From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #199 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, October 20 2003 Volume 02 : Number 199 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:13:12 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Language of Prayer - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kari Heber" To: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:03 AM Subject: RE: [AML] Language of Prayer > Going to the lds.org website linked below and doing a search for the > words "language prayer thee thou" returned 100 matches, the talk by > Elder Oaks being the first. I think the gist of his talk is that we > use thee and thou because they seem more formal and respectful in > modern English. Of interest to me in learning something about the language of prayer came from taking Spanish at BYU, (for which I worked my tail off, to procure that 'B). In Spanish, as in other romance languages, you have distictions of speaking in either the formal or the familiar. My instructor went out his way to explain that the language of prayer was in the familiar and we were to use the tu' form when praying in espanol as an exercise in class. He noted that Diety wished to be spoken to in the familiar to cement what we believe is quite literally a familial bond. While I've grown rusty with my spanish, I am still touched by that notion. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:30:51 +0200 From: Tom Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Language of Prayer One problem for those who want to adopt a more informal language of prayer (casting away the thee/thou formalities) is that, at least for public prayers, choosing to *not* use the formal language becomes an act of resistance. This resistance distracts others as well as the one praying. If you stand up to give the opening sacrament prayer in church, and say "Thanks Heavenly Father, you've been really good to us...etc." rather than "We thank thee Heavenly Father for the blessings thou hast given us," the more informal prayer stands out and becomes paradoxically a less sincere prayer because there is an element of resistance, a highly audible value statement that you are making about the language of prayer. In the sense that you are making a statement to the congregation through your chosen language of prayer, the prayer becomes less sincere, even though sincerity was probably the attempt for choosing more informal language in the first place. Reverting to formality in public prayers and informality in private prayers seems a form of hypocrisy. You believe one thing yet act another way. To remain in formalist mode full time despite strong convictions that formalism undercuts a more personal relationship with Heavenly Father seems to be a betrayal of the self. You feel what you should do, but act otherwise. Tom - --Cairo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:06:43 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] PRIDE AND PREJUDICE remake URL for the trailer of the new updated "Pride and Prejudice," subtitled=20 "a Latter-day Comedy." http://www.prideprejudice.com/ Steve Perry - -- skperry@mac.com Hear the latest edition of "The Cricket & Seagull" at: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/radio - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:43:09 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter I think Michael Buster ("Gods Army" and "Out of Step") does a lot of voice work. As a fan of the genre, I would love to do some myself... if anyone would HIRE me! Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:11:03 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" Actually, that was Thomas Baggaley's mistake, you RHHSBTTCN you! (i.e., you "Red-Headed Hunk Scott Bronson To The Contrary Notwithstanding" you! See, Thom Duncan.) Jongiorgi Enos P.S. "RPF" = Rabbit Proof Fence - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:11:08 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: RE: [AML] Pleasantville--is it? Ivan wrote: >In my mind, you are missing what the entire movie is about. > >I might make and argument here, but Orson Scott Card has said it much=20 >better than I have, so I'll just give an excerpt of his review and a=20 >link. For OSC (and myself) Pleasentville is anti-Mormon (not in the=20 >sense of anti-mormon literature, but in the sense of being oppossed to=20 >all things good true, which Mormonism exemplifies): It's one of the times OSC is jaw-droppingly wrong about a movie, joining his baffling takes on American Beauty, About Schmidt, The Hours, The Piano, and -- most baffling of all -- The Philadelphia Story. Card is at his best as a reviewer when he champions art that other critics unjustly trash. It's sad when he's the one doing the unjust trashing. Saying something is "vile" doesn't make it so... Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:56:55 +0000 From: "Elizabeth Petty Bentley" Subject: RE: [AML] Harry Potter >Eric Samuelson wrote: > >"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. Try Pinsky's translation of Dante's Inferno, read by himself plus Seamus Heaney, Frank Bidart, and Louise Gluck. You haven't lived until you've=20 heard all those Italian names pronounced with an Irish lilt. Beth Bentley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:27:27 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: RE: [AML] Bridges of Madison County Jared Walters: "I didn't see Bridges as pro-adultery. It does attempt to romanticize an extramarital relationship, but if the movie was pro-adultery you would've had the protagonist running off with her lover and living happily ever after. If anything, the story gives us a realistic look at the small things that lead to infidelity and the realization that what may feel right in a person's heart may not be what's in your head. The heroine chose not to run off because realistically she knew that deep down it was not the right thing to do and that there are consequences for those decisions that will