From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #191 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 Wednesday, October 15 2003 Volume 02 : Number 191 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:43:50 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" > > Rabbit-proof: Big name star, big name director, brilliant acting, > amazing soundtrack, good markeing. > Speaking of Rabbit-Proof Fence.... I just watched RPF this weekend. I thought it was a great film for all kinds of reasons. But then at the end I was sort of surprised to realize that none of the characters really grew in the movie. I guess you could argue that Molly did--but really she was the same little plucky kid the whole time--it's not like she was a pushover who found her true self somewhere in the film. And Kenneth Branaugh showed no character development at all--he was cardboard. So how is RPF findamentally different from TOSOH: another film of extraordinary circumstance with little character growth? Another thought on TWATG: when Lund's first book was published everyone said it wouldn't sell because it had never been done before, and didn't fit any of the current market specs. Lund proved them wrong in a big way. Who says he might not do that again with the movie?? I'm not necessarily condoning the project, but I feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least till the movie's made... - --Jana Remy UCIrvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:18:56 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Tarkovsky >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Original Message From Sam Brown = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Then I would watch Andrei Rublev. A brilliant and haunting =20 > exploration of the violent, pagan milieu of Russian Orthodoxy's =20 > greatest icon-painter. In fact, I just finished watching Andre Rublev. And I would highly recommend=20 it as well. The thing that really cinched the picture for me was the=20 cinematography. There are some shots that just take your breath away. They're=20 the kinds of things that you wonder why people haven't kept around in their=20 bag of cinematic tricks. I mean, this movie was made in 1966 or something, and=20 I haven't seen such great camera work in any recent films. It's also an amazing contrast to run of the mill American film ethos. In America if you're gonna blow a few hundred million bucks on a film, you're=20 going to make it nice and accessible to the audience. You're going to have=20 some beautiful people, some whistleable tunes, and big explosions. Andre Rublev completely counters this tendency. This movie was not cheap, there were=20 tons of scenes that had casts of thousands. The bell-making sequence must have=20 cost a fortune just in research, not mention the set. But, as I've heard,=20 Andre Rublev is one of Tarkovsky's most accessible works, and it's pretty dang=20 confusing, even for an epic. It's also frightening, and almost completely=20 devoid of good looking people. And the poor movie only got one screening in=20 Russia and didn't really surface again until it was screened at 4 a.m. at the=20 Cannes Film Festival. Tons of money, almost zero audience. You just can't find too many American pictures like that. I thought it was=20 incredibly refreshing to see a really amazing, non crowd pleasing, movie with=20 a budget so huge. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:34:45 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Stepping Up to the Plate >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Original Message From Jonathan Langford = >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >How many of us on this list are even members of AML? How many of us=20 >subscribe to Irreantum? I am both. And it's a lot of fun. Irreantum is actually my favorite magazine=20 right now. Probably because I'm interested in writing and publishing, and=20 that's what Irreantum talks about. Sunstone and Dialogue are great fun, but I=20 sometimes get lost in the long ethnographic surveys of the Church in=20 third-world countries that are published in Dialogue. And Sunstone, though=20 lovely, doesn't provide me with the Mormon literary scene. There have really been some fantastic interviews in there as well. I mean,=20 really interesting people. Great writing too. Better, I would say, that most=20 of what you will find in Dialogue and Sunstone, mostly because the people who=20 write for Irreantum are writers, instead of scholars (though some are both). If I ever move back down to the lower 48, I'll be able to use my coveted discount to the AML conferences. But until then, I'll be like the Saint living=20 in the middle of the Congo keeping his temple recommend up to date. Amen. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:03:57 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value Eric Samulesen: ___ > | I would love to know which contemporary films "glamorize adultery > | and murder." > ___ > Off the top of my head: Shakespeare in Love is a pro-adultery piece. Pleasentville was pro-fornication. