From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #185 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, October 9 2003 Volume 02 : Number 185 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:34:33 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Ownership of Writing Just to add to this post (ad nausium), to have a legal case for plagiarism, you usually have to be able to prove three things: 1) first that you own the copyright and that it was established BEFORE the alleged case of plagiarism; then 2) that they had ACCESS, that you sent and/or they otherwise had your material before the alleged plagiarism; and then finally 3) that there are overwhelming points of similarity. And by that I mean word-for-word exact similarity, and there is some legal minimum prior to being awarded damages, and it is very high. It is easier to prove in fiction than non-fiction, a lot of which is factual and not protectable. Also, contrary to Paris's implication, an outline is NOT copyright-able. They COULD follow your outline and still not be proven legally liable. Finally, you should check out Jana Riess' outstanding and important comments on this thread. Not only is she absolutely right, but it might also give you a clue as to a topic which should be covered in query letters: SAY how YOU will sell your book. Unless you are an established name, how is the publisher or editor going to know that? It's an essential aspect to a non-fiction book proposal. In acting, there is an old adage that says, an agent only gets a 10% commission because the actor does 90% of the work. True in books, too. (And the expression is not talking about the work of creating, but the work of marketing!) Jon Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:46:57 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] (SL Trib) _Work & Glory_ Movie At 04:27 PM 10/8/03, you wrote: >There is no way they can have the budget >to film all 9 books one at a time. I know they are planning on doing=20 >this with Harry Potter, and as much as I like Harry Potter, I can't see >filming all 7 books. Book 5 is horribly dark and I would not take any=20 >young children to it. I hope this post makes sense. Debbie Brown Hear, hear. I haven't read a single one--so I can't comment on "all nine at=20 once" or whatever. But I agree with the budget--each successive movie will=20 have to come from sales of the previous one. I just finished Harry book 5 last night, so it's on my mind. Personally I=20 thought book 4 was much "darker" than this one. This one could have been more 'intense' but I wouldn't say 'darker.' No, I wouldn't take young=20 children to any of the movies, esp. not 4 or 5. I can't see filming all 7=20 books partly because they keep getting longer; how are they going to cut all that material into a single, sensible movie? And book 5 was plainly at least 300 pages *too* long. Which is what I'd=20 like to discuss briefly. I sat last night wondering how she got away with=20 all the extraneous information in that book, and the wandering, and many narrative passages that could have quickly, painlessly been redone as=20 dialogue or "live action." Say your piece; move on to the next thing. I've=20 read all the books, yet this is the first volume I've noticed this being so=20 rampant. Now, many readers don't like her writing style. I always have.=20 When the movie came out, it was amazing how close the scenery was to how I=20 always pictured Hogwarts, and how Rowling herself says she pictures it - --=20 and matching readers up with the picture in your own head *that well* has=20 to be a literary gift. But this time through, the writing actually did get=20 in the way for me. Many many times. Some parts were very well-done. But=20 half the time I was pulled out of the story by some literary technique, or=20 a passage I thought I could have fixed, had I been her editor. Which brings me to my point. Does anyone know the editing story of this=20 piece? At what point is an artist's clout too much clout? Or was=20 Scholastic just in a rush to get it out there? Or has Rowling become so=20 successful that she's refusing to listen to her editors to tighten it up,=20 and the editors allow it because they know it will sell no matter how many=20 pages. . .? Quite frankly, if book 6 is 1000 pages or more, of the same=20 rambling, un-tight, merciless wandering, that's going to be too dreadful. I=20 don't mind at all reading 800 pages of genius. I want more. I want it to keep going. But frankly, this book drags on and on and I felt like I *had*=20 been at the school the entire year following every single detail by the=20 time I was done. It's a work of fiction, not journaling. She could have=20 done this story in 500 pages or less. The major events take (without=20 actually counting) about 300 pages, with much, much filler between them. Some story elements she spent a lot of space developing are then completely=20 dropped (such as Umbridge's blood-draining quill pen, which I thought was=20 going to amount to something more vital to the plot). And another=20 complaint; at 800+ pages you can't tell me there wasn't room to include a=20 terribly important scene like Harry Potter's first kiss. You also can't=20 tell me, with everything else in the books, that an innocent kiss (as seen=20 in most Disney G-rated movies) was inappropriate content, so one had to cut=20 away. The girl's face gets closer... closer... and then we are shifted to=20 the Gryffindor common room where Harry tells his friends about it. That was=20 a mistake. All right. Each book also follows