From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #197 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 Friday, October 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number 197 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:59:44 -0500 From: "Walters, Isaac C" Subject: RE: [AML] Harry Potter Eric Samuelson wrote: "Now, I have never listened to a book on tape in my life, and I never will, and I totally don't get why some of y'all do. I mean, car radios are for music, right? Having some actor drone on and on would drive me nuts, because it's so . . . dang . . . . slow. And you miss the visceral pleasure of reading, of seeing words in print. But Harry's books may work best in that format. They're great books to read aloud. And that's why you need the adverbs; they're inflection directions." If you have a particular idea that books on tape are about actors droning on, then you definitely need to listen to Jim Dale reading the Harry Potter books. They are one of the great performances. He received an Emmy for the first and has only gotten better with each performance. My kids love them. My wife loves them. They are one of the great staples in our life. How can you criticize with out first experiencing? Isaac Walters - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:21:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Rich Hammett Subject: RE: [AML] Language of Prayer > From: "gtaggart" > Jonathon Langford wrote, "I've been asked to develop a > curriculum in our stake for one of next year's priesthood > and relief social lessons, focusing on the appropriate > language of prayer." > > Probably the place to start is Elder Oak's conference talk > on that subject (see here [link was borked]). By the > way, after he gave this talk, I heard more than > one informed person say that he got it wrong, that his > argument wasn't supported by linguistic history. Years > later another person repeated the same criticism, so I > re-read the talk, my usage dictionaries at my side. I > think he got it right. What do the rest of you think? As far as linguistic history, he does give some (which seems generally accurate), then dismisses it as unimportant. So that doesn't seem to be the issue. As far as the language, I tend to be with the Quakers, who probably influenced Joseph Smith's prayer language, and who used "thee" for its LACK of formality, rather than formality. His other examples didn't persuade my libertarian self very well, either. I just read about the debate to choose a title for the President, and although I personally like John Adams very much, in that debate I'm much more on the side of those who wanted no titles. God, of course, is in a different category than the presidents of the US, but Oaks seems to want to think of Him as a military officer, a judge, or a government official. I find the talk completely uncompelling, even perhaps counterproductive for Oaks' goals. As far as I consider it, it IS an historical affectation of speech, as it was even in the 19th century, and is not something I consider important, or even necessarily good. rich - -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net "Too many whites are getting away \ with drug use. The answer is to ... find the ones who / are getting away with it, convict them, and send them \ up the river."--Rush Limbaugh - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:23:38 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value Thom Duncan: > From: Ivan Angus Wolfe > >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. > > Those were sub-themes, however, to the main theme of > both films. Can you name a film that teaches, as its > ONLY, or primary theme, that adultery or fornication > is always good for everybody? > > > -- > Thom Duncan No, not really. But that isn't really the point. The fact that the themes are there at all shows that I answered the initial question that was asked. In fact, I feel that ahving them as sub themes, packaged under an attractive (and in both cases true, or almost true) major theme makes them more insidious. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:19:17 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" > So how is RPF findamentally different from TOSOH Now I have a request to make. Can we stop with the movie acronyms? I figured out "Tosoh" because we've beaten that horse ad nauseum in this forum. But I still don't know what "Rpf" stands for. If it really is too much bother to type out the whole title, how about shortening it to a key word or two? I mean, look at the mistake Jon made with "The Work And The Story." Is it my turn to vomit now? ;-) scott [Bronson] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:37:52 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Women in LDS Film - --- Original Message --- From: "Richard Johnson" To: Subject: RE: [AML] Women in LDS Film >>I had a friend in Argentina who told me something his father said. >It's the only thing I've thought was true ever since I heard it. It >gets more true every time I hear it. He said "All women are beautiful. >Some are more beautiful than others." >> >>Paris Anderson > >I made that point a number of years ago, and got nothing but flack about >it. Oh