From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #223 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 Tuesday, November 18 2003 Volume 02 : Number 223 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:24:04 -0600 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] The Sugar Beet paper edition (SLT) At 07:24 PM 11/10/03 -0700, Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: >Arithmetic check. > >Subject: [AML] The Sugar Beet paper edition (SLT) > > > > November 10, 2003 > > "There's only one thing you can do if you live in Utah: You can > > be funny or you can be a nerd," Petersen says. "We're funny > > nerds." > >To which I say: Todd Petersen, Chris Bigalow, and I are two of a kind. > >Alan Mitchell There are three types of people in this world: those who flame others for making mathematical mistakes in posts, and those who do not. (_My_ excuse for not being able to count? I have a masters degree in math . . . ) - -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:29:44 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] TOPPING, _Utah Historians . . ._ (SLT) SUNDAY November 16, 2003 The West Under Cover: History's Salvation By Martin Naparsteck Special to The Tribune Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History By Gary Topping University of Oklahoma Press; $34.95 Five Utah writers transformed the way history is written in the West. and Gary Topping convincingly shows us how they accomplished that. The essentials of his argument are these: that until those five writers came along (Bernard DeVoto, Juanita Brooks, Fawn Brodie, Wallace Stegner, Dale Morgan), Utah history was an embarrassing collection of poorly constructed lean-tos, designed to prop up Mormon mythology. But while each of the writers had limitations in the practice of history, the histories they wrote were stronger than the limitations. The argument that Utah history was little more than Mormon propaganda ("heavy-handed pro-Mormon interpretations," Topping writes), and that all five displayed courage by defying the pressures of a church-created culture, is not new. Levi Peterson in his 1988 biography of Brooks, and Newell Bringhurst in his 1999 biography of Brodie, for example, offered similar arguments. Topping acknowledges those two biographies as sources for much of the information he presents on those two writers. That Mormon culture can stifle creativity is also not a new charge. For example, Scott Chisholm in a 1996 article in Western Humanities Review argued that Mormon culture limits literary creativity. What is new in Topping's Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History is the cumulative analysis of the five historians, presenting a detailed portrait of how history in Utah was transformed. A more accurate and less awkward title for his book would have been The Salvation of Utah History. His title and much of his prose ring with the thud of an aluminum (read academic) bell. (Sample: "[Robert Joseph] Dwyer was the first Utah historian to maintain a consistent critical objectivity toward his materials. The polemical element, either for or against Mormonism, which had vitiated most of the literature of Mormon and Utah history before his time, is completely absent from his book." The stuff is readable, but as graceful as a mule plodding through mud.) His most interesting thesis involves Brooks, who, in writing The Mountain Meadows Massacre, provided the first book-length examination of the Mormons' role in the 1857 murder of more than 100 men, women, and children on a wagon train in southwestern Utah. The church had long engaged in a cover-up of church members' involvement by blaming Paiutes for the killings. Almost universally, Brooks has been admired for the courage she showed in writing the truth. She was a devout church member and feared excommunication. Topping shares the admiration but suggests that fear "kept her from following her materials to what many would regard as their most convincing interpretation." He writes, "Brooks was reluctant whenever she felt obligated to dissent from official church points of view." It was, in effect, a fear of being disloyal, he argues, that kept her from accusing Brigham Young "even as an accessory after the fact." His argument against Stegner and DeVoto is largely that, as fiction writers, they used literary devices that professional historians would find unacceptable. For example, in critiquing DeVoto's novel The Year of Decision 1846, he lists, among other common criticisms, "Most offensively, he seemed to be suggesting that only one year, 1846, explained a whole century of western history." Topping refers to Stegner's defense of his friend's novel: "Stegner knew [the literary device DeVoto used] by the formal term synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part (in this case, the year 1846) is made to stand for the whole (nineteenth-century western expansion)." Topping believes Brodie, an early practitioner of psychobiography, sometimes used bad psychological methods in her biographies, including those of Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon. However, he largely exempts from that charge her first and most influential biography, No Man Knows