the identical formula: Summer with the Dursleys, the train to Hogwarts, the Sorting Hat, classes for the year,=20 Christmas break, stuff Harry fails to tell Dumbledore that eventually lands=20 him in trouble (has he learned nothing in five years, about that?) more=20 classes, exams, and finally, the confrontation with Voldemort (does he=20 seriously only turn up in March once a year? come on...) and the ride back=20 home. Now it *is* school, of course similar elements will be repeated. But=20 you can only dwell on those elements so many times before they fail to be=20 interesting. You can build on that background; previous readers don't need=20 to be reminded of every detail in every book. Or is this a convention of children's series literature that I'm just ... missing? So... does anyone know how long the original Harry Potter manuscript was?=20 I'm curious. And would anyone have a problem with focusing on only parts of the school=20 year, with a few pages' recap of how the summer, Sorting Hat, and first=20 classes went (or whichever), then getting into the meat of "what happens next?" It's become almost (though not this bad) like going through someone=20 else's photo album and not being allowed to skip any of the pictures, even=20 if many of them look virtually the same. My point is, if you're going to write something long, make it count. Don't=20 put me through it unnecessarily; say something! My own book is long. I know that. Therefore I feel qualified to make the complaint I'm making, as a fellow long-winded writer. When mine was=20 printed, I felt there was hardly a sentence I could bear to cut without=20 losing the richness of the story. So--I know that feeling. I also=20 know--looking at it now--that indeed many, many sentences could have been=20 lopped, and I *could* have gotten it down to a more reasonable 350 pages or=20 so and said all I intended to say, losing little nuance or meaning. I=20 haven't had anyone complain about the length so far except those who=20 haven't yet cracked its cover, but in my heart, I worry it was just too=20 many words (214,000, I think) to subject people to. So my frustration lies partly in knowing it *could* be done, especially=20 with this latest installment (and somewhat with #4--the Yule Ball business=20 didn't further the plot and took up far too many pages for its relative=20 importance to the story *or* character development) -- it *could* have been=20 done, and nobody (evidently) among the editors working on it stood up and=20 said so and made her do it. And this bare fact worries me, (Mormon Lit=20 connection now!) because on the off-chance (I know, I know, twitter away,=20 I'm not offended) I ever do make national bestseller lists and my books fly=20 off the shelves -- I'm very worried there could come a point my editors no=20 longer fuss at me to make me improve my work. I've seen a decline in=20 quality with nearly every one of my favorite authors who are both=20 successful and prolific. I know publishing is a business, and the bottom line is sales; therefore editors are highly motivated to make a new hot=20 possibility sell and make it the best it can be before going to press. But when readers are craving more, more, more, and the manuscript is late=20 coming, and everyone knows it will sell millions of copies anyway... I'm concerned that quality can easily be forgotten. I've read several books by=20 favorite authors later on in their careers that felt like first draft, with=20 plot holes, lack of character development, you name it, where those serious=20 flaws do not show up in the earlier works. Okay, my rant is over. Cheers! Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:12:26 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" Jongiorgi Enos wrote a fantastic summary of how Mormon-themed films need to keep their budgets in check and be realistic about their potential box office success. The simple fact, as Jon explained, is that there's NO WAY "The Work and the Glory" can make back a budget of $7 million. It just simply isn't going to happen, no way, no how. Just before "The Book of Mormon Movie" came out, I theorized that even though it was going to be a bad movie, it might still do OK because every active Mormon was going to be interested in seeing it, just out of curiosity, even if all their friends told them it was lousy. I did the same kind of number-crunching Jon did, calculating numbers of Mormons, ticket prices, etc., and figured the film might wind up turning a profit. It turns out maybe I underestimated my fellow saints, or perhaps overestimated their interest in attending moving pictures of any sort. After four weeks, the film has grossed $516,000. At its current rate, it will probably top off at around $900,000, maybe hit $1 million. Its budget was $2 million. I can't imagine Gary Rogers getting funding to do a second film if the first one fails to turn a profit; at least, I know I don't want to WATCH a second film. So maybe this will all turn out OK after all. There's also "The Work and the Story," the mockumentary that opened last weekend on five screens in Utah. It grossed a measly $2,192, or $438 per screen. This is extremely lousy -- and it fits, considering it's a lousy movie, despite the "nearly genius" quote they've got attributed to me in their advertising. (What I SAID was that one specific scene was "nearly genius," while the rest of the film is mostly crap; they've taken "nearly genius" and applied it to the entire film.) It will probably be the worst box office for a Mormon film so far, which is fitting, since it's the worst movie so far (or so I thought until I saw "Day of Defense" today -- which, now that I think of it, might even do worse than "Work and the Story"). My point, I guess, is that Mollywood films' success will probably prove to be the same mixed bag as that of Hollywood films'. Sometimes a bad film makes a lot of money. Sometimes good ones tank. And every now and then, when the planets align and fate smiles upon us, a good film achieves commercial success while a bad one goes in the Dumpster. Every now and then, in other words, audiences and filmmakers alike get what they deserve. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:43:33 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" At 07:13 PM 10/8/03, you wrote: >If it were me, I would cut the budget in half and get Hugh Jackman to=20 >play Benjamin Steed. > >THEN! THEN you'd be talking! THAT'S something to get excited over!=20 >THERE is a winning combination. Appropriate budget, outstanding and=20 >commercial cast. No crystal ball required. Just good business sense.=20 >$4.5 million with Hugh Jackman: THAT is a package that makes SENSE for=20 >it. Wow, Jonjiorgi, this whole post was fascinating. And I'm green with envy. I'm two degrees of separation (more or less?) from sitting on the set of Minority Report. (A movie I felt should have at *least* been NOMINATED for Oscars... but being SF had no chance... man--that was incredible work...) But--just curious--how do you get Jackman on a budget of $4.5 mil? Doesn't he pull in more than that per picture? Then what happens to the rest of the budget, if it's taken up by one star's salary? How do you film the rest of the movie; with aspiring volunteers? I'm happy to hear the filmmakers are high-quality though. That's good news. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:17 -0700 From: "Clay Whipkey" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons in The Stand >From: "Thom Duncan" >I can't imagine the average Mormon >family under such a scenario as the end of the world >being able to do anything without hearing from some in authority about=20 >what they "should" do. Maybe ultimately, we might organize as families >but you can bet it would probably be because the Bishop would have >told us "Go home and be with your families." Based on the tone of this post, I don't know that I am comfortable with your=20 assessment of what an "average Mormon family" is all about. In my own=20 experience, as I've tried to cast off the cynical eye on my fellow saints, I=20 find that the average Mormon has more depth and substance than I gave them=20 credit for in my past. I would think that in our varying states of weakness=20 the greater likelihood is not that the "average Mormon" would be some=20 clueless wandering sheep waiting to be told what to do, but instead possibly=20 lacking a the faith in themselves and consequently stumble a bit in the=20 handling of the disaster. However, as long as said person was willing to=20 call upon the Lord for guidance in their hour of need, I would not be=20 surprised to see them shine beyond the wool some have clothed them with. >I don't live with my >kids. I live alone. Where would people like me fit >into the scenario you're talking about..........If there were an=20 >iminent danger, I would want to die in the arms of someone who was=20 >related to me. So your family doesn't live in the same house, how does that destroy the family unit? If your main desire in a time of danger would be to be with=20 family, and supposing you would make sacrifices to rendezvous with them, are=20 you really disagreeing with Jon anymore? It sounds to me like you ended up=20 full circle there. cheers, Clay Whipkey _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer--=20 sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=3Ddept/dialup - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:13:33 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Ideas (was Movie Moratorium) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randall Larsen" > I think you are overly pessimistic. There is always money for good=20 > ideas. Investors don't have difficulty recognizing good ideas or=20 > artists with a track record in good ideas... Well Randall, I hope that is truly the case with you. But in my experience, your statements are overly OPTIMISTIC. I myself am an optimist. But I have hundreds of good ideas, and I am extremely conscious of commerciality, and intensly concerned with investor return. But meeting an investor who actually recognizes that without difficulty is a once-in-a-blue-moon experience! And 90% of the time, even when they say yes to an investment, they are not saying yes because they have recognized a great idea, but for a plethora of other resons, mostly having to do with emotions. So, it's a very nice thing to say, but unfortunatly in my experience, it just isn't true! Now, correct me if I am wrong. If what you say genuinely IS true where you are... well then, I need to take a trip to Hawaii and have you introduce me to some of these saavy investors of yours! Seriously! Not even kidding a little here! I'll fly out there first thing next week, and I'm not joshing. If you've got investors who genuinely have no difficulty in recognizing good ideas, I'm on a plane tomorrow. Let me know. Or are you just teasing me by saying that? Cuz, I'm NOT kidding. I'm looking for the people you speak of EVERY SINGLE DAY. And they ain't jumping out of trees. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:32:19 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons in The Stand If it is true what you say, Thom, that "I can't imagine the average Mormon family under such a scenario as the end of the world being able to do anything without hearing from some in authority about what they "should" do," then I find that very sad. I am not saying you are wrong. There are probably many people who are of the sheep variety who find themselves paralyzed when not instructed or following a leader. But I think to say it generally is to dismiss all that we are taught about independence and being proactive. "Be not commanded in all things." This is a very big aspect of our gospel, and frankly, I think the "average" Mormon WOULD be able to figure out what to do in a crisis without calling his bishop. Your other points are well taken and talk to a personal issue which can't be ignored. But, sadly, I think the point you bring up about those individuals without families is a good one: people without families in the church are frequently not very well served. And do I believe that in an end-of-the-world scenario you might get forgotten completely if your home teacher is incapacitated? I think it likely. Perhaps that's a grim view and I'm wrong. But your desire to die with someone related to you is a real one. But if you were not able to be geographically close to actual family, or if you are the last one left alive, what else can you do? As you say, your home teacher is no substitute. Or is he? In a screenplay I'm working on from a story Richard and I came up with together, we explore an end-of-the-world scenario, but not within LDS circles. Those that have families go to be with them on the final day. The several characters who do not have families, end up staying together, three of them. They go up onto the roof and smoke cigarettes and watch the sun come up together, a bizarre little family unit created spontaneously among individuals who did not know each other only hours before. And I think, at least as I've imagined it, that their experience is as rewarding as any can be in a "what if" scenario so grim. There is a genetic, convulsive humanity at the end, that makes any one of us "family" if our enemy is some alien force, be it a virus or meteor or whatever. You might find that, in the end, ANYONE would do, in those last moments, as "family". Isn't that what fiction, particularly extremely speculative fiction, is there to explore: these kinds of questions? Thanks for the personal insight. Jongiorgi Enos (P.S. -- good point in another thread about "deviant" Mormon artists, by the way!) Thom Duncan... > And, in talking about family groups being the basic organization of=20 > the church. I guess I used to believe that, when I had a family. =20 > Now, as a single man, with my kids all grown, I find that I am the=20 > basic organization of the Church. I don't live with my > kids. I live alone. Where would people like me fit > into the scenario you're talking about? I suppose I > would meet with my home teachers family but that just > wouldn't be the same, would it? If there were an > imminent danger, I would want to die in the arms of > someone who was related to me. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:50:56 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Computer Technology and the Writer I have another suggestion. In addition to the text file, always have a paper copy. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:41:29 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" - --- Original Message --- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" To: Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" > >Please, for heaven's sake: SPECULATE on a movie's success BEFORE you >make it! I couldn't agree more. It was a thought process similar to this that we used to fund the Center Street Theatre. And we would still be doing it because it was certainly make enough money to pay expenses -- had not the City of Orem thrown in a wrench by deciding to interpret an obscure building code that required money we had not budgeted for. My question, Jon, is this: Your speculation of what a film will make is certainly helpful, but give us some insight into specualtion on the budget process. I've felt that a ten million dollar budget for a major film about Joseph Smith isn't enough money. Do you think ten mill for a film on Joseph is enough and why? - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:51:33 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Randall Larsen wrote: > The problem with the movie industry is that there are _too few_ good=20 > ideas. So the motion picture production pipeline has to admit a lot of > works that imitate art without being art. I don't buy that one. There are a bunch of good ideas around that don't=20 get produced. Hollwood doesn't want good ideas. It wants bankable ideas. Now if you're talking about television, I might agree. Few good ideas=20 floating around there. - --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:00:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Stock Emotions and Sentimentalism This is a take-off to some extend on the "What Is Kitsch?" thread, but also taking into account some other thoughts that have been bubbling in my head for awhile. In response to Barbara Hume's excellent question, "What makes an emotion 'stock'?," Thom Duncan replied: >A mother always sobs and falls into the arms of her >husband upon hearing bad news > >Men always bite their lip and fight back tears upon >hearing bad news > >Happiness is always shown by laughing and doing a >funny dance across the livingroom rug What I find interesting about this reply is that it seems to be based entirely on context, not content. That is, what makes an emotion "stock" is nothing in the emotion itself, or even in the artistry (or lack thereof) of the artist. Rather, it seems to reside in the expectations of the audience and the practices of the larger artistic world: if it's something we've come to expect, then it's stock, regardless of how well or ill it may be justified or carried out in that particular context. Now, please note that I have no objection to defining "stock emotions" in this way. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense that how we view a particular artistic work is heavily influenced by the general artistic context. I even think it's at least somewhat appropriate to judge artists and their works in this way. If part of the value of art is to show us the world in a new and original way, then an artist who does the same thing everyone else is doing isn't really meeting that part of the challenge very well. On the other hand, it seems to me that many of the other definitions of "stock phrase" that people were bandying around were closer to what we've sometimes called sentimentalism on this list: that is, emotion that is somehow "unearned" or "dishonest" or even "unhealthy." I remember Margaret Young in a post a few weeks back alluding to the spiritual dangers of sentimentality. And that resonated with me, too. But these type of definitions seem to focus on something that's inherent either to the emotion itself, or to how it's evoked in the work. In other words, not the same as saying that it's bad because everyone else is doing it (as Thom seems to be doing), but saying it's bad for some reason that's internal to the work of art. Which led me to wonder... Are there some sentiments, and some contexts for them, that are inherently bad--because they build up unrealistic expectations, or lie to us about the way the world is? (And yes, for those of you who may be wondering: this is in part a follow-up to my post a while back on the value of reading, or at least relates to it.) Part of my reason for asking this is the recognition that I am, well, a sentimentalist. I don't cry when I'm bearing my testimony (instead, I talk like I'm reading the financial news--yeah, about that exciting), but I do cry when I listen to some sappy songs and when I read parts of books, like the place in _The High King_ when Fflewddur Fflam breaks his harp to provide wood so his friends won't freeze to death, or the end of _The Lord of the Rings_. Actually, it's kind of embarrassing, because I get more worked up when I'm reading books aloud to my children than they do. To put it another way: What is sentimentality, and how do we recognize it, and why is it bad for us, both as creators of art and as consumers of art? Any takers? I'm particularly interested in Margaret's answer, since she's talked about this as part of her creative writing class; but I think it's a good general topic, too. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:31:36 -0600 From: "Janelle Higbee" Subject: Re: [AML] Acting/ Writing as a Teacup - -----Original Message----- From: "Walters, Isaac C" "We often think of a tea cup as just something that holds tea. But in Japan, a tea cup creates an empty space which can then be filled with tea.....I think that all acting must create a space for the audience's imagination. In both of the examples cited this was done primarily through physicality. I think that is significant. If the actor fills up the tea cup with their own emotions then there is no space for the audience's imagination....But I think that the actor needs to make sure there is still space for the audience's imagination in what they are creating." - -------------------- Thanks for this. Not being very involved in theater or acting, I was losing interest in this thread. Now you've got met thinking. I've long been convinced that our physicality deeply affects our mental, emotional, and spiritual states, often in ways we rarely recognize. Now pondering two things tangential to this theory: * How does the physical state affect our writing? For instance, some of us write more freely and creatively with pen and paper than on a computer. Some of us like background noise when writing; sometimes we need complete silence. Why? Maybe it's largely a matter of concentration, but maybe it's also a matter of physical connection to the sensory act of writing. Can it be that a comfortable office chair is as important to my creativity and productivity as it is a deterrent to carpel tunnel syndrome?? Hmm. * Creating an empty space for the audience to fill. As a rhetorician, my favorite buzzword is "context". Now I'm going to have to formulate some theory about how "context" relates to "teacup". Writing enough to give your audience context, but leaving them enough space for their imaginations to fill. How is that done? How is it done WELL? This explains why I can't stand to read someone like Grisham, even though the plot lines may be interesting. The OVER-writing makes me nuts. I do not need to know the color of this minor character's fingernail polish. Too much information! Please, write me a teacup. =20 Any thoughts, anyone? - -Janelle Higbee =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:14:44 GMT From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Book about Mental Illness The lack of stories, true or fiction, about mental illness in the church is a pet peeve of mine. There is such a need for openness and understanding. The shame of thinking you're the only one who "can't cope" makes the problem so much worse for people. A friend of mine was in Relief Society one Sunday and the teacher of the class said, "The scriptures are my Prozac!" I just can't get over the ignorance and unfeelingness of such a statement. We NEED to share our stories so that we can help each other more and love each other better.