well. > >Richard B. Johnson, And I bet I was one of the guys that gave you flack. Not all women are beautiful. Some are uuuggggllly. As are some men (that red-headed hunk Scott Bronson to the contrary notwithstanding). But I'm learning the older I get that such things as body size have little to do with what makes a woman beautiful. For instance, I think Camryn Manheim, the ... uh ... large woman on the practice is quite attractive. I could see the two of us together quite easily. Also, Queen Latifa is one HOT mama. - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:49:41 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] violence I've been thinking about violence in movies and how I feel about it. Graphic, gory violence will ruin a movie for me. (To this day, the scene I remember most from Good Will Hunting is the one where someone gets their face pounded.) Yet I don't mind martial arts type of violence. It's so carefully choreographed, to me it's a lot like watching people dance. I've been trying to think about what kind of movie would be acceptable to me if it included a lot of violence. I know a lot of people say that Saving Private Ryan is worth seeing because it shows the reality of war's gruesomeness and horror. My reaction has always been that I don't need to see someone's guts spilling out on a movie screen to understand that war is horrible. I decided that the movies I'd like to see be made that depict violence are ones that show inner city life. Because to my mind, it's an issue that rarely gets looked at. And there are so many stories that can be told. I lived next door to a boy in the ghetto who spent his entire 13th birthday alone because his single mom was getting drunk down at the bar. Drunk gang members waving big guns around in yards or in the street was not unusual. Police helicopters flying overhead on weekend nights were the norm. I knew one boy in particular whose story I wish would be told. I'll call him Anthony. I met him when he was about 14, his mom was a single mom on welfare. He always said that he'd never join the gang, he'd rather work at McDonald's than join the gang. He worked part time at a restaurant and ended up attending an alternative high school. I was really impressed with him. When he turned 18, he got an insurance settlement that had been held in trust for him from when he was younger and got hit by a car, something like $35,000. Suddenly everyone in the neighborhood was his friend. That's a heady influence on a kid who'd always been mostly rejected by his peers. He joined the gang, started carrying a gun. Last I heard, which was years ago, he'd gotten a girl pregnant, and after the baby was born she killed someone and was sent to prison. Anthony is raising his son with the help of his mother. Our media is so saturated with violence, yet the violence portrayed is rarely the violence a lot of people live with everyday. It's interesting to think about. There was a toddler in our neighborhood, a 2 year old, who when another kid made his hands into the shape of a gun and said, "You're under arrest," he would lay face down on the ground with his hands behind his back as though they were handcuffed. Anthony once took the bus to a neighboring city to visit a friend, and on his way home was shot at by a car full of Asian gang members. He wasn't doing anything but standing at a bus stop, but apparently a black kid with a skateboard in that neighborhood was as good enough a target as any. And he probably saved the life of the older man standing next to him who didn't notice the guns being slung out the window of the car when he grabbed his arm and pulled him down onto the sidewalk. When Anthony was telling me about it, he said, laughing, "It's funny, coming back from visiting my friend, I have to go through two danger zones--one there, and one at home!" And on another tangent...One could make a very good argument that blood and gore does not equal violence. You can make a very violent film that does not have any physical injuries in it. My husband and I were discussing this recently when the subject of Tarantino came up. He's seen a bit of Pulp Fiction (I have not) and he was telling me he couldn't tell if it was supposed to be violent, or making fun of violence--which means it was neither. He pointed out that a movie like Blue Velvet is very violent, yet has little to no physical injury in it. Susan Malmrose - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:01 -0600 From: Margaret Blair Young Subject: RE: [AML] glorifying violence _Saving Private Ryan_ was a gut-wrenching, life-changing film for me. I was deeply moved and thought about the characters for days after seeing it. I saw it with my oldest daughter, not my husband. Interestingly, I think it would be too violent for Bruce, who is simply tender-hearted. In all honesty, it would give him nightmares. But I believe D-Day was exactly like it was depicted in Spielberg's movie. That first scene was not what got me, however, but the ethical conflicts the characters faced as the movie progressed--particularly the one intellectual kid who is determined to be philosophical about war and clean of its taint and sympathetic with "the enemy." The scene where he shoots the German he once saved from execution is powerful and unflinching. So, my big question is, can I still hang out with Richard Dutcher if he found the violence in that movie gratuitous? Maybe Gwen Dutcher and I should see the violent movies together and protect our husbands. In seriousness, gratuitous violence is what I find in the little snippets of Arnold Scwartzenegger movies I periodically catch on TV. Bruce and I were pretty appalled with ourselves for seeing 1/2 hour of bigger and better violence in the movie with the helicopter and airplane and Jamie Lee Curtis. (Obviously I don't remember the title.)