My History, an unflattering portrait of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church. Morgan seems an odd inclusion in this group of important historians. In his writing, he was the most academic of the group and was perhaps the most uniformly admired within the history profession. But he never generated the animosity that often greeted the writings of the other four, and certainly he is the least known. But Topping admires the thoroughness and accuracy of his research. His big limitation, Topping writes, was in thinking facts are enough, resulting in a failure "to consider the larger meanings of his factual syntheses." The wrong title and some awkward writing are minor faults in a fine and intellectually intriguing book. With the possible exclusion of Morgan, this book is really about how courage improves the writing of history. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:51:41 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value Susan Malmrose wrote: >>I can think of lots of pop culture which DEPICT adultery or murder. I >>can think of plenty of films which show enough skin that those who >>watch them might be TEMPTED to commit adultery. But I can't think of >>a single one which glamorize murder or adultery. >> >>Specifics, anyone? >> >>Eric Samuelsen >> =20 >> > >It's been so long since I've watched anything that even graphically >depicts it, I couldn't tell you. > >Providing you don't consider premarital sex adultery. > >And I'd probably argue that graphically depicting it *is* glamorizing >it. (In the way that Tarantino does.) > > =20 > I believe Tarantino does exactly the opposite. He doesn't glamorize=20 violence, for instance, as much he draws you into so much so that he=20 sickens you with it, not inuring you to it but showing you that it isn't as glamorous as the action movies make it look, but very messy and very=20 disgusting. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:46:52 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Three [moderator's note: Let's keep the drool factor fairly low... :)] Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Tayva Patch is probably the most attractive >mother of fully grown kids around. > Let's tell the whole truth. She's a grandmother, believe it or not. >(Like how I tried to delicately >side-step the age issue?!) I'd do a love scene with her no problem. > I have. Neener, neener, neener. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:48:11 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] The envious critic (was Harry Potter) <020e01c39be3$6f34ab30$0b00a8c0@brigisheim> In-Reply-To: <020e01c39be3$6f34ab30$0b00a8c0@brigisheim> Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Scott Parkin wrote: >think both Brother Samuelson and Brother Dutcher >went over the line with their criticism of _The Singles Ward > Unless we ultimately adopt the idea that art has no inherent rules, then I don't see how we can claim that criticism of art is unwarranted. (If=20 you not saying that, please forgive me.) We are told, after all, to seek after the "best books" and, by extension, the best of all other forms of art? How do we determine what is the best? Is it only what we "like"=20 that is the best? Is modern art "bad" because we don't like it? Maybe=20 we just love those dogs playing poker. Does that alone make it good art? There are rules to art. To an outsider, the plays of Shakespeare and=20 Ionesco may appear to be two completely different forms of art, with=20 nothing in common. But to the theatre student, who is taught to look=20 behind the text, the staging, the two genres are much more alike then=20 they are different. And any good novelist will tell you that a plot is=20 much more than one event after another. The best novelists make it seem=20 as though their stories flow seamlessly from chapter to chapter, but a=20 lot of behind the scenes work has been done to make it appear so. Because of this, some less skilled people produce what THEY THINK is art but which breaks the rules inherent to that art. They either don't know=20 the rules, or they are too close to the project to see where they've=20 gone wrong. And what they end up producing is something that resembles=20 art but is not. I do not believe that we should let the rule non-users (notice I'm not=20 saying rule breakers, because intelligent breaking of the rules is also=20 art) get away with their indolence for the sake of unity, or politeness. They need to be told, as forcefully as possible, by those who know the=20 rules, where they've gone wrong, why, and how to make their next work=20 better. Empathy alone, agreement with subject matter, are not enough to=20 require our positive opinions. We don't have to be rude, or insulting, but we do have to be truthful, if we take it upon ourselves to be the=20 arbiters of the rules. And sometimes the truth hurts. Eric Samuelsen is an AML treasure. He knows more about theatre and films and how to do them then any other practicing playwright. Ditto Richard=20 Dutcher vis a vis films. Any word from these stellar gentlemen, no=20 matter how harsh it may appear, is to be sought after. If they say=20 something is amiss in a certain film or play, it is not because they are envious; it is because they know the rules and their word can be=20 trusted. (And I say that as a recipient of Eric's criticism of several=20 of my works, where he was so clear, and his arguments for change so=20 unassailable in their logic that I was forced to re-work my scripts even though I had been utterly convinced that they were flawless.) When criticizing the work of our fellow Saints, we do them no good to=20 hold back the truth for fear of offending. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:51:08 -0500 From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: [AML] Re: Speech Patterns - was Elizabeth Smart Story I think there are Utah Mormon speech patterns. Not everyone, but quite a few, folks in Utah sound like the conference speakers. I have come to associate that cadence with well to do Salt Lake dwellers, LDS or not. Definitly a "type". My Idaho relatives are very LDS but don't speak that way at all. We do have a kind of "Mormon Speak" in which we use certain phrases but that isn't universal. Here in the south we have our own little mix of Mormon and Southern. My Bishop and our former Stake President in Little Rock have speach patterns that are more like Bill Clinton's. They sound like Baptist Preachers, which my Bishop and former Stake President were in former lives. You haven't lived until you hear the Sacrament prayer in deep bayou tones by a real Cajun. =20 "Jamie Laulusa" wrote: > >Eric Samuelsen: >>The writing >>led him that direction, of course, but still, I didn't hear Mitchell's >>former connections to Mormon culture in his speech patterns, in the >>falling inflections and the word emphases peculiar to our = culture.=3D20 > >There are specifically Mormon speech patterns? =A0What are they? > >~Jamie Laulusa > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:09:11 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Speech Patterns -=20 At 05:51 PM 11/14/03 -0500, you wrote: >I think there are Utah Mormon speech patterns. Not everyone, but quite >a few, folks in Utah sound like the conference speakers. There's also a specific cadence to scripture reading. The voice goes along in a monotone until the final syllable of a passage, when it drops down a couple of tones. Then it starts over. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:00:58 -0700 From: Clark L Draney Subject: Re: [AML] Review: Pride and Prejudice, a Latter-day Comedy My wife and I also saw _Pride and Prejudice_ last week. I have been stewing all weekend about what kind of review to write and whether I could even one write one that would be helpful to list members and others who might like to know about this film before seeing. Luckily, Eric Samuelsen saved the day and wrote the review that a more savvy, articulate me might have written. I agree with almost everything he said. The wedding chapel scene is atrocious, really. I also noticed that the=20 focus puller must have had a couple of sick days during production because there were more than a few scenes in which even my relatively poor eyesight told me that something was amiss. Nevertheless, this was a very good effort. A smart script with some good ideas. Light on the in jokes, but staying pretty true to Utah Mormonism. Solid acting from nearly everyone. Let's have more like this, and less like _The R.M._ (which I turned off after about 10 minutes-- does it get better and I just didn't endure to the end?). Clark D.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:59:55 -0800 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] My Web Page > On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Eugene Woodbury wrote: > >>>Who else has a webpage? Mine is: www.bjrowley.com Is there going to be a list or "living room" available again where we can see all these? - -BJ Rowley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:22:31 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value ___ Thom ___ | I believe Tarantino does exactly the opposite. He doesn't=20 | glamorize violence, for instance, as much he draws you into=20 | so much so that he sickens you with it, not inuring you | to it but showing you that it isn't as glamorous as the=20 | action movies make it look, but very messy and very=20 | disgusting. ___ Certainly Tarantino's films are more complex than many realize. However to say he doesn't glamorize violence seems incorrect. He shows consequences and humanity. But that doesn't mean he also doesn't glamorize the violence. =20 Consider _Kill Bill_. Admittedly part 2 isn't out yet where the consequences are shown. But while the plot clearly seems to be leading to "The Bride" realizing the problems of revenge, the film also clearly glamorizes violence. Indeed the film is primarily a comedy focusing in on various film genres from the 70's. The decapitations and dismemberments are done with the "wink wink nudge nudge" that we saw in _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. Indeed one scene is an homage to that black knight in that film. To say that the intent was to "sicken you with it" seems rather difficult to assert. Indeed that Japanese edit of the film has the switch to black and white in the sword fighting left out. It is far more glamorous but the intent is not to sicken but a kind of geek chic where one glorifies in the B-movies of the 70's. It is a very referential film. Intentionally so. And the focus is what is cool. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:20:30 GMT From: Darvell Hunt Subject: [AML] RE: Review: The Elizabeth Smart Story For those who wonder if the details of the made-for-tv movie were accurate or not, I suggest one thing: Read "Bringing Elizabeth Home," which was "written" by Elizabeth's parents. ("Written" in quotes because I think it was ghostwritten.) I audioread the book over one weekend and I must admit it was touching. And probably more accurate concerning the facts than any other source, although I did find a few things in it obviously slanted to the Smart's point of view. Some of the details in this book are different from what was commonly known and was frequently reported by the news media. If you want to know the closest thing to the truth, go to the source. BTW, I think, from what I recall in the movie and the book by the Smarts, that Elizabeth's quote in the movie was correct. Something like, "Thou saith, I saith." Anyway, for what it was meant to be, I give "Bringing Elizabeth Home" a high recommendation, especially to those who saw the movie and want to know more. In many cases, the "truth" was abbreviated because of time constraints. For example, the final scene at the police station didn't really happen. It was a collage of many different scenes combined into one. Ed Smart first saw his daughter at the police station in Sandy. Lois Smart didn't see her until she was in Salt Lake City. Lois didn't get the call that she had been found until after Ed had seen her in Sandy. (In the movie, the Lois's phone rang just as Ed slammed the door to leave.) And there were lots more police around "during that scene" and they didn't just leave when they met with her. The police "debriefed" her, the parents got upset, Tom Walsh called and told them they shouldn't be harassing their daughter, and on and on. That five-minute scene represents probably about eight to ten hours in reality. But you couldn't show that in a two-hour TV show. Get the book and read it (or listen to it, like I did). It will satisfy your curiosity about "the truth." Darvell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:07:39 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] My Web Page > On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Eugene Woodbury wrote: > > >> Who else has a webpage? > >> Susan Malmrose > I do! Bill Willson, writer http://www.iwillwriteit.com http://www.latterdaybard.com Here's a great place for LDS artists to show and sell their work. http://www.minutemall.com CHECK IT OUT! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:06:30 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Re: My Web Page I've got one, too, www.annettelyon.com. Nothing too fancy, but I've had fun with it. I send out a (roughly) quarterly newsletter with updates, LDS arts information, and often a fun poll or contest with things like a free LDS novel or book store gift certificate as a prize. For anyone who likes word games, I've got one on my site right now. It's something I've done w/ family for years, and it's deliciously addictive. There's also the results of my (hopelessly unscientific) Mormon Arts poll (click on "current contest" and find the link to the results from there). On a different note--and I am probably the last person to clue in on this one--but just today I realized that the recurring Oprah guest and O magazine columnist Martha Beck, and the one who is Nibley's daughter and author of "Expecting Adam," are one and the same. Never put that together before. The discovery surprised me for some reason. I had to reread the review on in the archive. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:33:47 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] BENNETT, "Flippin', Oh My Heck and Dang" (DN) Sunday, November 16, 2003 3 new works to debut By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret Morning News "FLIPPIN', OH MY HECK AND DANG: A UTAH MUSICAL COMEDY REVUE," based on songwriter/playwright Alex Bennett's experiences in moving from New Jersey to Utah 10 years ago, will be presented Friday and Saturday at 7:30 p.m. in the historic Murray Theater, 4961 S. State. Bennett notes that while it touches on some humorous aspects of religion in Utah, the show "respects all feelings and beliefs and is respectful toward the LDS religion." Over the past few years, he's written several songs about his Utah experience, which has included meeting a local LDS woman "who figured if they were going to be married, it would be better if he became a Mormon." He later realized that the 15 songs could be put together in one cohesive story. The tunes include the title song plus "Salt Lake City Blues," "I'm a Western Guy," "Up in Millcreek Canyon," "Antelope Island," "When All My Dreams Come True." In addition to Bennett, the cast includes Jessica Gogan, Kiki Stafford and Darcy Cole as the Dangettes, Troy Gogan, Ron Coston and Stewart Bates (the latter recalls childhood memories of walking to the historic Murray Theater to watch movies on weekends). Tickets are $7 at the door. For further information, call 575-1933.