From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #232 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 Saturday, December 20 2003 Volume 02 : Number 232 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:30:39 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Eric Samuelson on Singles Ward Sam Brown wrote: > I vote for Eric on this one. Cool. > My problem with _Singles Ward_ is that even if the film were more > professionally made, I wouldn't like it. Cool. > I didn't see even a glimmer, however amateur, of > a great film hiding there, and that is why I think Eric was justified > in speaking his mind. If we are ever going to make great films, we > have to be able to say when something really just stinks and the > approach underlying it should be scrapped entirely, rather than > simply improved upon. I have never, *not once* said that I thought that _Singles Ward_ should be considered great cinema. I have never, *not once* suggested that Eric or anyone else shouldn't have offered their opinion on the film. I *did* say that I thought some modes of expression were more likely to offend than instruct. I *did* say that I thought Eric did his excellent criticism a disservice as a result of his chosen framework of expression. The fact is that a lot of people were entertained by the film, and as a result it's ended up making more profit for its investors than any other Mormon film in the last twenty years (possibly ever). The fact is that the most successful films are not always the best written, directed or produced ones. The fact is that filmmakers need to make money or lose their investors. I've ended up watching a few romantic comedies recently (Pride and Prejudice, How to Lose A Guy In 10 Days, Sabrina) and they all use pretty much the same plot structure that _Singles Ward_ uses: * Two (usually beautiful) people have a negative interaction. * They're thrust together by circumstances beyond their control. * They're strangely attracted despite mutual dislike. * They find ways to be together. * They discover they're in love, but neither is willing to tell the other how they really feel. * As a result of that fundamental lack of communication the relationship appears to end after a direct confrontation; usually over a perceived rival. * One of them leaves the city/state/country for a long time. * The other discovers their mutual misconception, swallows personal pride, and does something heroically idiotic to let the other know that it was a mistake and they're meant to be together. * They get together. So you can scrap the underlying approach if you want, but you'll be tossing one of the most consistently successful forms ever devised for both entertaining audiences and paying off investors. I happen to believe that the underlying approach is not only blameless in this case, but is a generally good way to succeed as a filmmaker. Disagree to your heart's content. Agency rules. The funny thing about this whole discussion is that I didn't like the film either. I thought is was insulting and poorly made. I thought it botched its own ending for no good reason. I thought it made a promise to me as a viewer that it didn't deliver on--the greatest criticism I can make of any story. But I don't accept the notion that because it offended me it should never have been made or its producers should be ostracized or that it was some great moral outrage that demeans all of Art by its mere presence. So I defended its right to exist, the right of audiences to like it if they want, and the right of the filmmakers to produce more titles if they want to. The best part is that the makers of _The Singles Ward_ have attacked me with almost as much vigor as they attacked Eric and Richard. But at least their opinions were repected; in my case their evaluation was "nobody cared what he thought then...so why in the heck should we care...now?" Which is a great question. Why should anyone care what someone else has to say? The fact is that most of us don't care, and that's great. But some are interested in hearing the opinions of others, or seeing the artistic visions of others, or just speaking their own mind because they feel like it and there's a forum. As long as that forum exists and is free, I defend the right of people to express themselves by whatever means and modes they want. I don't have to agree with them any more than they have to agree with me. They can even attack me for defending their right to express an opinion I find pointless. The right of expression is worth defending, in my opinion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:59:03 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] The Envious Critic D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I guess it never occurred to them > that a sticky dot over one of the greatest works of art in history > wouldn't offend anyone. > > Well, it offended me. Cool. > I loved Eric's review of "Singles Ward." I'm glad he wrote it. I think > it's a wonderful thing for someone to report their honest reaction to a > work of art, honestly and clearly, let the chips fall where they may. I > would want nothing less from the reactions of people to my art. Cool. > Trying to censor (and yes, that's what it is, an attempt to censor) > someone's honest reaction to art because it might offend someone's > tender feelings is like putting that sticky dot over Adam's penis. I call foul. I offered an opinion. That's all. I made no attempt to enforce that opinion, and I certainly haven't curtailed Eric's ability to express his opinion, so your claim of censorship falls well short of either accurate or reasonable. Why is it that honestly expressed nausea over the way the producers of _The Singles Ward_ packaged their film is the height of artistic expression, but my honestly expressed reservation of the way Eric packaged his criticism is censorship? That seems like a double standard to me, and I frankly don't see the difference. > I am > SICK SICK SICK! of kowtowing to the easily offended. Then don't kow-tow. You're the only one who controls the way you express yourself. > I want honest, > emotional reviews to art like Eric wrote. Labeling what he wrote as > inappropriate offends me. I didn't label it as inappropriate. I labelled it as likely ineffective as a means of convincing the filmmakers to take a different approach. Sort of the way he labelled _The Singles Ward_ as ineffective in convincing him to enjoy the film. There's a big difference between inappropriate and ineffective. I think it's a very important difference and I don't accept your disapprobation as reflective of what I actually said. > Don't let them get to you, Eric. Keep writing those honest reactions. Amen. > Some of us out here appreciate them. Amen. > If the artists whose tender > feelings you hurt can't take it, they can always become Amway > distributors instead. Amen. > But if they want to stay artists, they'd better > learn how to deal with it, because all the power and might of AML-List > combined cannot censor every negative critic on earth. I still don't see how one person's opinion is artistic freedom and another person's opinion is censorship. I recall seeing both Eric's and my comments posted on this list. > Deal with it, or stop being a professional artist. It's part of the job > description. For all of us. Amen. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:05:07 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Eric Samuelsen on Singles Ward At 05:17 PM 12/8/03, you wrote: >My problem with _Singles Ward_ is that even if the film were more >professionally made, I wouldn't like it. I didn't see even a glimmer, >however amateur, of >a great film hiding there, and that is why I think Eric was justified >in speaking his mind. Um, now that I've seen it too, I'll add one hearty Ditto. I'll grumble way too much if I comment further. It's bad enough that I'm surrounded by hearty enthusiasts. Since I absolutely can't find anything nice to say about it, I'll choose to say nothing at all. Except DITTO. What Eric said. Yeah. Right on, brother. And in the subject line, "Samuelsen" is spelled wrong. Our dear brother is too nice to point it out. [MOD: Corrected. Thanks, Linda!] I went through singlehood as a "Paulson," constantly spelled "sen," so I know how fruitless it is to make anyone spell it correctly ... but ... just thought I'd mention it. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #232 ******************************