=20 Bruce felt like he needed to take a bath to cleanse himself from that one. As for movies glorifying adultery--I'm not always up on what others have said, since I rarely have time to read all AML posts, but _English Patient_ is an obvious one. =20 [Margaret Young] [Ed: the movie referred to above is _True Lies_] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:29:52 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Essay exchanges (was: Nibley) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Goble" > The fact is that a lot of what was put in the Collected Works of=20 > Hugh=3D20 Nibley was never intended for publication. A lot of it=20 > includes off=3D20 the cuff comments made at lectures or firesides. = It's > hardly fair to=3D20 judge the guy for that. Likewise the majority of=20 > his writings are more=3D20 akin to personal essays. Personal essays = by=20 > a very intelligent person,=3D20 yes. But just personal opinion and = not=20 > scholarship. And, like so many=3D20 essay writers, he gets wrong a = lot=20 > of things he encounters only=3D20 superficially. Wow, I hope I'm never judged from the totality of my spewing personal essays! (Actually, since I'm not really a scholar and ONLY write off-the-cuff personal essays, I probably will be judged for that -- to my dismay!) Clark's point is a good one. I think there is tremendous power in the extemporanious exchange, the off-the-cuff personal essay, the fountain of emotion that also attempts to be tied (be is frequently not reined in) by reasoned thought. By allowing ourselves the freedom, even the vulnurability to "think outloud," as it were, to think, but with the seat of our pants, allowing our passions to creep in, offers a potent opportunity for personal discovery. And some of what we discover is embarassing; and some of what we conclude is wrong, and we change our mind 180 degrees two seconds after it is "out of our mouths". But because we do it in print, it is there. If anything, our published essays over time should show the pathway of a journey, and only very few fully realized and genuinely embracable points. Even a "scholarly" essay, offering 'final' conclusions should be revisable in the future, in light of new discoveries. Nibley's essays can be read, in part, for the joy of the ride. I think he would be happy if he succeeded in getting us to think about thinking, rather than impressing on us any conclusive thoughts. Spawning a dialogue may be more important than convincing a group to an argument. I think this List does that, or at least has the power to, which is why I sometimes get frustrated with what I feel (others obviously disagree) is an occasional over-sensitivity in what is "allowed" or "not allowed" on the list. But that is just me. I am not arguing for zero moderation, but I do think we can get "too careful", especially in our attempts to try and second-guess the reactions of others. Frankly, it is impossible to guess the reactions of others. Take our friend who recently left the List (quite loudly) becuase he felt we railed against the Brethern too much. That is particularly ironic, when I know that is something that Jonathan is particularly sensitive to and attempts to guard against. So my comments are certainly not a veiled criticism of Jonathan's moderation, but just a statement of difference of opionion -- we agree to disagree. My feeling is that you can never successfully guard against someone's reaction. You can only put your heart out there (like Dianna Graham did, did I spell it right?), like so many others do every day, and search -- hunger even -- for that flash of revelation that comes out of a deeply personal, passionate essay. By eliminating such explosions, such "whoopes," such struggles, we also limit the potential discoveries, in my opinion. Then, if someone does go too far, we temper him with public reminders. But that's just me. I don't want to reopen the should-we-have-a-moderator thread, because it is pointless, we always will. Nor do I want to belittle the thankless job Johnathan and Jacob and others do. They get little respect, and as Jonathan jokes in his "whine" about Harry, we tend to blow him off even when he's speaking as himself! A natural, if unconscious, human desire to spurn authority figures? I don't know. So, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm really just trying to express my theory that a quality of risky-taking in our essay writing (which for me has an expiating, purging quality) will ultimately do more harm than good, and an overly conservative checking of that impulse for fear of offence dampens the potentially positive "delving" qualities