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:31:55 -0700 From: Christine Atkinson Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, or Not Pretty Enough, Part 1 I can't wait to read Part 2, but I want to interject something here. I'm=20 sure Dianna can speak for herself, but when I read her post, I didn't think=20 she was ranting about *pretty* women being cast. Rather, she was bothered=20 by *pretty, with nothing else to recommend them* women. Barbies. I don't think the reasons behind casting attractive people in movies are a=20 mystery to any thinking person. I just wish we could cast attractive,=20 smart, interesting, talented women. Like Dianna said, Jennifer Garner is=20 beautiful, fit, and admirable. We less-than-perfect women can enjoy that=20 casting. My $.02. - -Christine Atkinson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:32:20 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium This is my response to Randall. It's a tad long and I've separated out=20 the interesting stuff on Socrates daemon from the stuff more directly=20 aimed at art/literature. That will be in a subsequent email. I'd be very careful about using Nibley's discussion of Socrates in _The=20 Ancient State_. The first half of that book is excellent. The second=20 half is quite less so in my opinion. As he admits just before the=20 passage you quote, few philosophers would agree with Nibley's reading. ___ Randall ___ | According to Nibley, "at the end of his life | Socrates explained that he had taken the course | he had...'because, as I said, the way was shown | me by God through oracles and dreams and by | whatever other means divine providence directs | the actions of men." (Plato Apology 33C quoted | in Nibley the Ancient State, p. 329). ___ That rather begs questions though. What is the God Socrates speaks of?=20 And what were the oracles? The most significant was the Oracle of=20 Apollo at Delphi. That Oracle tells him (actually through a student)=20 that he is the wisest. Socrates then proceeds to try and figure out=20 what on earth the "God" (actually the person speaking as the Oracle)=20 meant. And what does he decide it is that makes him wiser? "...that I=20 do not think I know what I do not know." (Apology 21d) Socrates later=20 expands upon this quest for the meaning of the Oracle. As a result of this investigation, men of Athens I acquired much unpopularity, of a kind that is hard to deal with and is a heavy burden; many slanders came from these people and a reputation for wisdom, for in each case the bystanders thought that I myself possessed the wisdom that I proved that my interlocutor did not have. What is probable, gentlemen, is that in fact the god is wise and that his oracular response meant that human wisdom is worth little or nothing, and that when he says this man, Socrates, he is using my name as an example, as if to said: "This man among you mortals, is wisest who, like Socrates, understands that his wisdom is worthless." (ibid, 23a-b) One need not read the dialogs long to see that most of them, especially=20 the early dialogs, do not arrive at knowledge at all. Rather it is a=20 negative dialectic in which Socrates plays the role of the skeptic who=20 tries to show that everyone knows nothing. I think we've seen similar people in amongst our own religion. =20 Afterall, Socrates' negative knowledge applies equally to heavenly=20 things. Nibley just carefully avoids the obvious implication this has=20 for a testimony of God and the gospel. I believe the mistake Nibley makes is the mistake Socrates sees among=20 those around him. He thought that because he showed those he=20 questioned had no wisdom that somehow Socrates himself did. Yet you'll=20 note that Socrates uses rather careful language when speaking of the=20 gods. Very qualified words like "what is possible" and doesn't claim a=20 direct revelation himself. ___ Randall ___ | Nibley notes "the irony ... professors of | philosophy brush aside Socrates' own solemn | profession of faith as sarcasm...so that they | can maintain the he was put to death by | reactionary religionists instead of enlightened professors."(ibid,=20 | p330). ___ The greater irony is that Nibley sees in Socrates this ideal faith in=20 *something* known when the whole point of Plato is to move away from=20 empirical or propositional knowledge as degenerate. His death wasn't=20 due to reactionary religionists but due to his questioning and thereby=20 destroying the faith of others. Even in Plato's rather sympathetic=20 reading this comes out. In readings less sympathetic it appears clear=20 that Socrates didn't care about the effects of his words and probably=20 to the Greeks was closer to what we'd consider an anti-Mormon than=20 anything. ___ Randall ___ | The muse was a daemon or a spirit in our sense | of the word. According to Nibley, "Heraclitus | says: 'A man should listen to the spirits | [daimones, the same word used by Socrates] as a | child to an Adult' (_On the Universe_, 97) 'our | individual minds are pretty dull, but through | the ages there exists an unmistakeable consensus | of humanity about things, an ethos which is not | the product of reason but of revelation.' (ibid, | 121)." ___ How does that suggest that the daemon was a spirit in our sense of the=20 word? Certainly that isn't the case amongst the platonists for whom=20 the daemon is an abstract form which bestows form on those lower souls.=20 (Often equated with one of the planets) Nibley is here once again=20 engaged in a rather creative reading. Certainly the word daemon is=20 used by Greek speakers, Heraclitus among them. To suggest that they=20 mean the same thing though, is difficult to assert. I should add that it is interesting that Socrates daemon (whatever he=20 means by it) tells him only negative things. Recall that the charge=20 against Socrates was that he was introducing new gods and it is his=20 description of his daemon, so unlike what was found in the religion of=20 his era in its pronouncements, that was his introduction. So a very=20 strong case could be made that Socrates was guilty. Exactly what Socrates daemon is, I can't say. Perhaps in saying that I=20 am, ironically, following in the wisdom of Socrates. There are of course dozens of very different perspectives you can find=20 on it. Given his