From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #969 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 Thursday, February 6 2003 Volume 01 : Number 969 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:11:57 -0700 From: "Eric Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Amelia Parkin said, "And the fact that anyone made a campy comedy rather than a satire about this culture, a work of art that completely reinforces it without questioning it, depresses me." I don't know that it always reinforces, but it definitely makes us more aware of ourselves, whether for better or for worse. Just the other day ago in testimony meeting a girl got up and said, and I quote, "I don't want to sound Singles Wardish, but I really love my roommates." Now whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that this girl is self-conscious about saying she loves her roommates in testimony meeting is debatable. But the point is, movies like The Singles Ward act as a mirror, perhaps a somewhat exaggerated mirror, of our society. Even if what we see in the mirror is ugly, it will ultimately serve to make us more self-aware. If a story, whether in fiction or film, can cause any type of introspection then it has succeeded in at least one way. Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:53:50 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward >Hmmm, I saw it as a satire! Guess it's all in the eye of the >beholder. Ronda W. Knudsen No, it's not. Satire is satire, as different a form of art from comedy as melodrama is from drama. I haven't seen the film, so can't comment specifically, but one's opinion of whether a film is funny doesn't necessarily make it anything other than what it is supposed to be. Rom coms follow a certain format, so do adventure flicks, as do horror flicks. Just because one laughs at a movie doesn't make it a comedy, anymore than a scary part in a movie makes it a horror movie. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:40:22 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit Sure, the director >is often the driving force behind= the project but she needs >the expertise and creative vision of other people= to create >her art. The director shouldn't have single authority over a= > film, it isn't only hers. Uh, it is the director's. That's the business. >What about films being distributed in a full screen (pan and >scan) version= that were originally shot in a wide screen >format? Isn't that altering the= work of the director? >Shouldn't that be seen as unwanted, illegal even,= editing by >the director? The truth is, they can't stop those versions= >being distributed because they don't own the film, big names >like Spielberg= and Coppola may have a say in how their films >are packaged, but most= directors don't. =20 What? The only person who might have more to say is the producer. >And I have a question for those you write and produce plays: >Is it against= copyright, or fair use of the material, to >omit lines of dialogue, to skip= scenes to ignore stage >directions written into the play? Yes, it is. For dialogue. Stage directions can be adapted to the stage environment. Of must every= word be >spoken, etc. to make the production legal? =20 > Yes. In fact, if you want to change words, you must receive written persmission from the copyright owner. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 23:01:27 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Programming as Art (was: Cleanflicks etc.) - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > > I'd like to hear how you figure software and art are sufficiently > comparable to employ the same distribution model to both. Software is > utilitarian--only incidentally ever artistic. To modify it is > to improve > its utility, and that's good for everyone. (I support the Free Source > movement too.) I don't denigrate your art, I'd appreciate if you don't denigrate mine. Software is a bit like architecture. Sure, you use it to do stuff, but it most definitely is *not* a matter of applying a formula to derive some hypothetical optimal solution. Programming involves a huge number of options and variables and situations and trade-offs. Just because it is easier to copy and a medium you are unfamiliar with doesn't mean it isn't important or comparable to other art. Which is kind of what I find so silly about the Open Source folks--this assumption that a) there is some utilitarian ideal that programmers automatically know better than any others and b) their way of creating software is automatically superior because it is disconnected from traditional feedback mechanisms. It's kind of like those artists who isolate themselves and brag about how pure their art is because they don't listen to anybody but other artists. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 02:06:29 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward I maintain my original assertion that Singles Ward is not a satire. I would even go so far as arguing that it cannot be seen as a satire. A satire very pointedly derides, through comedy, the status quo of the society it portrays in an effort to raise awareness of problems in that society and bring about change. They generally raise the ire of the vast majority of their audience. And they are not kind to their subjects. The fact that Singles Ward, as Eric Samuelson has pointed out on several occasions, not only does not question but actually reinforces the problematic self-righteousness of its characters would, in my opinion, demonstrate that it is in fact not a satire. Satires are social commentaries. Singles Ward made no commentary on single society within Mormondom. It merely poked fun at it. There is a vast difference between laughing at something by exaggerating its reality (camp and comedy) and exaggerating something to not only induce laughter but also to raise awareness and even outrage at the reality portrayed (satire). I understand that many people found Singles Ward funny. That's fine with me. Humor certainly is in the eye of the beholder. But the definition of a genre is not. The movie did not provide a social critique of a singles ward or Mormon society in general. It lacked the self-awareness necessary for such a thing to happen. And it certainly did not make people aware of problems. If it had, I'm sure it would not be so popular amongst the Mormon populace at large. amelia parkin >Hmmm, I saw it as a satire! Guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. >Ronda W. Knudsen > >Amelia Parkin wrote: > >>And the fact that anyone made a campy comedy rather than a satire about >>this culture, a work of art that completely reinforces it without >>questioning it, depresses me. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:56:14 -0800 From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Critiquing the Culture (was: Singles Ward) Two separate messages in this digest, yet I wanted to reply to both of them. From: "Amelia Parkin" > Ronda Knudsen wrote of Singles Ward: > "I think this fairly well represents LDS Singles culture" > > This captures exactly why I hate this film and why, after watching it the > one and only time I have seen it, I went home depressed. I hate the culture > that inspired the film because I find it, after being a part of it for ten > years, hollow, shallow, uninteresting, and completely unstimulating. And > oppressive and controlling. And the fact that anyone made a campy comedy > rather than a satire about this culture, a work of art that completely > reinforces it without questioning it, depresses me. And worse, the fact > that millions of people have seen it and found it funny depresses me even > more. I would *love* to see a satire rather than camp. (I haven't seen SW yet, mind you.) I actually enjoyed Kathy Kidd's _Paradise Vue_ and _Return to Paradise_ novels, for example, because although they were pretty light-hearted, they were nonetheless quite satirical. Brother Card can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the reason Hatrack River Publications never really grew a decent set of wings was because... From: "D. Michael Martindale" > RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > > My experiences over the past three years have led me to believe that perhaps > > our artistic community has not matured enough to accept criticism. > > Understatement of the year. I would actually amend Richard's comment by deleting the word 'artistic'. The Mormon community generally has not matured enough to accept criticism. Everyone in the culture seems to be so busy trying to 'uplift' each other that the very word 'criticism' smacks of blasphemy, heresy, and just plain old no-goodnik-ness. And when those in the culture *do* criticise someone else in the culture, either (a) the criticism is destructive, not constructive, or (b) the recipient interprets it as destructive no matter what the intentions of the critic. I mean, everyone's so scared about offending someone else. It's like some kind of warped Stepford version of political correctness. Of course, what we were taught by Isaiah wasn't so much 'don't offend others', it was "all that watch for iniquity are cut off: That make a man an offender for a word" [29:20-21]. Y'all might have some other interpretations of that verse, but to me it can refer to those who are constantly looking for things to offend them, so they can work up some good old-fashioned righteous indignation. Just for fun. Robert (never afraid to offend anyone... %-) - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too We may find that in the long run tinned food is a deadlier weapon than the machine gun. - George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 2003/01/21 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 03:54:40 -0800 From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward - -----Original Message----- As one of the most vocal and vociferous Singles Ward haters, let me express my deep admiration and gratitude to Laraine Wilkins for her thoughtful and intelligent defense of the film. I found myself re-evaluating at least some of my responses to the film, which I freely admit were visceral and off the cuff and not terribly well thought through. Having said that, I do still disagree with Laraine on what seems to me the key point in the film, Cammie's self-righteousness. Cammie does not, as Laraine suggests, listen reasonably and openmindedly to Jonathan's stand-up act. Well, she does at first. She likes the part of his act where he's being judgmental and self-righteous and holier than thou, specifically about cigarettes. His audience doesn't like that part of his act, as indeed they shouldn't; it's not funny, except to someone who is self-righteous too. It's when he starts the mildest jokes aimed at LDS culture that she freaks out, overreacts. It's that freaking out and overreacting that I've seen far too many times in LDS culture. She behaves, frankly, like some of the anti-Harry Potter activitists, or the anti-rock music crowd. So, for me, she embodies the very worst, most reactionary, most judgmental, most, yes, self-righteous