of the exploration. Just an opinion. I write a lot and I write fast and things come out and then they are gone. I rarely have time to go back and look at something and revise it. If something gets rejected by the moderator, my usual (harried) response is "okay, well, that's your call" and I'm moving on to other things. It is rare that I even remember what it was I was talking about by the time I see it in my in box. And so it is gone, for better or worse, usualy for better. But what if not? If we allow ourselves to feel emotions more often in our intellectual exchanges, not only will they be more "entertaining" with respect to the desire to increase membership and participation in the organization, but they will, I feel, become even more compelling and productive as an exercise in self-improvement, social reflection, and artistic exploration. Like Clark says of Nibley: > Nibley is a trail blazer. What ends=3D20 > up becoming roads and highways may not end up being that related to=20 > the=3D20 trails Nibley blazed. Some of the trails may turn out to be=20 > dead ends.=3D20 But before the road builders can come, the trail = blazers > must proceed. We should look at Nibley *not* as the final word, but as > the first=3D20 word. Irreantum is where the more reasoned papers go. But this List is the Trail and we are all Blazers. In the end, if all of our rantings and comments at firesides and gathernings and (now that the internet exists) online were compiled into a thick series of books "The Collected Works of..." I'm sure none of us would fare so good as Nibley, on reflection, does. Well, maybe Clark would fare pretty well -- he's a pretty reasoned essayist! But I would not fare very well, that's for sure. But I defend that about myself. It's my Italian blood. It keeps things interesting. It keeps people mad at me. And it never lets me stay intellectually complacent for very long. It is an impusle which forces me to consider life deeply, and that puts me in a creative state of mind. All the great teachers utilize a formate of dialogue and debate and discussion at some point or another. My own great teacher ultimatley refused to write any of his concepts down, and his estate, after careful consideration, denied my request for permission to write them down either. He taught in the moment. And he allowed himself to change his opinion. Or alter his tactic with different students. Some he was very kid -loves with. Some he went at it bare-knuckles. At different times, either one works. I'm not even sure what my point is. "Keep writing" I guess. Sorry to those I offend, but in the end, we can never do anything that pleases everybody. Not even Jesus could do that. So I say, stop sweating it and write essays. Let's keep talking to each other boldy and generously... and hope that Travis or Chris or whomever chops out all the stupid stuff for the back section of Irreantum! I think that's a good way to live. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:32:06 -0400 From: Samuel Brown Subject: [AML] violent movies I seem to have struck a raw nerve with my choice of movies. A couple of minor issues: 1. I specifically am not bothered that much by violence in fiction (including movies), though I find mostly that I'm bored by it and feel that with rare exceptions it's entertaining filler. My point was merely to suggest that it is a phenomenon in contemporary cinema. 2. Artistic intent. As someone who writes misunderstood fiction, I agree that it's hard to know what the artist intended, and we ought not to stake the farm on a particular interpretation. But we have to be able to discuss literary objects, and I think feeling that Gladiator partakes in the phenomenon it supposedly decries is entirely appropriate independent of what the director intended. The crucial moment is whether we can feel a sense of camaraderie. The perfect example of this is Nabokov's Pnin where he very deliberately "forces" us to laugh at Pnin while simultaneously humanizing him (_Lolita_ similar, though to a lesser extent). I'm willing to consider the possibility that Gladiator is similar, which I believe is the point Eric was making, but having seen Gladiator, all I can say is that I was completely underwhelmed by it and would not personally rank it anywhere near Pnin or Lolita in sophistication. To me it was a lame film with non-compelling characters and plot that had a dusty patina of moralizing about a society that could watch gladiator violence while doing its utmost to capitalize on the same phenomenon in our society today. 