Pythagorean views though, we can expect that despite=20 his skeptical attitude that he did hold something fairly close to what=20 the neoPlatonists had him holding. A view that is quite different from=20 what Nibley appears to portray in his writings. ___ Randall ___ | Agreed, he speaks of Plato with reverence | pointing out that Plato and other partakers of | the Orphic mysteries, believed in the creation, | the fall, and man's "ultimate destiny and goal, | expressed in the Pythygorean and Orphic | traditions of transmigration of souls." | Transmigration is at least a form of life after | death. This Platonic idea doesn't quite fit our | 20th Century orthodox LDS views of the | ressurection but it at least shows that Plato | accepted the idea of the permanence of the | spirit. ___ Certainly Platonists accept the immortality and pre-existence of the=20 soul. However you are also right that what they understand by this is=20 quite different from what Mormons do - reincarnation being the least of=20 the differences. It's rather interesting that Nibley downplays these differences. These=20 differences rather dramatically change the meaning of the "parallels"=20 he holds up though. ___ Randall ___ | Brigham would undoubtably follow Paul in declaring | "the unknown God" of whom Plato ignorantly speaks. ___ I believe Paul's audience there were actually Stoics, not Platonists. =20 And I think Brigham would have grave differences with Plato on many=20 matters. But this list probably isn't the place to get into that=20 discussion. (More later) Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:50:42 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium ___ Randall ___ | I don't recall Plato banishing artists and poets from the Republic. ___ He is rather famous for it. You might want to check out book II of the Republic in particular. (Towards the end) I've got some quotes at the end of this post. I actually think they are interesting to writers, directors, and musicians in the Church. Afterall the same issues come up in Church fairly frequently. And, I suspect, many members are sympathetic to Socrates' position even if they don't know who Socrates is. Should anything which in *any part* is unjust be admitted? That is basically Socrates' standard. If it isn't perfect art it has no place and the artist is to be banned. Is Socrates saying anything that different from the aphorism that a little leaven leavens the whole loaf? This is the reason why many will not admit R-rated movies or even most PG movies. Being in Hollywood I'm curious as to how you see Socrates and the direction his daemon takes him towards in this regard. How many here do you think will agree with these passages? And shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we should wish them to have when they are grown up? We cannot. Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only. Or ... these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important OR ...poets and story-tellers are guilty of making the gravest misstatements when they tell us that wicked men are often happy, and the good miserable; and that injustice is profitable when undetected, but that justice is a man's own loss and another's gain -- these things we shall forbid them to utter, and command them to sing and say the opposite. Or ....But shall our superintendence go no further, and are the poets only to be required by us to express the image of the good in their works, on pain, if they do anything else, of expulsion from our State? Or is the same control to be extended to other artists, and are they also to be prohibited from exhibiting the opposite forms of vice and intemperance and meanness and indecency in sculpture and building and the other creative arts; and is he who cannot conform to this rule of ours to be prevented from practising his art in our State, lest the taste of our citizens be corrupted by him? We would not have our guardians grow up amid images of moral deformity, as in some noxious pasture, and there browse and feed upon many a baneful herb and flower day by day, little by little, until they silently gather a festering mass of corruption in their own soul. Let our artists rather be those who are gifted to discern the true nature of the beautiful and graceful; then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason. ___ Randall ___ | Some of the numbers of various populations in | the Republic relate to tunings of the Lyre. See | Ernest McClains _The Pythygorean Plato_. ___ Certainly. And given his pythagorean nature, I'm sure Socrates would be perfectly content with only the most abstract and arithmetic art. I'm sure sculptures of the platonic solids are acceptable. However what most artists actually do would have them banned in an instance. ___ Randall ___ | But Plato has his character Cephalus quote the | Poet Pindar: ___ Yes. But that is quite in keeping with the dialogs. That doesn't mean that he agrees that there actually is a Zeus, for instance, even if Zeus is quoted. The structure is a negative dialectic where through conversation and interrogation one can reach the truth. Socrates is a midwife in this regard, trying to bring a birth to the Eros of a search for the One. ___ Randall ___ | But reading speeches is not the same as Acting. | In acting one can wear the mask of a deathless | god or recall the fear that men feel when they | know they will die. ___ Ah, but you see, for Plato and Socrates they most emphatically *are* the same. After all the actor acting is not the person he is acting as. He is pretending. It is a lie. And the point of the republic is not to admit any art with any degree of falsehood in it. Acting is intrinsically participating in a lie. It is a fiction and fiction is *banned*. ___ Randall ___ | The ideal can never really be seen except in its approximations. ___ Not to Plato. You are here making the fundamental mistake of confusing empirical "knowing" where the ideal is not ideal at all with direct apprehension of the forms. It is in this latter that the ideal is experienced directly. Further this experience is not seeing per se, but a direct intuition where one sees that you and the forms are one. For Plato and the Platonists what we call the "real world" has absolutely no Being at all. It is the ultimate falsehood precisely because it isn't the ideal. It is quite hard to square Mormon materialism with Platonic idealism.