From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #171 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, September 29 2003 Volume 02 : Number 171 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:31:46 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Viewed RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > The movie is in its second week. Is no one seeing it? Eric Samuelsen? Michael > Martindale? Someone? Anyone? Are you all afraid that Gary Rogers is lurking? You don't get to see my review here because it's being published in Irreantum. My review of Charly also didn't get seen here for the same reason. Although that issue is old enough now that I think I can post it here, because I want it appearing in the archives. I also wrote an article on three church-sponsored films that appeared in Irreantum and that I read at the Sunstone Symposium. I think I'll want to post it here as well. One drawback to being Irreantum film editor is I want to save my bests stuff for the magazine, but then I don't get to hear feedback about it from people on this list. Now if you'd all subscribe to Irreantum, read it, and comment on it here, that wouldn't be a problem. - -- 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, 26 Sep 2003 12:45:40 -0400 From: "b5dorsai" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Viewed I may have missed this but with all of the comments and controversy that Brigham City's PG-13 rating caused on other web-pages, I have not seen any comments about the Book of Mormon Movie and its PG-13 rating. Have I just missed it? Rick Thomas Dayton, OH - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:18:31 -0600 From: "Jonathan Neville" Subject: [AML] The Value of Writing? In considering the value of reading, shouldn't we also be considering the value of writing? Or the purpose for writing? For example, my own professional writing is expository and explanatory, and apparently it is effective for those purposes because I've been doing it for over 20 years. But I'm not sure whether there is a specific purpose behind the recreational reading I do, or even if the authors had a specific purpose in mind when they wrote the books. Isn't the primary value of reading to provide a "cultural literacy" to facilitate conversations and teaching opportunities? Isn't this even the reason we in the LDS community are admonished to study the scriptures daily? Or is the admonition for daily scripture study instead more practical, intended to actually increase the spirituality in our lives, with the result of improving our behavior and thoughts? The original article from the NY Times suggests that voracious readers may become rigid thinkers, and unfortunately that seems to be the case in many of the conversations I have with LDS people who seem to have one worldview. Is that a result of their reading material selected from the pre-screened Deseret Book offerings? Or maybe there's nothing wrong with rigid thinking, so long as it is "correct?" I'm curious what other writers think is the value of their writing. Are they writing to express themselves so they will feel better, in a sense better understood by others? Or are they writing to teach principles or lessons about consequences? Or are they merely writing to entertain? Or to make money? I suppose each of these are legitimate motivations, and the resulting books may appeal to different audiences. Maybe authors shouldn't try to analyze their motivations for writing. Many authors don't intend any moral teachings, and they are surprised by the "themes" the English professors come up with in analyzing their works. In my current Isaiah class, the instructor has some unique interpretations that may be as legitimate as anyone else's, although I find it difficult to imagine that Isaiah intended some of them. But if we write with a specific objective in mind, are we more or less likely to be successful? [Jonathan Neville] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:20:56 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] SF versus SciFi ___ Scott ___ | Actually, Scientific American did an article around a decade | ago that showed the math that legitimizes the concept of an | engine that literally warps space (sort of folds it like a | blanket) and lets one travel from one point to another without | either traversing the space in between or being limited by | prosaic laws such as the speed of light. ___ Kip Thorn's _Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy_ goes through this and show why they won't work. If I recall he developed the issue of wormholes after it was brought up in the 80's. As an interesting point, Kip Thorn was a nominal Mormon for a while. He has a robot in the book named Kolob to illustrate a particular point about black holes. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:05:39 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Form and Content in Theatre ___ Randall ___ | Today many film actors such as Julia Roberts,George Clooney &c. | don't act (they play themselves). They may claim to be "method" | actors but the reality is that they are NOT in the tradition of | Martin Landau & company. ___ I'm not sure playing yourself entails that you aren't acting. After all Jack Nicolson does that and has won three Oscars. Yet in every film he's in he still plays himself. Personally I rather like Clooney's acting. It reminds me of the old Cary Grant a bit. (Although with far more emoting) While Clooney certainly isn't at the top of his game, I think his portrayals in some films have been quite good. Yeah he's more the "star" type of acting rather than the character actor. But who cares? Some of my favorite actors have been like that. Humphrey Bogart? Was he playing himself or acting? What about Jimmy Stewart? No matter what even the best "method" or "character" actor does, they are still partially themselves. They aren't becoming someone else really. So long as it fits the part, who cares? Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:09:54 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Viewed At 08:09 AM 9/24/03 -0600, you wrote: >Please, please, Barbara tell me there isn't a scene where Laman and >Lemuel suddenly discover that their skin has become dark due to their >intractibility. If there is a scene like that, one depicting a sudden "mark" >rather than a change of lifestyle for Nephites and Lamanites, then this movie >takes on a whole new level of danger. Not exactly. After the family has been separated for several years, Sam goes back and looks at his older brothers, who have painted themselves and are dancing around a bonfire snarling and growling like animals. He returns to Nephi to tell him, "Their bodies are dark. Their countenances are dark." He doesn't say anything about SKIN exactly, but the implication is there that their spiritual darkness has a physical manifestation. If he had just said "countenances" it would have been okay, I think, because you can speak of someone having a dark expression without saying anything about race. The actual Book of Mormon doesn't say anything, does it, about Laman and Lemuel after Nephi and his followers left them? I had just remarked to my companion that since we don't hear any more about them, perhaps they did repent before the end. After all, those two older brothers were up and down. The movie did portray that. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:15:05 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Yeah, Darvell, the horror cover is problematic, and (you will not be surprised to learn) is not doing well financially. Spartan Entertainment, a non-LDS distributor, approached Zion and offered to distribute the video to a wider audience than Excel had been able to reach. Richard got talked into it, but low and behold one of the clauses was that he had no say on marketing and Spartan could do what they wanted to try and sell the film. Well, the cover you saw, the horror cover, is what they came up with. Pretty embarrassing, and it has not been effective. So, lesson learned... never sign over your right of final refusal on marketing materials. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:55:06 -0600 From: "Gabriele Kupitz" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Viewed I'm just a lurker, but need to chime in. I've read many of the negative reviews of THE BOOK OF MORMON MOVIE. I try to be supportive of Mormon artists (are any of you a Shakespeare and/or Steven Spielberg, yet???) and applaud their determination to bring their creative projects to the world. I read Jerry Johnston's Saturday Deseret News article and laughed when reading: "I felt I was watching the cast of 'Touched by an Angel' performing 'Ben Hur.'" Then I read the article about Gary Rogers in the Saturday Church News. Those two articles did it for me: I knew I needed to see the BoM Movie (a) to show support for one who has been determined to bring to fruition a project that has captivated his imagination for years; (b) to expose the film to "the theater of my heart"; and (c) to learn how Gary Rogers used a tiny budget for such a grandiose project. My movie-going friends and I were prepared to see a hokey movie, but we were pleasantly surprised. We loved the film! As the credits were rolling one of my friends said, "I'm not ready for it to be over." I felt the same way. Go see the film. Read the book... Gabi Gabi Kupitz BYU-HBLL 6746 Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-6735 gabriele_kupitz@byu.edu=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:05:42 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies At 11:46 AM 9/25/03, you wrote: >Since I'm a sahm, most of the movies we see come > > from the library. > >Dear Tequitia, would you please explain? Thankyou. Marilyn Brown I believe I can, if Tequitia's away from her computer, being (I believe) in the same category. SAHM: Stay-at-Home Mom. Correct? Linda Adams - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:45:37 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Sugar Beet and Satire >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Original Message From "Richard Johnson" =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=09When I read the _Sugarbeet_ plug I had to wonder at the >monumental task of creating satire when it blooms fully in everyday >activity. It's true, we're outdone most every day of the week by people who don't even know what the word satire means. Being humble sorts, we give credit where its due. So whenever we find someone who's way funnier than we are without even trying, we put a link to them in the "We Kid You Not Section." I'm actually amazed sometimes at what people make in all earnestness. Temple checks for example. The lastest example can be found at www.buildingziontogether.com It has a board game called "The Atonement." No it's not a race to see who can suffer most first, but it's close. If The Sugar Beet created a game like that and put it up on the site, we'd probably get blasted by people thinking we were beyond all evil. But, if you're in earnest (as these folks are, painfully so) you can get away with outlandish stuff and no one will accuse you of blasphemy. You really must visit this site, it is hilarious. From the pictures of a solemn, Sunday dressed family gathered around the game board to quotes like this: "At first, we thought it was just a clever game but soon discovered the overwhelming parallel to the human life and death experiences we have been taught as the Plan of Salvation. In fact, the realism was so great as we participated in the activity that when my wife drew a card that said her life was over and she would need to go to the spirit world and wait for the rest of us, I was deeply shaken." Jumanji here we come. We will continue to work hard to bring the Sugar Beet to such humorous heights. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:51:08 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] SF versus SciFi I think the nautical reference is probably the more accurate, although the image of "warping" space and time is a serendipitous double meaning. Genuine Trekkers will know that there was an original pilot for "Star Trek" which was never aired (they reshot it as the now-famous original episode). I have seen bits and pieces of that "lost" original-original, and it is hilarious the extent to which they took the nautical references. The captain (not Kirk) would say something like "All helm to starboard" or something goofy like that, and Spock (it was Nemoy, but the character was very different) would yell at the top of his lungs: "ALL HELM TO STARBOARD" and you would then hear others distantly screaming the order down the line, just like in an old sailing vessel. It was incredibly goofy. Thank goodness they scraped that idea, rethought their concept and brought us what we've now come to know (and some of us!) love. So I suspect Roddenberry's "warp" was a nautical reference. By the way, the nautical term "warping" refers to the process of pulling or towing a vessel by lashing it to a pulley on a fixed point -- a buoys, anchor, dock or another ship -- and actually pulling the ship around in a different direction or out of a tight port. Warping was for precision, controlled movement, and was, ironically, a slow process. Warping would not imply speed but pulling, heaving, laborious, human-power movement of a ship. But when you as the idea of bending or folding space-time (and L'Engle was far from the first to play with that idea!) I guess you get a sense of distance bridged (if not speed, per se). But all of this is "science fantasy" or soft sci-fi, as I suppose this thread is trying to developed a distinction between hard SF, which uses actually plausible science taken to its conceivable limits and asking, "What if?" (hence the more preferred label of "Speculative Fiction" vs. "Science Fiction"), whereas sci-fi or science fantasy is basically just an adventure story that could just as equally be set among the stars as among the waves of the sea. I happen to like it all, to some extent, but ultimately, SF is more rewarding in a literary sense. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:13:05 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Mormons in _The Stand_ At least he mentioned those dead Mormons in the LDS chapel in Boulder. Of course, I don't know how accurate that would be. Would any Mormons really feel the need to congregate at a chapel while in their last hours of dying of a plague? Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:56:13 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: [AML] Movie Moratoriam [MOD: Good luck...] Movie Moratorium For the last several months I've been noticing that the AML list has = shifted it's focus from literature to movies. True, we've been a = sounding board about Mormon Arts since before Richard Dutcher started = the genre, but it seems to me that we have been too preoccupied with the = silver screen and less with the literature and stories that are the = kernel of future Art.=20 Face it-we all know that movies are a very poor medium for stories of = character development, character description, as well as indicating how = and what a character thinks. Films are just too short. They are "little = classics" of Moby Dick in 16 pages. They are shallow. =20 And they are made up of shallow actors-by this I mean that the main = character has to look good or the audience won't accept him. = Dissertations could be written about how movies have reinforced the = false myth that the beauty of the flesh is the same as goodness. Most = good literature and experience teaches us the opposite-that you cannot = judge a book by its cover.=20 Because the visual medium relies so heavily on the superfluous, the = Mormon movie genre will not work. The prophets know this-the Whitney and = Kimball prophecies about Mormon Arts do not mention film, in spite of = what Kieth Merrill espouses. I'm not talking about theatre, with its = intimate settings, and it's reliance on Voice-both the voice of the = author and those of the actors. In the theatre, the audience judges = character through experiencing the voice, and it matters little if the = actor has a disfiguring mole or a misplaced ten pounds.=20 The spirituality and mission of Mormonism is cavernous and = unfathomable, not skin deep. In fact, there is not much surface beauty = among the Mormons. If we didn't know this by now, we have The Sugar Beet = to remind us. Just to elaborate, the Mormons: were started by an = uneducated young man.ended up in an uninhabitable desert.subjected women = to polygamy.resisted racial equality.confuse art and = proselytizing.blindly obey.have a massacre in their history.perform = secret rituals.etc.. All of which we have discussed on this list BECAUSE = we too are interested in surface beauty.=20 And individually we are not beautiful. I know because I've met you. Put = us together and we look like one of my family reunion photos. Some are = too fat, some too tall, some balding, some short, some too feminine, and = some not feminine enough. But that doesn't matter! I hear you cry. And that's right-we see each = other through our writing, our thinking, our inner personalities. Which = bring me back to movies-why are we worried about them? At best they will = show a small slice of insight and realism, much less than we could get = by reading ten pages of fiction or two pages of scripture. What I like = and remember about this list are the stories-Diane Graham's from two = days ago still simmers in my consciousness. Eric Samuelseon's frothing = and logical opinions that even argue with himself. Young's charity. = Martindale's Giorgi's and others imaginations and Profit reining us back = in. Needle's reviews and more reviews. Give me more! But please no more = movie reviews. We all know that movies will fall short of what books can = do. Even if someone were to achieve the great Mormon movie it would be = labeled propaganda because it would be skin deep. Besides, there won't = be a great Mormon movie without a novel first.