=20 (BTW, I also think there should be more stories about the difficulties of marriage. Too many young marrieds believe the sweet senile couples who say they've "never had a single argument," and then panic about their own marriages: "and I'm stuck with him for eternity! Must have been a wrong choice to marry him!" Stories, stories do so much good! Tell them! Write them!) - -Darlene Young =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:57:18 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" This is a great post from Jon Enos, and I agree with mostly all of it, with just a few possible exceptions: First, when I said "I think it's real premature to speculate regarding the success of a movie that hasn't been made yet," I was only thinking in terms of whether or not it would be any good. I mean, artistically. I mean, would I enjoy it. I wasn't thinking of box office. I took it for granted that at that budget, the movie would be a box office failure.=20 Second, I disagree with Jon about The Other Side of Heaven. I think it did darn well to only lose as much as it did. 4.5 mill for a movie that bad: that's good, considering. We should all be cheered at the relative financial success of TOSH. The writing is dreadful. There's no character development, hardly any drama at all, and it's got that one dreadful scene that absolutely kills the film dead. It's a movie about a guy to whom things happen, not even remotely about a guy who makes things happen. Death. And hey, it pulled in 4.5 mill. That's great news. That's fabulous. We spent a lot of money to take a beloved LDS story and put it on film. The filmmakers botched the story-telling five ways from Sunday. It looked great because it was shot on great looking locations, and that's one reason to see it, and it's about missionaries, and for some folks that's another reason to see it, but it has no crossover appeal because it's otherwise a lousy movie. And it still pulled in 4.5. How can that not be good news? Third, okay, no stars, obscure cultural setting, what was Jon's list?=20 >No name stars, based on a book nobody outside (the culture) every heard of, >and about a story with no sex, no violence and only a little comedy appeal >to all audiences? Just because it has family values? Uh, Rabbit-proof Fence? Bend it Like Beckham? Monsoon Wedding? The Dish? Little movies do business outside their specific cultures all the time. Okay, they don't turn into Big Fat Greek Weddings every day, but they do business, they do okay. And they're completely great movies. If I was the guy who made The Dish, I mean, wouldn't that be great? Even with under 2 mill US domestic gross? Wouldn't it be, maybe even, sort of, enough, to know that you made this magnificent little gem of a movie?=20 What those movies all had going for 'em is that they were great movies. They had fabulously interesting stories to tell, and they told them well. TOSH isn't a great movie; it had an interesting story to tell, and it told it atrociously. I haven't seen Johnny Lingo yet, but at the end of the day, it's a movie about Mahana, the 8 cow wife. No way does that story compel, even if the remakes's way better than the original (which has to be pretty much guaranteed, right?); it still doesn't have a chance. WAG likewise; Hugh Jackman, heck, I don't care if you get the Governor of California to play Steed, the source isn't good enough to make a good movie out of. So Jon's right; it doesn't have a chance when it comes to box office. If Larry Miller wants to fund it, great; maybe he could write the losses off on his taxes.=20 But I'm stubborn enough to say this: if we make a good enough movie, someday, it can be a small crossover hit. In fact, I know this is true. I know it for an absolute fact. Because Neil Labute's already done it with In The Company of Men, made a brilliant little Mormon movie cheaply, and had an art house hit. And I doubt fifteen Mormons saw that movie, and yet it's Mormon to the core.=20 Eric Samuelsen. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film I have to agree with Dianna about the prevalence of "Barbies" in LDS movies. I, too, have the violent urge to make a beeline for the gym and vow to stop eating until I can look like that. And I have a few theories as to why this type of actress is consistently used.=20 1. There's a subconcious cultural tendency to believe that tiny, thin, gorgeous (or nauseatingly cute) women are also more spiritually desirable or worthy. It's almost as if we have to prove that we are angels in beauty as well as goodness (to paraphrase Brigham Young) by meeting the (admittedly extreme) prevailing wordly standards for physical beauty.=20 2. LDS men appreciate eye candy just as much as guys out in the world, particularly if it's packaged in such a way that it doesn't violate their standards (immodestly clothed, inappropriate plot lines, etc). and they don't have to feel guilty about enjoying it.=20 3. As a people, we think every movie, book, story, or whatever has to provide us with perfect role models -- perfect in every way. Hence, they have to be drop-dead gorgeous or they are flawed.