=20 But it certainly is fun watching Nibley try. Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:11:16 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value > _Kill Bill_ does, although one expects that Part II will show more > consequences. (It was originally a single movie and it shows -- it > shouldn't have been cut in two) The James Bond > movies unarguably glamorize adultery. I'd argue that most > horror films glamorize murder. > > [Clark Goble] I remember reading a review in the Japan Times when one of the Friday the 13th films came out, to the effect that the whole point of the film seemed to be that naughty little boys and girls inevitably got their heads cut off or were otherwise gruesomely dispatched. Though the reviewer wasn't sure his teenage children would get that particular point. Even in Kill Bill, the entire (two) film(s) is(are) predicated on the protagonist exacting retribution for a terrible injustice done to her and her kin. In this day and age, we (the general ticket-buying public) shy away from egregious affronts to baseline concepts of morality when unaccompanied by some dollop of moralizing. We pay well to enjoy the antics of thieves (i.e., The Sopranos), but demand honor among them. Note in Heat, for example, how the scales of justice so carefully balance at the end (a life for a life). Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:09:23 -0600 From: Margaret Blair Young Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or The Clooney _Solaris_ is a re-make of Tarkovsky's, though those involved in it said it was not really a re-make, but a re-examination of the novel. So it's a very different movie, though some of the same strange stuff happens. Bruce and I are getting into Chinese movies too, and saw _To Live_ recently. Since my parents were in China just after the Cultural Revolution, and the image of Mao was ubiquitous back then, this movie was somehow familiar to me. Now that we've lost a list member who felt we were being faithless, I am a little hesitant to reveal one of my thoughts when I saw _To Live_, but I'll go ahead. I know that pictures of Mao and books of his quotations were not only omnipresent but mandatory in Chinese households--even in 1980, when my parents were there. As I watched a scene where a newlywed Chinese couple receives the obvious present--a picture of Mao--I considered how prevalent pictures of the First Presidency are in our households. I honestly wonder if this is a good thing. Michael Fillerup has a wonderful story called "Visions" (in a collection of the same title) which portrays a white photographer trying to develop a picture he took of a sacred Navajo rite. The picture will not allow itself to be developed. And we've all heard of cultures where people will not allow themselves to be photographed because they feel the image steals something of their souls. I suspect there's a bit of truth in that, and it's something both versions of _Solaris_ address--the idea that our images of each other, the people we imagine our spouses to be, for example, are sometimes as two-dimensional as a photograph.=20 Even if we look at the complexities of personality, we tend to reduce others to how they affect us. If my husband Bruce were to appear to me as my imagination creates him, I would fully expect his fears to be intact--but it would be presumptuous to assume I'd really understand them. I'd expect his office to be messy, but I wouldn't comprehend all the reasons he needs to be surrounded by stacks of books and papers. If I were to walk in on a man who looked exactly like Bruce but was in an immaculate office and reading a "Hot Rod" magazine, I would demand to know where my husband was. And of course it goes much deeper than that. I remember Gene England's daughter telling me how much she resented him for being absent so much. I could relate perfectly, because my own father followed academic trails all the time, and we Blair kids were rarely with him.=20 It's something I still struggle to forgive, as I struggle to forgive my mother for urging me to marry a man who would become abusive (NOT Bruce). Those of you who've read my writing recognize some of these themes from _Salvador_ and from some of my short stories. So those feelings weren't fiction at all. But I recently came across something not actually intended for my eyes, something my dad had written awhile ago about his sense of failing his family. It brought me to my knees. I wanted to say, "This is wrong, Dad. You've made yourself out to be as bad as I've imagined you in my most bitter moments. But you've ignored how often you were present for us, and how your integrity and determination set the foundation for our family life and values. I never doubted your love. I've followed your trail without even recognizing it." As for Mom, when I see myself repeating her criticisms of me as I deal with my own children, and feel so much regret that I haven't been better, kinder, more constant and good, I must recognize that she surely felt