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:51:47 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: [AML] Options for our conferences I think we had a very good turnout for our writers conference, and we're anticipating another good meeting in a few months with our Annual Meeting. However, we know there are many AML-list subscribers who live too far away to attend our functions. We would like to know if any of you would be interested, in the future, in purchasing some kind of recording of the conferences--either cassette, CD, or DVD. Right now this is just a very nebulous idea, so don't dive for your checkbooks yet. But if you're interested, please let us know what would be most useful. Writers conference or Annual Meeting (or both)? Highlights or every session? Which media format is best? Thanks, Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:04:25 -0800 From: Sugar Beet Subject: [AML] Sugar Beet FAQ If you're interested, following are some answers to frequently asked questions about the Sugar Beet and our print edition:=20 WHY ARE YOU CHANGING TO A PRINT FORMAT? Reason number one: We've run out of webmastering resources and gumption, so we can no longer publish the site as often or as well as in the past. Meanwhile, our staff harbors some untapped print expertise and enthusiasm, so it seemed like a good time to change format. Besides, we've long desired to heft and fondle the physical fruits of our labors. Paper cuts be damned! Reason number two: We're experimenting to see if there's a paying market for our brand of alternative Mormon entertainment. If so, we have some cool book projects planned for you. We are working on a Sugar Beet Guide to Mormonism that will revolutionize your member-missionary efforts. We're planning parodies of some overripe Mormon books and periodicals. We're aware of some provocative, groundbreaking novel and memoir manuscripts that we'd love to acquire and publish for you. We're planning a Best of the Sugar Beet book with highlights from our first 25 online issues. Of course, none of these things will happen unless we see proof that we have enough flesh-and-blood customers, as opposed to our 11,000+ virtual freeloaders. So, if you haven't already, send in your Sugar Beet subscription today! ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE MONEY? Hah. Let us repeat: Hah. If we were ever fortunate enough to generate a surplus, we would fold it back into enhancing and promoting the Sugar Beet magazine and getting our book publishing plans going. It would be great to pay a pittance to our writers, graphic artists, and editors, but no one is quitting their day job. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE WEBSITE?=20 From now on, our website at TheSugarBeet.com will be mainly a portal for the print edition. We will regularly post previews and teasers for material appearing in our printed issues, with the goal of attracting subscribers. We may also use the website to publish news reports that we want to release immediately because of their timeliness. WILL YOU TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE MAGAZINE?=20 We'll do the biggest, highest-quality magazine that our resources allow. Obviously, the more subscribers and advertisers we get, the more we'll be able to increase page count and production quality. At a minimum, we're planning for issues to be 16-20 full-sized pages, with as much or more material than our online issues typically contained. All your favorite columnists will appear regularly, as well as some new features. We'll include more material generated by our readers, including letters to the editor. WHAT IF I SUBSCRIBE AND THEN DON'T FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE MAGAZINE?=20 We will honor requests for prorated refunds on remaining issues. However, we'll also send a noogie your way via the Force. CAN I SEE A SAMPLE ISSUE BEFORE I SUBSCRIBE? At this time, we are looking for charter subscribers. We will offer single copies for sale after our print edition is reasonably well established. WILL I BE ABLE TO BUY THE SUGAR BEET AT STORES?=20 We hope some retailers who carry magazines in heavily Mormon areas will be interested in stocking the Sugar Beet. If you have any contacts who could help with this, please e-mail us at thesugarbeet2@cs.com.=20 HOW COME THERE'S NEVER BEEN A SUGAR BEET T-SHIRT? We're working on that.=20 HOW CAN I WRITE FOR THE SUGAR BEET OR AT LEAST SHARE MY IDEAS? We welcome articles, news tips, suggestions, complaints, and other feedback from readers. Simply send them to thesugarbeet2@cs.com or The Sugar Beet, PO Box 1086, Orem, UT 84059.=20 ARE YOU GUYS ACTIVE MORMONS? No, we are Jehovah's Witnesses. Just kidding. Everybody on the staff is a Mormon, and the majority are active. HOW DO I SUBSCRIBE? Use our PayPal link at TheSugarBeet.com, or send a check for $19.95 to The Sugar Beet, PO Box 1086, Orem, UT 84059.