3. Disagreeing about opinions. I wasn't clear about the implication that no one should be allowed to enjoy these films because I don't like them. I would=20 never in a million years suggest that you shouldn't be able to enjoy these films. Go, watch, enjoy. I just don't like them and wouldn't give them a "thumb up." People may be reacting to the fact that most of the people who don't like violence in films want them censored. It would be rank hypocrisy for me to suggest that violence ought not to be in our fiction: I write occasionally grotesque fiction and support the rights of others to do so. I just don't recommend them. 4. Violent movies I esteem: Full Metal Jacket, Memento, DeerHunter, Nostalghia. i'm sure there are others. - -- Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:33:30 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] glorifying violence - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Samuelsen" > And, as is Jackie Chan. Because what Jackie does pull us out of any=20 > moral framework and allow us to enjoy sheer artistry for its own sake. > I mean, the stories of most of Jackie's films are ludicrous. And also > irrelevant. The films may not be virtuous. But they're completely=20 > lovely. And praiseworthy. So we get to seek after those things as=20 > well. I gotta say, I love Jackie. My whole family loves Jackie. Even my seven year old begged to see "The Medallion" when she saw the ad on TV. "Dad, it's just PRETEND fighting," she argued to me (she's seven, right). "Come on! It's just Jackie! And there's a girl in it, too!" Ultimately, at PG-13, we decided not to take her to it just quite yet, but her argument was fairly persuasive. And this is my sensitive kid! Yeah... we love Jackie. Jongiorgi ("High-Kick") Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:42:33 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Samuelsen" > Now, I have never listened to a book on tape in my life, and I never=20 > will, and I totally don't get why some of y'all do. I mean, car=20 > radios are for music, right? Having some actor drone on and on would=20 > drive me nuts, because it's so . . . dang . . . . slow. And you=20 > miss the visceral pleasure of reading, of seeing words in print. But=20 > Harry's books may work best in that format. They're great books to=20 > read aloud. And that's why you need the adverbs; they're inflection=20 > directions. I'm a Book On Tape addict. I've had bad actors do what Eric says, kill a book for me because they were so slow and boring. But this has been rare, maybe only three or four times in hundreds of audio books 'read'. And yes, some stories lend themselves better to audio than others. And yes, sometimes I have gone back to the book in print to see how a certain sentence or passage was written (I'm always fascinated with how people punctuate. Frankly I think our grammatical rules of sentence writing are limited at best, and we must be very bold and creative to give sentences the feel of how we think and speak -- but that's another subject.) I also love to read out loud, and now my 9 year-old has become an excellent out-loud reader, which is a very different skill from reading in your head. Sometimes an interpretation will wake up a passage of literature in a totally new way. For me the example is James Joyce's Ulysses. I could never get through it. But when I discovered the audio book with these tremendous Irish actors, it clicked for me for the first time (well, a lot of it did; a lot of it is still over my head). Especially profound was the final section of the book, usually called "Persephone" or something, though it is not titled that. On the page, Joyce chooses to write the entire, dense, 60 page final chapter with no periods. Instead, he places a capital "O" between each sentence. Well, in the audio book, this amazing Irish actress (the only female voice in the entire 30 hours of reading), interprets those "O's" so brilliantly it took my breath away. Sometimes she says the "O" as a sigh, sometimes an exhalation, sometimes a short, sharp "OH!" It added something profound and surprising, and made that chapter explode in my head to full colors of brilliance. It was truly art for me, when before it seemed bizzare indulgence, incomprehsible. So, me: I'm a fan of audio books. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:15:38 -0500 From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] glorifying violence - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Eric Samuelsen" > > And I argue with all my heart that for the film to bring me to that=20 > realization was a moral and valuable thing for that film to have done. > That for me at least, and probably for other audience members, the=20 > film led me to a profoundly important and disturbing self-realization. Sorry, Eric. I'm afraid that for most other "audience members" it was simply a really cool scene of seeing some underdogs whip the bad guys' butts. I WISH we would all have these moral realizations while watching movies. But if I tried to describe this to the men I know and ask them if they had the same experience, I would get a lot of blank stares. I've been trying to resist the urge to pipe in on this thread, but I'm going to do it anyway, in 30 seconds or less, if I can. As someone else pointed out, the problem with using violence (or sex) to de-glamorize violence (or sex) is that it's easy to get so wrapped up in the depiction of the violence (sex) that the message is lost. This is especially true for kids, including teenagers, who lack the analytic skills to take the "text" apart and see what is really going on. All they know is hey, cool blood effects, dude! Did you see the way he kicked that guy's a&*? I realized something when my oldest son (now 16) was very small. He saw a batman movie, much to my chagrin, just before he turned three, and he was totally captivated by it. Actually, he was scared to death