all of these things too. How can I possibly judge her or even assume I understand her? And sensing all of the complexities, why would I want to deify her or Dad? Isn't it better for me to recognize the failings and then just be grateful for all the tender mercies? That's what I hope my children will do for me. And I hope I don't offend anyone by stating that I will never have pictures of the First Presidency in my home. I admire those men, I appreciate their words and sustain them in their callings, but I think movies like _To Live_ keep me from wanting my walls covered with what every good Mormon home should have. I love seeing the pictures of my children from year to year, growing into remarkable, independent people. But the pictures hide as much as they reveal. I see the picture of my 17 year old son when he was 5 and remember how his teacher described him: "love and joy." I compare it to the young man he is now, who often resents me and tells me I have a way of looking at him which shows absolute contempt--something I don't doubt, because I've seen the same look from my own mother. With the pictures of my children come memories of all the challenges and failures and joys and the sweetest moments. The pictures certainly do not convey the person, just remind me of the way things were when they posed for that particular shot. I consider President Hinckley a prophet. I believe he is a great, good-humored man who loves deeply. He is all the talks I've ever heard him give, and all the lessons I've ever heard about what a prophet is and why we should follow him. I enjoy his wisdom. But a picture of him does not bring me the worlds of memory which my children's pictures do, nor does it send me into an imaginative world like Monet or Renoir, or convey me to an emotion like "The Pieta" or remind me of my own need for grace like "Woman at the Well." It seems unfair to reduce President Hinckley to a two-dimensional photo: a kind-eyed man with a small smile. It seems to snatch a little of his soul. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:23:20 -0400 From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Harry Potter I have read with interest all the comment about HARRY POTTTER. I fell in love with HARRY POTTER at first read, and had just completed the last novel when Eric posted his extremely enthusiastic review. I have to agree with much that Eugene said in this post and certainly agree with Linda and others that this last book was too long and discursive, but a reaction to Eugene's comparison between Harry and Luke Skywalker gives me a chance to make my only REAL complaint.=20 It has nothing to do with words or their number or plot and its complexity. Luke Skywalker was often confused, frustrated, sensed things about himself that he didn't understand but he acted on those elements that were in his character. In most of the early books, Harry did the same, but in this last book he WHINED. He whined about everything. No action seemed worthwhile until it was whined about for twenty or thirty pages. It is one thing to ignore Dumbledorf's counsel but that is nothing new. The new thing seemed to be ignoring Dumbledor's counsel after whining interminably about the injustice of it all. I guess I have been a teacher for long enough that pubescent, or post-pubescent whining just raises my hackles. (I suppose I have a short fused whine meter). Before I finished the book I had thrown it across the rook many times with a roar of "not again" I suppose that is one factor that affects my reading of almost anything "Mormon", including this list. Whenever I find continual blame of Mormon Culture, (which I do sometimes find troubling myself, and I rejoice in being a Mormon from the sticks where the negative features of the culture are not so strong) unjust or uncaring leaders or anything else for: inability to get published; problems in life; or anything else that gives one an excuse to whine rather than to look at oneself in the mirror for at least part of the problem, I tend to hit the delete button, trash, shred, or otherwise toss the thing out, cancel the subscription or otherwise react with negative passion. =20 In reference to the book burning thread a while ago. I burn books (as long as they belong to me). I also toss them in the trash, occasionally give them to goodwill, or whatever. I resist the idea that anyone should burn books to keep others from reading them but my house is FULL of books. I gave over three thousand books to the local Charter School library last year and my bookshelves look just as they did before. I see nothing iconic in a book (well most books, I have a Swedish/Danish copy- Most of the Swedes who have seen it, say it is Danish and the Danes say Swedish- of the Book of Commandments which was owned by my Great Great (or so) Grandfather, that I might defend to the death even though I can't read it at all). But generally I consider a book a utilitarian thing that serves a purpose and when it is worn out or has served it's purpose (or failed to served its purpose) it can be disposed of in whatever way its owner chooses. (Excuse the lengthy rant. I haven't posted in awhile and I suppose I have been storing up) Richard B. Johnson, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important- and most valuable. Http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:51:23 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" My Alaskan pal Stephen Carter asked, re: Neil Labute's In the Company of Men: >Hey, you've found one of the 15 Mormons who has seen this flick. And I=20 >still=3D20 think about it sometimes. But I'm interested. How do you see = >this movie as "Mormon to the core?" I say it's 'Mormon to the core' in