=20 =20 Note that they don't have to be gutsy, independent, free-thinking, or particularly intelligent (like Meg Ryan or any of the others Dianna mentioned). That's what makes them Barbies and what makes us want to puke when we see them.=20 =20 "Most of my female friends are both attractive and decently fed at the same time." writes Dianna. I sure wish I could say the same! Most of my female LDS friends are, like me, single, and are trying to be competitive in the warped world of single LDS adult dating, where "attractive" and "decently fed" are mutually exclusive. I suspect that standard exists covertly with most LDS men, married or single. (I fevently hope to be proven wrong one of these days!). If so, it should not be a surprise that this type of woman ends up in LDS films with surprising regularity.=20 [Marie Knowlton] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:39:44 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Concept of Giving Back This exchange with Jacob has been interesting (as they always are). I was reflecting on a few points, however, and I had a thought that I often have when contemplating things, and that is that my "intellectual" side and my "practical" side often are at war. I guess one side I get from my mother, one from my father. Coming from academia, or spending time there, we often get caught up in high-flying or deep-plunging discussions, which are fascinating and good for the brain. But sometimes, intellectualizing an idea ends up loosing a practical application. That is my feeling anyway. I mentioned it to Isaac Walters in respect to his ongoing and deeply interesting formation of ideas and questions regarding acting and theater. And now, in this thread started by Jacob, I think we've stumbled upon some of the same thing. That is: the idea are interesting, but in a practical sense, do nothing to advance life or reality, or to give direction to how one should in a day-to-day sense, live. What I mean by that conclusion, with respect to this discussion at least, is that I ultimately believe Jacob's questing, delving remarks into the nature of service, the intellectual idea of returning to the source, or even the politically correct modern vocabulary of "giving back" is an exercise in semantics or lexicography or legalese. It doesn't say anything about how to life life. It doesn't inform behavior or give rise to a pattern of action. It addresses language and intellectual interpretation, but does not have a practical conclusion I can use or get excited about. First, a digression. I attended at function at BYU this morning where Reed Smoot, the brilliant LDS cinematographer, was awarded an honorary alumni award. Sterling Van Wagenen (one of our UFA Board Members) introduced the event, and the head of the Y's student film group presented the award. In her presentation, one of the things this gal talked about (she's very on-the-ball young filmmaker with whom I was very impressed, and now I'm embarrassed that I can't remember her name for this post), was how Reed Smoot had taken her under his wing and mentored her and offered her work, networking contacts, and just basically how, when he was speaking to her, for those brief moments, she felt like he believed she was the most important thing in the world. That in all his busy schedule, with all his professional accomplishments, that not only would he take the time to talk to a budding BYU film student, but that when he did take that time, he gave it completely. She felt she had a genuine gift of him, a true, complete giving of himself to her, however brief it was. I paraphrase her remarks badly, but the impact it has had on her was subtle but profound. Now she's the head of her class in her area of emphasis and expertise and I have no doubt we will hear from her in the future (a double embarrassment that I'm not using her name!). Jacob's response on this thread talked about some of that, and I'd like to give my further remarks alternating with excerpts from his, in light of this most recent experience I had this morning. Jacob talks about an unspoken social "contract" between an artist and his teachers. He also talks about a "repayment" of that contract through the creation of more art, and that the "community" is outside of that circle. > ...in these cases, the Artist paid tuition and entered > social contracts to obtain the training you describe. In return for=20 > that training, the artist then provides art--which is what those=20 > institutes want. It isn't a contract with the community, it is a=20 > contract between the artist and his/her trainers. It isn't that=20 > nothing is taken, it's that nothing is taken that isn't compensated. =20 > If he then gives to the community, then it's the first transaction he=20 > has had with "the community". > > But why give back to the community? The community didn't give him his > training. If an artist wishes to produce more artists, he'd be better > off giving back to his trainers so that they can train more artists. Obviously we have differing definitions of "the community" in this particular exchange. I believe that when an artist speaks of community, there are two overlapping definitions. One is the civilian world at large, which Jacob referes to above; the other is their own artistic community, which includes both teachers and artists. I think there is tremendous overlap as well, so much so that there may be no clear distinction. Isaac has been speaking in another thread about the theater as a relationship between audience and actor. Other threads have explored this connection, and it is true that art and the community around it are intimately tied. Art may