of it (and who wasn't, with Jack Nicholson as the Joker). He started having bad dreams and getting clingy. But he also started acting it out. I mean, the kid saw the movie one time and for weeks he was walking around posing like Batman and fighting invisible foes. What I came to see over years of having little boys and watching them go through this same process was that acting out the violence like that was a way of controlling their fears. Children have lots of fears at a certain age. I think it's because they're beginning to realize how big and scary the world is and they're beginning to understand that they are separate from their parents and therefore vulnerable. By being the hero and beating up the bad guys, they can tame those fears and make themselves feel invincible. They can think through what they would do if they were really threatened (never mind that they're too small for it to be effective). I think the same holds true for depictions of violence aimed at grown men. Or at least I think that's the way a lot of men experience it, whether or not they realize it. And given the lives many men lead (slaves to careers and suburbia) who can blame them for wanting to kick something? Or women, for that matter. Wait, I didn't mean that men want to kick women. I meant women want to kick something. I should have stopped at 30 seconds. Off the cuff, Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:23:04 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Laman's dilemma. . . . At 10:15 PM 10/14/03 -0600, you wrote: >And when Lehi has the Tree of Life dream and says, in >essence, "We all made it but you, and you would not, and I worry for=20 >you," you can't help but see how shamed the brothers were in front of=20 >the whole family. What a mean thing to do to the older sons! No wonder=20 >enough was enough, at least as it was portrayed in the movie. I always felt a bit of sympathy for Laman for being pushed out of his=20 proper place. As the eldest brother, he was expected, in that culture, to=20 assume family leadership after the father's death. But Lehi--or so it must=20 have seemed to him--elevated the baby of the family over him. Wouldn't you=20 be irritated by having your pesty little brother held up to you as your=20 example to follow? That's why Joseph's brothers got so ticked off at=20 him--Dad always bragged on the baby brother and gave him all the privileges. Just two more examples of prophets and patriarchs being human, meaning flawed. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:12:22 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough At 08:19 PM 10/12/03 -0600, you wrote: >So I HEAR you when you cry: "Can't we have a NORMALLY WELL-FED heroine=20 >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=20 >it is so hard to sell. Unfortunately, the character's looks affect the way he or she is viewed by=20 the audience. I think of the movie Poseidon. Gene Hackman did heroic stuff,=20 and he was perceived as heroic (although he's never been good-looking, he=20 wasn't in bad shape). Shelly Winters did heroic stuff, and because she was=20 fat, the audience laughed at her. Fat is automatically funny (except to the=20 people lugging it around). The fact that the character risked her life to=20 save others did not entitle her to be taken seriously. However, I do not wish to be a hypocrite. The truth is that there are no fat guys in my fantasies. Heck, in my fantasies, I'm not fat, either. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:20:47 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Pleasantville--is it? Jared Walters wrote: > I didn't see Bridges as pro-adultery. "Horse Whisperer" is a movie that set up a situation where adultery was=20 imminent, but the characters chose the high ground. A rarity in=20 Hollywood films. - --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:30:29 -0400 From: "C.S. Bezas" Subject: RE: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value Thom Duncan wrote: Those were sub-themes, however, to the main theme of both films. Can you name a film that teaches, as its ONLY, or primary theme, that adultery or fornication is always good for everybody? But personally, I don't think the message has to be the primary one to come through loud and strong, and thus achieve its point. Sometimes it is the subtle point that has the greatest impact. C.S. Bezas Board of Editors, Advisory Chair LatterDayAuthors.com http://www.latterdayauthors.