its take on good and evil, it's hard-headed insistence that evil exists and that evil acts have consequences. Even the less attractive aspects of Mormon culture find voice in it; our judgmental tendencies, our occasional 'us v. them' dynamic. These guys are Worldly writ large, and therefore contemptible. It's a cautionary tale, and Mormons are rather given to cautionary, moralizing tales. It's a naturalist film, which means the focus is on evil and its consequences and not Good, or even God, but the presence of a larger moral framework and context within which we're to judge and condemn Neil's characters absolutely exists. I'll even make a case for ITCOM being a small-scale plan of salvation metaphor. Two guys are set down in a more or less artificial environment and given their agency and a specific test. The fact that they rather spectacularly fail the test is sort of the point, since it is, as I said, a cautionary tale. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:55:37 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Harry Potter=3D20 Isn't this interesting? Because I always read Harry aloud to my kids, and this was far and away our favorite. I think they're brilliant children's literature. And everything Sharlee sees as weaknesses, I see as strengths. I think there's fabulous character development. I think the books are much too short. No particular point to make here, just think it's interesting how different readers can have utterly different responses to the same text. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:12:08 GMT From: Darvell Hunt Subject: [AML] _The DaVinci Code_ (Dan Brown) and Divine Feminism I recently "read" (okay, listened to on audio CD) a copy of _The DaVinci Code_ by Dan Brown and was very curious about it's content, particularly what it called the "Divine Feminine." Has anyone read this and would care to comment? The reason I'm posting this to the AML list is that because most of what is presented in this novel concerning the "Devine Feminine" is contrary to what most Christians believe--particularly the Catholic Church--but meshes very well with LDS doctrine. (As far as I know, Dan Brown is not LDS, but I could be mistaken.) I have heard some of the "heretical suppositions" contained in this novel from fellow LDS members. I won't talk too much about the plot, as that might well spoil the experience for those who have not read it and wish to, but it discusses how the feminine side of "church history" (not "OUR" church) has been supressed, including a very interesting analysis of DaVinci's painting _The Last Supper_. I don't necessarily believe all that is presented in the novel, but it certainly is an interesting piece of "speculative historical religious fiction." I would certainly recommend it and would be curious about other LDS members thought about it. Darvell [Hunt] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:19:03 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Two (of Three) Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Two (of Three) Part One of this three-part post was more an exercise in apologetics. Now I'd like to get down to the "Not Pretty Enough" part of my added title in this second installment on this topic. Dianna prefaces her comments by saying that she saw the Pride and Prejudice trailer and the total "cuteness" of the women in the film set her off on a ramble. I haven't seen Black's movie yet, one of my 3 or 4 remaining of the 17 or so in our burgeoning genre left to see. That and "DOD" (Day of Defense; which I understand might be better acronymized, to coin a phrase, as "DOG." Ouch! That was not very nice of me! I make myself party to what Eric says we should not do, judge a film's content before you see it! Sorry. DOD.) Anyway, Dianna says: > Here's what I think the biggest thing is. Just like PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER > MORMON FILM DIRECTED BY A MAN (save Unfolding, by Vuissa), the woman=20 > is kind of a Barbie. Or, if she's not just drop dead gorgeous (with=20 > her darling little blond cork-screw curls), then she is just the=20 > cutest little thing you've ever seen. Blech! That's what I want to=20 > say. Okay. The part about attacking men, I will leave be for a moment. Here is where I suspect issues below the surface, perhaps, and overreacting to the essential nature of the selling of commercial film, generally. Also this may be an overreaction to P&P being cast with good looking girls, specifically, because despite your contention to the contrary (which I'll get to in a second) that's exactly how that story MUST be cast. As I said, this ties into my "Do The Math" post of the other day of the commercial necessities of film. Film is a commercial enterprise, and there are basic market forces which rule the successful dissemination of the product. We call them "Elements". They can be story elements, marketing elements, etc. Cast is a major "element" of a film. In fact, it is generally considered the most important element. Now, my observation (admittedly, as a man, and yes, in this case, as a producer) has been that your observation of LDS film is quite wrong, from a commercial sense. In fact, LDS filmmakers, as a rule, have, as of yet, NOT NEARLY MADE THEIR CASTS GOOD LOOKING ENOUGH! That is certainly an opinion which others can disagree with, but I stand by it, and will make my case with specific examples in Part 3 of this essay. From my (admittedly slanted) perspective, I can't tell you how shocking BAD some of the casting has been, from a commercial consideration, in the area of women in LDS film. And remember, I have an inside track: I talk to buyers, distributors, people who have to SELL these films, people