aspects of our culture. That wouldn't be so bad, of course, if the movie didn't subsequently agree with her, a very weird choice given the fact that the rest of the movie itself would seem to represent most of what she seems to be against. Laraine finds Cammie to be a likeable, admirable, though perhaps flawed character. I find her to be profoundly unlikeable, and not remotely admirable. Any of her possibly admirable qualities from earlier in the film are cancelled out by that one atrocious scene. And that's not an unfair judgment to make about the character, because the screenplay is structured in such a way that we're clearly meant to see her, in that scene, as she really is. >skip< But the film teaches, essentially, that Pride saves, that when we think we're better than those benighted Gentiles, we're right. In essence, the film insists that Cammie's rejection of Jonathan's stand-up act saves her soul, is necessary for her salvation, and also, that it saves his soul too. And I think most people in the audience the night I saw the film thought that too. And that makes me really really not want to be a Mormon anymore. Eric Samuelsen [And now Richard's response:] I really am convinced that any phenomenon is perceived at least somewhat differently and sometimes completely differently by different people based on the paradigm which the "perceiver" brings to the event. I'm glad, but sometimes perceptions are voiced so emphatically and confidently that they give the impression that anyone who perceives the "event" differently is WRONG. Perception voiced at that level is, to me, almost the definition of arrogance, or pride, or self righteousness. Having said that, I am still trying to figure out a way to make the point of this post in a way that will not bring upon me my own criticism, and that will not come off as a personal attack that will alert the moderator's delete key. I am not a fan of _The Singles Ward_, I have made that point earlier. But I for one didn't perceive Cami's reaction as self righteous. I interpreted it as sorrow, even pain that came from what she perceived as an attack on a faith that she holds dearly, with that pain exacerbated by the fact that she sees that attack coming from someone she assumed, or at least she understood to be someone who at least shares some elements of that faith. She strikes back at that attack in the only way she can. That the writing had flaws and the transitions were abrupt in the scene I accept but I "perceive" a much higher level of what I think of as self righteousness in the criticism quoted above than I saw in the film. It does, initially state the caveat "it seems to me" but almost from that point forward imply that there is only one reasonable perception of the message and action of the film and that is that pride saves. It is countered by the assertion that pride damns. I agree, at least in part with the assertion that pride damns, or at least it has that potential, but I didn't get the message that the film asserts the saving function of pride (Well - - maybe the emphasis on "President" in the final scene, I may not live in the right part of the country but I have never heard an Elder's quorum president called "President" outside an elder's quorum or other Priesthood meeting where it would have relevance, but I never got that from anything Cami said.) Anyway, even if I didn't care for the film, I certainly never saw much of what Eric saw. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:12:16 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Lit and Interesting Questions While it is not something I have always understood--I am one of those people Stephen Robinson addresses his books to, the ones who somehow were never really taught the grace of Christ--it is a scriptural concept. I don't have time to look up the reference right now. However, they are contained in a work from the Messiah, which I love, as well. "Surely, surely, He has born our griefs and carried our sorrows." Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:02:24 -0600 From: "Lisa Olsen Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Texas Drive-In (was R-Rated Movies) We used to live not far from Gatesville at Fort Hood. That was when our kids were little, and we never heard of this theater, which is too bad because we probably would have taken them then. Now, since our kids are teenagers, this would present a dilemma: It's great that the drive-in shows movies that, by and large, we would let our kids go to. But do we really want to give our blessing to teenagers at drive-ins? They can make out just as well to Stuart Little 2 as to The Matrix, except that they would probably actually want to watch The Matrix and SL2 would be just an excuse to make out. Another one for the "you can't win" file. It's a large file. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:30:41 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Black History Fireside Eric Samuelson wrote: I know this raises the ire of lots of y'all, but I mean it in all sincerity; the policy on priesthood, established by Brigham Young (and not Joseph Smith) and rescinded in '78, was a racist policy. It was simply institutionalized racism, and not much else. That's the legacy we need to confront and overcome. And how do we do that, Eric? All I can think of is the "one person at a time" approach, but maybe that's because I feel no power to do anything to change the "institution". My personal experience, in the Park Meadows Ward, in Centerville, Utah, is that this is not an issue that needs confronting. There is no racism here. Would it could be that way everywhere. We have three families in our ward of varying mixes of African-American and white European descent. Jamaican, Guyanan, from the southern USA, adopted children, birth children, whatever. Add them to the Native American descendants, a couple with Asian heritage...nobody cares. The thing we love about one is the great accent, another the pure testimony they express having experience humble origins and finding the gospel as an adult, another the artistic sense of style. Granted the majority of people here are still of European descent, but so? That's who lives here and any newcomers are welcomed wherever they hail from. On the other hand, my son is serving in the Texas Houston East Mission. He's written home on more than one occasion of frustrating and sad experiences when they've taken investigators to church and the ward was decidedly less than friendly--yup, they were black investigators. He saw racism in the church up close and personal and it pained him immensely. He called the members on it too, from the pulpit one time, but don't know if it changed any hearts. I guess those of us who have "overcome" the past can help change it by being at least vocal about racism when we see it. Is that what you mean? Or are you calling for an institutional apology or something? Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:50:51 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Shameful First Works Thom Duncan wrote; "I would be glad to stage a reading of my awful first play, "The Tree." I reread this not too long ago and, I like the story, but the dialogue is oh so crappy. Let's do this. Sort of a Mormon Science Theatre 3000 session." Oh! Oh! Oh! (jumping up madly in the back of the room like the donkey in SHREK) Can I be the bowling pin thingy?? I mean, I'm sorta shaped like that anyway...I'd be PERFECT for the part, Mr. DeMille. One minor issue--I can see how fun that would be to do with Richard's entry, GIRL CRAZY, the movie, but a play? Can you guarantee the actors/readers will not lose focus due to the heckling and miss lines? It only works if the work being roasted flows on without interuption. Kim Madsen, whose family does MST 3000 sessions of their own on old family videos... - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:55:00 -0800 (PST) From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Re: Disappointing People Ronn wrote: "Maybe the real reason they were annoyed was because they thought you were making a sexual reference ("prophylactic")." That was certainly a part of the underlying humor, but no one objected to it expressly. "Prophylactic" of course also means "protective" in a general sense. Speaking of which, I've also written a short story that has absolutely no profanity, no nudity, and no sex but features a little box of prophylactics that show up for some reason on the shelves of the bishop's storehouse--a Relief Society President discovers them and is puzzled, etc. The Mormons in the story figure out eventually it's some kind of practical joke, although the Relief Society President at first thought it might have been a pilot program just for her stake. This episode is then followed by a churchwide bulletin that prohibits the display of "condiments" in bishop's storehouses, a bulletin that has people who never heard about the storehouse episode scratching their heads trying to figure out why that would be the case, but they dutifully reply anyway. A couple of independent Mormon journals have been interested in publishing the story, but eventually they decided not to because it has a condom in it, although no one actually uses the condom in the story. Ed __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:58:28 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit If all these holy directors objected to and refused to allow their movies to be edited for television then I would find their arguments more compelling. I agree in principle that the group that made the movie ought to determine its content, but lest we forget the director doesn't do that. In many cases he gets cut right out of the loop and some jr. sub-under-assistant editor does it. Or a minor bootlicker 3rd class who works for the executive bootlicker. (The boots are licked mainly so's you won't notice the dagger in your back.) The director's copyright arguments are nothing but a stalking horse for the studios who are currently using them to destroy CleanFlicks et al., and then they'll come out with their own software on DVDs that allows an "R" to become a "PG-13" or "PG" at the touch of a button. It's a done deal as far as the software is concerned, so Rob Reiner can go back and pretend to be serious somewhere else. I don't believe, despite my earlier profession of agreement, that CleanFlicks is breaking any copyright laws--at least not the current versions. Copyright is a new-fangled idea, less than 300 years old, and has been stretched all out of proportion in the last few years. I'm no anti-corporate type, but I don't see why a corporation that didn't do the original work and paid 0.05% of their total profits for the rights to that work, should be able to have exclusive rights for 100 years. I think 75 years is too long too--they should not have extended it the last 3 times, it should be no more than 50 years if that. It won't be a damper on artistic expression, either. I don't care if Sony has a contract with George Michael or Prince--the music doesn't get any better because there's a corporation behind