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:19:05 -0400 From: "C.S. Bezas" Subject: RE: [AML] Pictures in homes Here are two quotes where church leaders have specifically recommended to put pictures of the temples in our homes (pictures of general authorities is conspicuously absent). There are probably other instances of this counsel-I did not do an exhaustive search. Obviously, after the counsel comes personal choice. But the direction is pretty clear. For example, President Howard W. Hunter said: "Keep a picture of a temple in your home that your children may see it. Teach them about the purposes of the house of the Lord. Have them plan from their earliest years to go there and to remain worthy of that blessing" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 8; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 8). N. Eldon Tanner said: "Here we can teach the meaning of the first principles of the gospel-faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands. We need to prepare our children for temple marriage. We can do this by having pictures of temples in evidence, by mentioning the blessings of the temple in our prayers, by telling faith-promoting experiences regarding temple work" ("Fatherhood," Ensign, June 1977, 2). And I know there was a flurry after one individual declared recently he was leaving this list because he felt it was not supportive of the church. People expressed shock he would feel such a thing. But analyze it. I believe he may have perceived issues similar to this discussion as supporting his claim. When church leaders have directly declared or recommended something across the pulpit in General Conference, it comes across as unsupportive to argue in contrary motion. Obviously, choice exists. But to argue contrary to counsel given by one of the Quorum of the Twelve or First Presidency apparently bothered him enough to "type" previous discussions as problematic. Just my thoughts on both matters. :-) Cindy C.S. Bezas Board of Editors, Advisory Chair LatterDayAuthors.com http://www.latterdayauthors.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:32:31 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Dutcher Movie Announcement (DN, SLT) Deseret Morning News Friday, October 17, 2003 Dutcher to make 2 new films with Jazz owner's assistance Planned are 'God's Army' sequel, 'Prophet' By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret Morning News Richard Dutcher and Larry Miller are friends again. Miller is back on board to help finance Dutcher's two new movies - a=20 sequel to "God's Army," which grossed more than $2.6 million, and "The Prophet," a Dutcher=20 pet project that he has been trying to get going for more than a year. And Dutcher says it=20 may star Val Kilmer and F. Murray Abraham. In a Thursday press conference, LDS filmmaker Dutcher and Utah Jazz=20 owner/auto dealer Miller announced an extensive moviemaking collaboration. With Miller's=20 financial help, Dutcher will make "God's Army 2: States of Grace," a sequel to "God's Army."=20 Although the second film they made together, "Brigham City," was judged a critical success, it=20 grossed disappointing box office earnings of less than $1 million. Dutcher said filming on "God's Army 2" will begin in January in Los=20 Angeles and that Luis Robledo, who played the Hispanic missionary in the original film, will=20 reprise his role, this time as the star. His character, whose past is checkered, will be unavoidably pulled=20 into a gang incident. "The Prophet" is the story of the life of Joseph Smith. Both Dutcher and Miller declined to divulge the budget figures=20 required for either "God's Army 2" or "The Prophet," which Dutcher will make immediately afterward. "It's=20 not a big secret," said Dutcher, "but it's largely unnecessary information." (However, the budget=20 for "The Prophet" is at least $12 million, according to previous figures given to the Deseret=20 Morning News.) Only two weeks ago, Miller announced a deal with other LDS filmmakers=20 in which he is providing sole financial support, "The Work and the Glory," to be based on=20 Gerald Lund's multivolume series of LDS historical novels. Miller said at that press conference that he had became disenchanted=20 with Dutcher and "The Prophet" since it was originally announced a year ago, but he did not=20 officially pull out. When asked what had happened to "The Prophet," Miller gave a lengthy reply.=20 He said he had been surprised when Dutcher announced an earlier timeline than he had=20 planned during an earlier press conference on "Brigham City." He also said that Dutcher had never=20 actually given him a proposal for "The Prophet." Thursday, Miller apologized for what he had said about both the=20 timeline and the proposal, saying he had checked his daytimer and his files and found that he was=20 wrong. So Miller and Dutcher had a two-hour lunch to discuss their differences -- they "fought,"=20 said Dutcher -- but they ended up burying the hatchet. "I was grossly unfair to Richard on both points and made him look bad.=20 I did not intend to do that. I don't have any harsh feelings about him. I've committed a=20 significant amount of money to this film -- more than I did to 'God's Army 2.' But I needed to clear the=20 air today." Dutcher was touched by Miller's apology. "It takes some real character=20 for Larry to say he's made mistakes. I always used to say Larry's my hero. Last week I wasn't so=20 sure he was my hero or not. But this week, with the way he has handled this, sitting down man to=20 man to make it right - -- he's my hero again." Dutcher is very excited about "The Prophet," and called it "the Mount=20 Everest of Mormon filmmaking." He has polished the finished screenplay and has most of the funding he needs. In the meantime, he is planning to do "the bulk of the filming" in the summer=20 of 2004 and release it in 2005 -- the bicentennial of Joseph Smith's birth. "It's going to be my=20 birthday present to him," said Dutcher. Dutcher acknowledged