who look at films as "products" and not "art," and some of them are screaming in dismay with respect to LDS female ing=E9nue casting elements that they have to sell. Okay? I'm ONLY talking about that. These girls may be wonderful people and decent actresses (actually the cases-in-point will not bear out the acting part), but from an aspect of "attractive element" they fail. Again, when I make my sleepy "art" films, my opinions may be different, but here we are talking about LDS film in general, and the use of women in those films. So far, taken as a whole, we stink. Not because the women are "too Barbie". But because they are NOT NEARLY ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH. And there is no excuse for it, because I happen to know dozens of immensely attractive and very talented actresses out there, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what is going in the heads of some LDS directors. Basically, I have the exact opposite opinion as Dianna with respect to the casting thus far in LDS film (with several key exceptions). Filmmaking is very much like building a house. It takes a tremendous amount of money, time and energy to build. You have to put together thousands up parts. And then, you have to sell it to people when you are done. Using that allegory: film has to look good. You can't sell a house that looks crappy. You can't sell one that isn't well made. Many times, just a coat of paint will sell a house. Certainly, any real estate person will tell you that a nice landscaping job will up the value of a property considerably. Where does this lead us in casting? Let me step to one side and go back for a second to deal a little with the veiled commentary on the fact that MEN are directing these films. First of all, let's examine for a moment women in advertising in general. Now, we all know that women's magazines, and the majority of advertising in general, are filled with very attractive women. Why? Is it because these media are produce by and for MEN? Far from it. Most women's magazines are helmed by women. The vast majority of women's magazines are read by women. So why are women's magazines filled with ads, by and for women, featuring beautiful women? Well, studies have been done (yes, actual, scientific studies) that show that the image of an attractive woman is just as effective for both men and women. This is not a sexual commentary. This does not suggest that all women are lesbians. What we discover is the women (and we are just talking general tendencies here, not specific examples) will tend to see a beautiful woman and say "Wow, what if I looked like that" projecting themselves into the fantasy, and thereby being "attracted" to the advertising. Men, on the other hand, tend to be threatened by a really good looking guy. Hunky guys sell things to women and gay men, but not so well to other men. Whereas attractive women are statistically able to sell things to BOTH women and men. It is an interesting twist on the gender reactions. I'm just talking advertising and marketing here, not intending to make some big commentary about the sexes. This is just straight, practical talk about selling stuff. Hot women sell stuff. End of story. Now, when you combine that attractiveness with a great actress and a great story and compelling emotions, etc., you have a winning combination. Again, I'm just talking SELLING here. So, let me go back to Dianna's comments again and then spin off in some other directions. She says: > Pride and Prejudice is not about a cute woman. It's about an=20 > intelligent, passionate, flesh and blood woman. Yes, she's supposed to be quite lovely (and not far from the ideal of her time), but she's so much more than attractive. Okay, STOP, STOP, STOP RIGHT THERE. This sounds a bit to me like a comment that wants its cake and wants to eat it, too. It's a bit self-contradictory. You want to say that she IS attractive and that she is NOT at the same time. Or, this might seem to imply that all of the internal ideals preclude an external beauty. Which they do not. In fact, they enhance it. Pride and Prejudice IS about cute women. You say it yourself: these girls represent the IDEAL OF THEIR TIMES. Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head. And that ideal includes, as you say, intelligence (actually, the ideal of that day was stupid women), passion, etc., yes -- AND BEAUTY. In fact, to be really truthful, in that day and age, I would say the ideal of women was gorgeous, dumb, silent, doting on men, etc. If anything. So Austin was creating characters that blew the mold wide open. Women who were so attractive and compelling they were attractive DESPITE the fact that they were also full of intelligence and spirit. But this is not a commentary on Austin or P&P. This is simply to say that Pride and Prejudice IS about cute women. It has to be. I don't know if Black has achieved this in his film, but it is ESSENTIAL that he make the attempt. And the attempt is multi-fold: a) to do justice to the book and b) to SELL THE FILM. He's not there to create a new ideal, or to infuriate LDS women who struggle with weight, or to compound the distortion of body image in the media. It is essential to the ROMANTIC and ENTERTAINING story he is telling. And again: cute has never meant a cancellation of the positive inner qualities. You say it yourself: > She's the kind of woman that most women can relate to and cheer for. =20 > She cares for people other than herself. Yes, she's full of weaknesses, but she's still a hero, not just a lucky little girl. She is an observer of life, and she scorns the role women have to play in her society (and not just her own role). YES, and all of this includes and