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:59:37 -0700 From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] kudos to sugar beet Hello, Just had to go on the record as saying Sugar Beet is a wonderful addition to Mormon, even American, satire, and I wish the entire crew (should I say "Krue" to scandalize, or leave it as is?) the best of luck as they try to find their way in the rivers of direct mail advertising circulating through our postal service. To indulge in a positive cliche, keep up the good work. - -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:33:39 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Review: Pride and Prejudice, a Latter-day Comedy I took my two daughters and a friend to a screening of Pride and Prejudice on Saturday. I sat next to a 60+ year old woman I'd never seen before who spent ten minutes telling me how much she LOVED the RM and SINGLES WARD and how she hoped "this will be just as good". I bit my tongue and smiled and said, "yes, I've seen them", "oh they DO spoof Mormons , don't they"...and then trying not to cringe when she told me she'd read PRIDE AND PREJUDICE and "just didn't get it" but hoped this movie would help her get it better. I didn't ask her at the end if she understood Austen's work now. I had to do some arm twisting to get my daughters interested in going. They are avowed Austenophiles. Not only have they read all the books several times over, but own every film version of any of the books ever made, no matter how obscure. My 24 year old said, "Why mess with perfection?" Long story short, they both loved it. Yes, they agreed, the geek in the bad wig in the Vegas wedding chapel was stupid and detracted from the show. But, unlike Eric, they very much enjoyed Darcy running handcuffed down the road...probably because of the punch line Kitty got to "deliver" to the scene. In fact, Kitty was their favorite character, followed closely by Lydia. They both felt the screenplay truthfully interpreted the vacuousness of those two.=20 On the flip side of the Bad Actor in a Small Role coin was one of their favorite characters, the bookstore owner, all the more memorable for his short screen time and the fact he didn't utter one line. Their assessment was it wasn't so much a retelling (as was CLUELESS) but more a flavoring that was true to Austen's satirical vision of the culture of her day. Boy, did they nail the marriage-minded culture of Happy Valley.=20 My girls LOVED the Pink Bible and are anxious to know if they can purchase a full copy of it. And a T-shirt, ala the ones given away at the screening. I smell Marketing Opportunities for this film. The first Mo-film to spawn a line of accessories. We all thought Carmen Rasmussen as Charlotte was an oddity that detracted. She was great as the spotlighted window dressing to the party scene--her music was great--but to give her a scene? And it led us to "Eeewwwee..." thinking for a bit that she was destined to end up with Collins. Gross. (Collins' eventual mate [trying not to give too much away here] was a delight and something that even improved upon Austen's fate for one of the characters. There you have it--introducing Charlotte for a brief scene was a negative mark. Speaking of negative marks, from Eric's assessment, what my girls loved about the questionable binging scene is that Elizabeth and Jane dragged to the store looking and smelling bad. As overblown as it was, I don't agree it was the Death Wish Eric felt it to be. But then I'm no film expert, just a Chick Flickaholic. It set up the best line in the show, as delivered by Lydia, and was a satisfying conclusion to the Pink Bible tease about "How to Grocery Shop". My girls related to it, and felt the satire was strengthened by the outrageous portrayal that two women could lay around in the same underwear for a week. It carried the same flavor as the moments when we are in Elizabeth's imagination...and then are mildly disappointed when it turns out not to be reality. (I have SO wanted to behave JUST that way in some Sacrament Meetings...oh, you'll just have to see the movie...) The girls had a lengthy conversation on the way home about how many of the characters seemed to be cast for their physical resemblance to more "famous" actors: Kam Heskins is reminiscent of Julia Stiles. Orlando Seale reminds one of Collin Firth. Ben Gourley as Charles Bingley looks and SOUNDS like Owen Wilson, but is a heck of a lot cuter. My Austen Experts declared that Charles was played too much of a goof, and felt this could be chalked up to the writers trying to capture his boyish innocence. Another negative mark both my daughters commented on--the character of Caroline Bingley came off as a total b#@*% (can I say that on this list?). There was nothing of the subtle elegant word games and animosity veiled by polite manners at which the Caroline of Austen's creation excelled. Probably because this Caroline served as nothing more than a plot device. Oh well. Limitations of 90 minute film. All in all, we loved it and will pay to see it again on opening weekend, December 5th, taking all of our girlfriends with us. In fact, we've already got a Chick Movie Night planned. We're going in our pajamas. The website is a lot of fun too. This one is a winner. http://prideprejudice.com We can't wait to add it to our Austen Collection, on DVD, of course. Next Christmas. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #223 ******************************