it. Getting big cowardly corporations out of it would liven things up a bit, as the success of many independent films has shown over the past few years. A movie that makes only a few million dollars is a big success if it only cost a couple hundred grand to make. After all, it was corporate love of copyright that gave us _Waterworld_. Puh-lease. Bottom line? CleanFlicks is trying to fill a niche that wants filling. Movie sales are up the last couple of years but adjusted for inflation they're only middling successful compared to the past. The record numbers of the past few years are all due to a few particular movies, too. Without Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman and Harry Potter the last couple of years would've been pretty bad on the money side of things. There is good news however. In 1998 more than 70% of movies made were rated "R." This year the projection is only 40%. Even Hollywood gets tired of losing money eventually, despite the silly ideology. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:31:12 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Editing at BYU >And it was completely and utterly ineffective. In my day, all they >could was put a beep sound over the offensive words, but the lips were >still visiable, so, though one didn't actually hear the bad words, one >SAW the bad words, with, as far as I was concerned at least, the same >mental effect. It was laughable. > >Thom Duncan My last experience at the Varsity Theater was when they bleeped "God" when one of the characters in Branaugh's adaptation of _Much Ado About Nothing_ says "Thank God." Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:25:05 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: [AML] Gospel in Art (was: Singles Ward) Richard Dutcher wrote: >An intelligent, soulful person can (and should) find meaning in anything and >everything. Your education, background, and personal philosophy provided >depth for you in the experience of evaluating this film. I would argue, >however, that the movie provided no such depth. You brought it with you. But doesn't all art require that we "bring it with us"? Are you suggesting that there is something essentially artistic in the material artifact itself? If so, what? And wouldn't the existence of art that didn't require that we bring meaning with us be itself essentially the thing it represented? (ie, a film depicting the *essence* of the gospel would _be_ the gospel) "Also, I disagree with the statement. I believe the essence of the gospel is effable, representable, and fathomable. It is not artistically impossible. Maybe we haven't yet achieved the cinematic eloquence to communicate it, but we're getting closer. Those who believe it can't be done will never do it." This is a question of the utmost interest to me (and I think to many artists concerned with portraying the eternal)--do you really see the *essence* of the gospel as being inherently and solely temporal? If it is completely temporal, can it be universal? A great many of the most significant (or at least most often canonized) artists in the Christian tradition--Dante, Augustine, Milton, to name a couple--have seen a non-temporal, eternal side to the *essence* of the gospel (and this is a debatable term, too) and struggled with their own inability to achieve a representation of it. They've come close, like you suggest we (Mormons?) are doing, but have recognized ultimately that it's beyond art, beyond the limits of human temporality. I'm certainly not saying it's impossible, or that artists shouldn't try to represent the sacred in art--but I'm skeptical that anyone has ever "achieved" it, in literature, plastic arts, theater, film, or any other human artistic expression. Could you give some examples of art that you think has? Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:11:00 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Music Mike South wrote: (hehe, we sucked you in Mike!) "How important is music to telling a story?...Is music inherently manipulative when used in conjunction with telling a story?...I think a good example of a movie soundtrack that melds the songs to the visuals and story is "Rushmore"" I think music is extremely important to story, and anytime it's handled as an afterthought will be fraught with danger. However, I think it's very possible the director/music director can be inspired at anytime during the process and add to and take away from as the work progresses. My experience with this has been in live theater, so it feels to me like the musicians must be intimately involved. In film though, where the process is so disjointed and bits and pieces are formed separately then brought together to present a unified whole, I'm sure it feels like an afterthought to any musician involved, as they probably don't work very closely with the director or have his vision explained to them. It's all about getting the job done, and as efficiently as possible, because time is money. For me, a moment of perfection (in film) when the music and the visuals cam together was the montage towards the end of OUR STORY. Classical Gas (I think that was the name of the song) was underscoring--or should it be underpinning--the flashbacks Michelle Pfeiffer's character was experiencing, and it built powerfully along with the guitar pyrotechnics. It was a movie moment when I had a profound and moving experience (...and shhh...don't tell...the F-word was involved). The director so clearly showed how words can be violent, ugly, or healing and beautiful. How it all