that Columbia University historian Richard=20 Bushman, who is preparing a book-length biography of Smith, is still his historical consultant and that=20 he wants the film to be "historically accurate." "I want to tell a powerful, amazing story in as close to two hours as=20 I can. He was an exciting and charismatic man with an exciting and violent life, and I haven't seen=20 that portrayed anywhere." Although the casting is dependent on their schedules, Dutcher said both Kilmer and Abraham have agreed to portray Joseph Smith and Gov. Thomas Ford of Illinois,=20 respectively. Copyright 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company Salt Lake Tribune Friday, October 17, 2003 Miller, LDS filmmaker renew ties By Sean P. Means Like Simon and Garfunkel, Larry H. Miller and Richard Dutcher are back=20 together. Miller, the auto dealer and Utah Jazz owner, announced Thursday that he=20 will invest "a significant amount" in the LDS filmmaker's next two movies: "God's Army 2:=20 States of Grace," the sequel to the groundbreaking Mormon Cinema movie "God's Army"; and "The=20 Prophet," an epic biography of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith. Dutcher "has had good judgment in the past about things to be excited=20 about, so we figured to go along for the ride on this one," Miller said. "I hope for some of the=20 success of 'God's Army,' which is a tall order." "God's Army," Dutcher's 2000 debut film, ranks as the most profitable=20 LDS-themed movie, parlaying a $300,000 budget into $2.6 million at the box office and sparking=20 other LDS filmmakers to follow Dutcher's lead. Miller is not Dutcher's only investor, and would not specify how much he=20 is spending on the two movies. "God's Army 2" -- which follows the LDS missionary Sandoval, a minor character in the first "God's Army" played by Luis Robledo -- will be made for under $1 million,=20 and will start shooting in January. Dutcher would not specify the budget on "The Prophet," which will start=20 shooting next summer - -- and Dutcher hopes to have it in theaters in 2005, the bicentennial of Smith's birth. "The Prophet's" epic scale may make it the most expensive film in Mormon cinema,=20 dwarfing the $7.4 million Miller will spend for a film adaptation of Gerald N. Lund's The Work=20 and the Glory, an epic novelization of the LDS Church's early history. Dutcher has tentatively lined up much of his cast for "The Prophet," including Oscar winner F. Murray Abraham ("Amadeus") as Thomas Ford, the Illinois governor who=20 confronted Smith in Nauvoo. The most controversial casting may be the choice of Val Kilmer to play=20 Smith. Kilmer's previous roles include the Caped Crusader in "Batman Forever," rocker Jim Morrison in=20 "The Doors," Tom Cruise's rival in "Top Gun," the voice of Moses in "The Prince of Egypt" and, in the upcoming drama "Wonderland," porn star John Holmes. The script has excited producers and agents in Hollywood, Dutcher said.=20 "The response that we've gotten . . . is, 'Did this stuff really happen?' " he said, adding the=20 movie may spark interest with non-LDS audiences because "it's a story they haven't heard before." Thursday's Delta Center news conference came two years after Dutcher and=20 Miller parted company on "The Prophet." Miller has said he stepped away from "The Prophet"=20 because of the disappointing returns of Dutcher's "Brigham City" and Dutcher "jumped=20 the gun" and wanted to start filming in late 2001 before all financing was secured. "I live in a fast-enough world that it is difficult for me to deal=20 extensively with things that aren't going down a smooth path," Miller said. After Miller's withdrawal, Dutcher tried last year to get "The Prophet"=20 in production, and came within seven weeks of shooting before financing fell apart. Dutcher shot down two widespread rumors about "The Prophet": that LDS=20 General Authorities asked Miller to withdraw, and that LDS President Gordon B.=20 Hinckley called Dutcher personally to ask him to abandon the project. "They make good stories, but=20 they sure make it difficult to raise money for a film," Dutcher said. Miller and Dutcher hooked up again two weeks ago, after Miller's news=20 conference to announce "The Work and the Glory." Dutcher called to complain about two=20 statements Miller made -- that Miller was surprised by Dutcher's April 2001 announcement of=20 "The Prophet" (at a news conference Miller attended), and that Dutcher never sent financial=20 information about the movie's budget. Miller checked his files, and acknowledged Thursday both statements were wrong. Miller also acknowledged his withdrawal from "The Prophet" hindered=20 Dutcher's fund-raising efforts. "The question came up, 'Why did Larry Miller pull out?' " Miller=20 said. "I could move on from [my decision] in a way he couldn't." Miller and Dutcher went to lunch last week, and "once we got the air cleared, we got on level ground." "It takes some real character for him to sit here with me and say he made mistakes," Dutcher said. "I used to refer to Larry as my hero. . . . Sitting down man to man,=20 and the way he handled this, he's my hero again." Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #197 ******************************