attack, threaten, inform, reflect, idealize, respond to, comment on, etc., community, but are the two ever separatable, at a functional level? I don't know. At any rate, it seems to me a mearly semantic or legalistic excercise to quibble that an artist does not give back to a community because he was never trained by that community. Such seems simple to me. Of course an artist is trained by his community. By his family, by his life as a whole. All combines to give him the well of the soul from which he draws to create art. To my mind: of course the "community gives the artist training." To say they do not is to miss an essential element in any artist's foundation, which IS communial, in a literal sense. But then to go further and quibble that: "If an artist wishes to produce more artists, he'd be better off giving back to his trainers so that they can train more artists," is to ignore the simple fact of mortality. Such a closed cycle does not work. You cannot give back to your trainers in perpetuity, because your trainers get old and die. What MUST happen is that the artists THEMSELVES become the trainers of the new generation so that there can be more trained artists. THIS is the aspect that so became apparent thinking about Reed Smoot. THIS is where my own thoughts go when I look at what I can do. This is what is essential if there is to be a truely ongoing and perpetuating cycle of "giving". And so the semantics, legal interpretations, philisophical cununrums and all of that are of no purpose. What does it mean? Whatever you want it to. But for me, when an artist is sincre and says they are "giving back to their community" it is literal in every sense, and there is no need to split hairs as to who that "community" actually is, the public as a whole, individual students, their own mentors or alma maters. The arts, education, etc., can incorporate and include each of those aspects. Not this gets me around to talking about the individual versus the group, which Jacob deals with in his post as well. As he states: > Good examples of service, but I don't consider either one giving back=20 > to the community. In both examples you are giving directly to an=20 > individual in need. This might actually be at the heart of my=20 > question. Why do we feel the need to generalize our service claims? =20 > It seems to me that true service happens best on an individual basis. > A lot of our societal failures in assisting others occur when we=20 > de-personalize our service. Why do we have to say we're giving back=20 > to the community when our actual intent is to help an artists (or a=20 > poor person, or a single mother, or, or, or)? Does the community=20 > benefit? Interesting points, and here I think we agree but are using different words. It is a question of definition. Yes, it is impossible to truly serve "the masses". Ultimatley, ALL service is one-on-one. An individual is impacted AND THUS a "community" is impacted. I define the community as a collection of individuals. And then, I believe that even if only ONE individual in a community is impacted, THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IS IMPACTED. It is not a "generalization of our service claims" to say that. If you want the silliest example, think of "It's A Wonderful Life": if one kid had not been saved from drowning as a child, an entire ship would have been sunk in WWII. You could go on forever. COMMUNITIES ARE SERVED BY SERVING THE INDIVIDUAL. INDIVIDUAL SERVICE IS COMMUNITY SERVICE. In my opinion, or how I define it. So in that Jacob and I are in total agreement. As he says: > The point I feel we should be emphasizing, however, is that we wish to > help *people*. We may be serving single mothers, but as soon as we=20 > take our eyes off of the actual cases of individual single mothers,=20 > our endeavor becomes doomed to eventual failure. Absolutley, but when someone talks generically about "giving back" and that individual is sincere, is this not what they are saying? Just as a final note of debate, I found one of your arguments self-contrictory, Jacob. Perhaps I did not fully understand. But at one point early on, it seemed like you argue that if there is compensation there is not really "giving" such that if an artist creates art after being trained, he fulfills that "social contract" and hence all are compensated, and so there is no sense of "giving back". And yet, just a few paragraphs later, you say: "You misunderstand. I consider it "giving" that I do my job. I purchase products from a grocery store and that is "giving". I provide my talents all the time to those who need them and that is a service even though they are compensating me for it." Which all seems strangly argued to me. In one case compensated activites preclude "giving back", in another it is "giving back", unless I missunderstand. It's like you just decide what compensated activity is "giving" and what is not. It seems logicaly arbitrary. But either way, my interest is to create a case for a pattern of living. If we engage in intellectual exercises with now practical value, I am less interested. Ultimately, what are you arguing for? My point is that lives, communities, everyone benefits when we reinvest, in whatever way, in the next generation. You don't have to like that being called "giving back to the community", but there it is. To argue against it is a semantical, legal, or lexicographic exercise. I'd rather we just did than taked about the semantics of describing doing. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #185 ******************************