affect people close to her who don't deserve it. Also, the story never actually condones the affair, but strongly suggests that this affair probably would not have happened had her husband not been so neglectful and cold. Just my 2 cents." No, she didn't run off w/ him in the end, but the movie made it very clear that what she did was not only okay, but that it was a treasure she would hang onto for the rest of her life. Those magical days of adultery would carry her through the humdrum days of life ahead. If it weren't for the kids she would have run off, and it's her husband's fault for what she did. To top it off, she didn't have a moment of regret or guilt. Sounds pretty pro-adultery to me. It practically says it's okay to have an affair if your spouse is neglectful, as long as you don't leave and as long as no one finds out. And after you're dead and your kids do find out, they'll admire you and see what passion you had. I hated the movie, especially more so because I like Merryl Streep, and it ticked me off that she would play such a character. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:16:07 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: Women in LDS films, women watching women I finally got to read part 3 of Jon's post. I took a lot of deep breaths, not necessarily because I disagreed with much of what he said, but because I still can't shake the feeling that there is this subliminal voice in his message saying, "The film industry can't help it if you're ugly." That aside, I wanted to add that I forgot about Carrie Morgan in Brigham City. Of course she was fabulous, and she's great looking too. Casting a really wonderful actress as one of your principals (though I didn't really consider her a romantic lead) is definitely smart casting, I agree. I also think that part of why I enjoyed Carrie, Wendy, and Tayva in BC is that I'm acquainted with them (or family members of theirs in Tayva's case), I've seen their work before, and they didn't disappoint me. That is not to downplay how good they were in the movie. They were very good, but they were still old acquaintances who delivered. Jon acknowledged that he and Heather Beers have been acquainted for years. I'm probably wrong, but I can't resist the temptation to suggest that part of how much he enjoyed her performance was the fact that he knew her and she didn't let him down. Probably wrong, but maybe right. As someone who doesn't know her at all, all I saw was a nice performance from a gorgeous woman, nothing special. Now the above doesn't mean that just because you know someone that you can't critique their acting at all. One of my best friends is a brilliant stage actress who just finished grad school. She's probably one of the most talented, intelligent, beautiful women I know, and I can think of at least two performances she gave as an undergrad that disappointed me. Her work was lacking in those shows. One was because she didn't have any real feedback from the director, and the other was because she was distracted by personal struggles (and that one was the role of a lifetime). The other 99.3% of the time when she was on, though, (and she was in like 20+ shows as an undergrad) she was unbelievable, exquisite. What's wrong with a "nice" performance from a gorgeous woman? Nothing, really, but look at it from the perspective of an actress. When a woman appears onscreen, I take her in for a minute. Any number of things can happen at this point: If the film star is beautiful in a way that pleases me, I may fall in love with that face and have high hopes for the performance. If the woman is beautiful in any way and she's a favorite actress of mine (like Emma Thompson), I will sigh in admiration of a face that I've already fallen in love with; and I will trust that she'll be great. (And then, if she's anything less than great, I'll probably blame it on indigestion or something. Or I'll hate her for tricking me before). If the beautiful film star is unfamiliar, however, I will often hold my breath for a second and wait to pass judgment. Hopefully, she'll be very special, and I'll be in love by the end of the film. If she's abysmal, I'll be disgusted and annoyed (like in "The Brothers McMullen" - sheesh!). If she's average, I'll just be a little disappointed and want to blame someone for it. Like you said to Christine a few days ago, Jon, there are thousands and thousands of great, gorgeous actresses out there. I didn't buy my wedding dress on the first stop, and the director should keep shopping when it comes to actresses until he finds a gem. Since I've not fallen in love yet in LDS cinema (with anyone who I didn't already love), I've had little desire for repeats from any LDS actresses who've played romantic leads. By the way, I want to qualify my luke warm response to Heather's heartfelt performance in "Charly." I have no film technique, and I'm not sure I could even do that or better. It was a nice movie, and it's entirely owing to her (well, and nice production value). I see your logic to why it was wise to cast Heather in Eat, Drink, and Get Married. The pretty factor and celebrity were definitely big keys to why he picked her. I wish you hadn't told me that Christian wanted Mereille for the part, though. Not only is she gorgeous and a brilliant actress, and all of that would have been so refreshing, but from what I understand about the film and the script, it would have been a perfect fit. Oh well. I'm sure Heather will be nice. Unless rage or a desperate need to be understood takes over me, I'll zip my lip on this topic from now on. I almost didn't send this, but after reading Jon's post and before deciding to send this, I was in a pretty rotten mood last night. Regards! Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:45:56 -0600 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Women in LDS Film, or Not Pretty Enough >Day of Defense: haven't seen it. DOD - Blondes. - ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #199 ******************************