=20 Therefore, I would like to call for a moratorium on any discussion, = review, opinion, experience, theorizing, musing, argument, or mention of = movies. (Plays are still fair game.) The moratorium will last for three = months until the end of the year. Let's get back to discussing Mormon = fiction past, present and future, and what could make it better. For = example: what is an archetypical Mormon character in 2003 as opposed to = 1903? If Brigham Young's 27th wife were to write a book (instead of a = ghostwriter) what would it say? What are the great conflicts in the = latter-day church to write about? Is it possible to write a Mormon novel = that America would read? Are Mormon writers just like Christian writers? = Is what is wrong with them the same things that are wrong with us? How = can we market Mormon Fiction to Mormons? How can we market our = inspirational writing (including missions) without being a G.A.? =20 Of course this will be voluntary-no compulsion in this kingdom. But I = will be checking on you daily and encouraging you to buy a book or = theatre ticket instead of a movie pass because I am interested in your = salvation. After all, if we all agree we shouldn't support bad Mormon = movies, can't we use the same logic to say we shouldn't support movies = over books or theatre?=20 Alan Mitchell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:00:20 -0700 From: "Kelly Thompson" Subject: Re: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies I agree with Clay's comment that seeking to see the positive in the world of Mormon film and literature is more beneficial than fearing that because we venture to see/support art that is flawed will ruin the industry. I worry at times that AML listserv participants tend to be overly critical of other people's efforts to be artistic. Can't we celebrate mulltiple levels of art - -- including the kind that merely entertains? Can't we applaud people who have the guts to try to do something with their talents even if it isn't high-brow? Kelly "A wider scope of view, and a deeper insight, may see rank, dignity, and station all proved illusory, so far as regards their claim to human reverence, and yet not feel as if the universe were thereby tumbled headlong into chaos." Nathaniel Hawthorne - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:11:40 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] _Jane Eyre_ Revised (was: Book Burning Justified?) At 03:18 PM 9/25/03 -0600, you wrote: >The villain, >in this book, is a guy who gets in a time machine and rewrites the >original manuscript of Jane Eyre. And so, in the modern world, all >copies of Jane Eyre are likewise altered. An international emergency, >to be dealt with by a special British police unit specializing in >literary crimes. Part of what I love about Fford is that he imagines a >future world in which literature is taken VERY VERY seriously. I'm curious about the changes the villain wrought. Did Jane agree to become Rochester's mistress? Did she have to marry that smarmy preacher? Did Rochester let his mad wife burn, thereby saving himself from blindness and disfigurement? Did Jane the governess get a raise from thirty pounds a year to forty pounds? The mind boggles. . . . . barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:49:32 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium ___ Alan ___ | Face it-we all know that movies are a very poor medium | for stories of character development, character | description, as well as indicating how and what a | character thinks. ___ And books are much weaker at showing the ambiguity that the environment of a character faces. We get but one perspective: the perspective of the author. A film uses more of reality to express a character. And I remember my creative writing teachers often telling me to not tell what a character feels but *show* it. Interesting they kept using visual imagery. . . Not to knock books mind you. I love books. Indeed the written word has a texture and character all of its own. It enables a poetic to be brought to descriptions that bald descriptions lack. But in the same way writing about a painting is quite different from seeing the painting. Each provides something the other lacks. To say that one is ultimately a "poor medium" is, I think, to overlook just what they are capable of. ___ Alan ___ | Films are just too short. They are "little classics" of | Moby Dick in 16 pages. They are shallow. ___ One wonders if, to be consistent, you are equally condemning of short stories or short works of poetry. ___ Alan ___ | And they are made up of shallow actors-by this I mean | that the main character has to look good or the audience | won't accept him. ___ Humphrey Bogart. Charles Bronson. Dennis Hopper. Gene Hackman. Gerard Depardieu. Ernest Borgnine. I could go on. No one doubts that people in general prefer attractive leading actors. But the majority of readers prefer the literary equivalent of sympathetic and accessable characters as well. And if one points out that not all literature is Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Dan Brown, Robin Cook or so forth, one need also only point out that all film is hardly Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer. ___ Alan ___ | Because the visual medium relies so heavily on the superfluous, | the Mormon movie genre will not work. ___ Have you ever read Plato on writing? Writing is but the copy of speech. Thus it is inferior to speech and much more superfluous. Presumably one could construct a fair argument that writing is inferior to listening to speeches. In theory this might well mean that staged drama is superior to written works. I'm not opposed to discussing literature, mind you. (Although I personally would note that a lot of LDS literature is on par with what you criticize in film: unless you truly feel _Charley_ the movie is that much worse than _Charley_ the book) Of course the *best* way to start a discussion is to say something controversial on a topic. By picking to lambast film you probably kept the discussion on film going... Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #171 ******************************