depends on the intent of the heart. It was a powerful message about family, the history of lives shared, the strength that can be found in times of stress if we can push ego out of the way, the hurt we can cause those we love. Kim Madsen (who votes that Mike should give up lurking altogether and just admit it's more fun to join in the gabbing) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:39:58 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit Mary Aagard wrote: >And I have a question for those you write and produce plays: Is it = >against=3D > copyright, or fair use of the material, to omit lines of dialogue, to = skip=3D >scenes to ignore stage directions written into the play? Of must = every=3D > word be spoken, etc. to make the production legal? =3D20 In a word, yes. Stage directions are iffier. Generally, if you license to do a play from, = say, Samuel French or Dramatists Play Service, they will include all the = stage directions that were used in the original (or alternatively, in the = biggest professional) production of the play. So if Matthew Broderick = crossed down right on that line, there'll be a stage direction to that = effect. Those can be ignored. But more substantive stage directions ('we = hear a shot, Biff falls') that're necessary to convey the meaning of the = text, those you have to do. Now, all that's negotiable. When we want to do a play at BYU, we contact = French or Dramatists and we say 'we want to do this play, but we also need = to change these lines of dialogue.' They then answer us yea or nea, = depending on their contractual agreements with the playwright. If the = playwright has, in his/her contract with French, a prohibition against = changing lines of dialogue, then that's it. Ballgame. We can't do the = play. (That's why we very seldom do Neil Simon, for example.) =20 There was a very famous lawsuit a few years ago, while Samuel Beckett was = still alive, in which a director set a production of Endgame in a subway = station. Beckett heard about it, hated it, sued, and won. And that is as = it should be. Now, do actors forget lines? Do actors paraphrase long speeches? Do = actors change lines in production? Do actors stop and stare at each other = in horrified silence because neither of them can remember where they are? = All that happens. But for a director or actor to make the decision to = change lines of dialogue without permission from the author or his agent, = that's illegal. As it should and must be. As far as Cleanflicks is concerned, I have no idea what the legal = disposition of that case will be, since I'm not a lawyer. I also don't = know how a Cleanflicks cutting would affect the impact of a film, since = I've never seen a Cleanflicks version of anything, and can't imagine a = circumstance where I ever would. I do think that a) one thing Cleanflicks = has proved is that there is a large market there for airline cuts or other = bowdlerized versions of films, and b) the fact that Hollywood has chosen = to ignore that market proves how vigorously they defend the artistic = integrity of a director's work. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:09:48 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Eric Samuelson wrote: >For one thing, the film used a kind of visual short hand, in which >unrighteousness is equated with beer. This, it seemed to me, was not used >satirically, as in 'look at how foolish Mormons are, thinking they're >better than anyone else because they don't drink beer.' I felt it was >taking seriously, and inviting the audience to take seriously, the idea >that we're genuinely better than other people because we don't drink >beer. Later, the Other Girl, the non-member girl from the comedy club, is >portrayed as not only Drinking Beer(!) but also as Smoking(!!), as a >prelude to Maybe Fooling Around(!!!). And yet, theologically, it's a >pretty important part of my personal belief system to believe that someone >who is not LDS who drinks, smokes, and maybe fools around, has a better >chance for salvation than a judgmental and self-righteous Mormon >would. It's Pride that damns. I agree with your distaste for this particular "shorthand." Again, I haven't seen the film, but your mention of the scenes involving beer as the Mark of Evil made me think of a similar scene in a church produced video I'd see a couple times a year in seminary. I think it's called the Armor of God (but I might be wrong). Anyway, it shows this young soon-to-be-missionary at a party where he is lured upstairs by a dark-haired girl. She doesn't actually take his hand, as I remember, but rather hands him a beer, and then they both head off to (presumably) fornicate. The next time you see him, he's with his bishop watching his best friend leave on a mission and telling him ruefully "I'll come along soon" or something to that effect. I remember my parents being particularly incensed by this film's portrayal of the woman as Temptress and Beer-Bearer, since, as they pointed out, it's ALWAYS the (lustful) girls at high school parties who seduce the (virtuous) guys, right? To the point, though--is there any chance that those behind "The Singles Ward" were taking a jab at the use of that sort of shorthand? Even if it's not a conscious commentary, even if they have bought into the trope, seems we still need to point out that they didn't come up with that particular equation (Beer = Fooling Around Women = Evil)--it's apparently officially endorsed. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #969 ******************************