DEMANDS that an attractive actress play her! (In my opinion). There are stories which tell a different story and demand other considerations in casting. Richard has a story which intrigues me so much I'm considering getting the rights from him to develop it further. It is provisionally entitled "Special" and it is a love story about two people who do not conform to the world's ideals of beauty. It's a wonderful story and could be an amazing film. But the cynic in all of us starving filmmakers has to ask, "Does anyone want to see a story about two ugly people?" That's a cynical way to put it. These people are NOT UGLY... they are just NOT PERFECT. Terrence McNally's "Frankie And Johnnie in the Clair de Lune" is just such a story. Kathy Bates and F. Murray Abraham inaugurated the roles on stage. Of course, when Hollywood got a hold of it, they cast Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino. Word is that Bates practically peed her pants with hilarity when she heard Pfeiffer was going to play her in the movie. So the story had to be changed from a woman struggling with weight and body issues (and therefore resistant to trusting in the possibility of finding true love), to a woman with a great body but inner demons and PSYCHOLOGICAL issues that make her BELIEVE she is unattractive (and therefore resistant to finding true love). Different story. Hollywood going for the look once again. So I HEAR you when you cry: "Can't we have a NORMALLY WELL-FED heroine once and a while?!" And the answer is... it's very, very hard. We (as filmmakers) can only do it once and a while and VERY CAREFULLY because it is so hard to sell. And we just HAVE to make our money back on films or our careers get very short or very difficult. It is much easier in ensemble pieces. There, you can spread the wealth. TV dramas have been very successful in recent years introducing fabulous actresses who are well-fed and maintaining high ratings. But the fact is that within the ensemble there are LOTS of attractive people. This tricks the audience into getting to KNOW the characters, and coming to love them as people, and not even noticing who looks like what. Episodic drama is much more able to do this than feature film, but feature with ensembles still can to some degree. But back to LDS film. > Now, I would LOVE to see a modern adaptation of that book which=20 > focuses on those > issues, particularly addressing some of the misconceptions about women > in LDS society. From the trailer, however, it looks like there's a=20 > very slim chance that this movie is going to do anything like that. =20 > I'm so curious about it, and yet I'm so angry that it looks so=20 > teeny-bopper. Again, don't know the film and can't defend it. But it seems that Black is doing an LDS version of what "Clueless" did for "Emma". He is specifically targeting a younger audience. That is his demographic. A niche within a niche. He's doing an LDS "Clueless" - NOT an LDS "Sense and Sensibility". And therefore he has made the right choices. This particular film may not be your cup of proverbial tea, but the filmmaker should not be accused of conforming to male-propagated stereotypes, when he is, in fact, simply being a smart marketer. > Stepping away from this particular film, though, I really want to=20 > address this. Maybe I'm just annoyed because these movies are being=20 > made by Mormons that my husband and I are often acquainted with, and=20 > maybe I'm just jealous that these lucky ladies get to be in movies. I > don't know. I watch Alias, though, and I don't feel like turning=20 > anorexic each time I watch an episode. I feel empowered, and yet I=20 > will never, in my wildest, craziest dreams, be able to look anything=20 > like gorgeous Jennifer Garner or have her kind of success. I really=20 > think it's just because all of the Mormon women I've seen in Mormon=20 > movies (save Unfolding) are either so cute, so ugly, so weird looking, > or so Barbie. Where are the rest of us, the real ones with meat on=20 > our bones and normal, more common features, and brains in our head. =20 > Here's the punch line, most Mormon women are normal women. Most of my > female friends are both attractive and decently fed at the same time. But the real question is not the one you ask, in my opinion. What you are asking is "Where are the STORIES about real Mormon women?" The films which have been out there so far have not been about that, per se, especially all the ones with romantic theme elements, and have therefore been OBLIGATED to cast attractive women in the roles. An obligation which they have not even remotely been universally successful in doing. You are correct: if someone were to do a "The Way We're Wired" casting issues might be different (but even then I'm not sure). Dutcher's "Special" defiantly. The "Barbie" issue IS that story. But if the film is a general romance, the love interest in question HAS to be delicious. This is more than just my opinion. Look at the overwhelming consensus in the disparate reviews for "Charly". Everybody talked about Heather Beers's being cast as the saving grace of the film that was otherwise softly received. Can you imagine if they had cast someone "attractively challenged"? The film would have been vilified and unsaleable. In Part 3 of this essay, I'd like to do a case-by-case look at several LDS films and see where this aspect has succeeded or failed. And I hope you don't think I'm just a male pig. I mean, I probably AM a male pig. But I'm also a marketing realist. And when it comes to attractive casting, I have to say: we need to do even better. Part 3 in a day or two. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #191 ******************************