only is the smugness of Jonathan's little speech about "making the right choices" (as he looks at his gorgeous wife in church) almost intolerable, it was just plain silly that they had to show most of the geeks and nerds ending up happily married, too. Why can't they show at least one character going off happily unwed and making a fortune cranking out lame movies about singles? [Marie Knowlton] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #965 ******************************