From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #394 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, July 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 394 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:19:59 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Steed Family katie@aros.net wrote: > Haven't heard this myself, but I did hear a woman (one I respect a lot, > actually) list off _TW&TG_ in Relief Society as a blessing that we have been > given in the latter days to help us understand church history and the gospel. Reminds of a priesthood meeting I attended in 1976 where one man claimed that there were children in the pre-existence because he'd seen them in _Saturday's Warrior_. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:30:24 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art Tami Miller wrote: > I saw a program on Television about her the other day. She painted the > mural(s) for the Manti temple. They interviewed her assistant, and he said > that sometimes she would stop in the middle of a painting and they would > drop to their knee's and pray for inspiration. What a wonderful example for > any artist to follow. She also paid for family tuition at BYU with > paintings, so they have a lot of her work around campus. > > -Tami Miller > [My favorite artist is Greg Olsen (O Jerusalem)] To me, Greg Olsen is an illustrator, not an artist. It's not all that subtle a difference, in my opinion. An artist may paint a picture of Christ but it won't be Christ sitting on a rock, looking at Jerusalem. The artist is likely to show us an interpretation of Christ we've never seen before. I think of Salvador Dali and his clean-shaven Christ hanging magnetically to a cross both of them hovering over the globe of the earth. That, to me, is an artist's representation of Christ. That's why I consider Liz Swindle an artist in her paintings of Joseph and Emma Smith. These are not the traditional poses. Joseph has his shirt sleeves rolled up, holding a child to his breast. It's Joseph the Man. Enough -- far too many, imo -- other talented painting have painted various pictures of Joseph Smith the demi-god. I can believe that Swindle's Joseph can actually wrestle in the dirt with a fellow Saint. Christensen's an artist. His Church paintings do much more than create reality. The Widow's Mite is one that comes to mind. We see not only the poor widow (though she is just a bit too Western looking) but her relationship to the other supposedly faithful tithers. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:25:41 -0500 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] re: (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art Eric R. Samuelsen: Tom Trails is the worst of the lot. Larry Jackson: I haven't even seen these filmstrips, and I would agree. Eric: I actually quite like The Windows of Heaven I think it's called, about Lorenzo Snow and tithing. It's pretty old-fashioned looking nowadays, but quite well made. Larry: They have taken the original one-hour film and edited it down to about 30 minutes. The short version is just as good, IMO. About all they had to do was take out lots of wagon train music and scenes of blowing sand in southern Utah to get where they needed to be. I especially like the part at the end where President Snow, played by Francis Ury, I believe, was praying and asking if his own insufficient faith was keeping the rain away. I also got a kick out of the stake president's wife getting soaked in her dress when the rains finally came. Eric: And wasn't there a Church film many years ago about Saints in the Mexican colonies being killed by Pancho Villa? I vaguely remember it, and remember thinking it was quite good. Larry: And Should We Die. Two elders refused to deny their testimonies and were shot. It was based on a true story, I understand. This film was in black and white and ran 50 minutes, which was a problem, because the biggest takeup reel in most churches would only hold 40-minutes of film. Brave and talented 16mm projectionists (such as I), would make sure the tension was tight on the takeup reel and stack the extra ten minutes right onto that 40-minute reel. The film would stick out almost an inch. As long as I was careful, I could keep the film on the reel and get it safely rewound without any problem. Occasionally, a really helpful adult would come along and point out the problem, touching the reel and knocking all the film onto the cultural hall floor. A fast moving deacon would have the same effect. Then I would spend the next 1/2 hour untwisting and hand winding the film back onto the original reel. What memories! Thanks, Eric. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:41:17 -0600 From: "Paris ANDERSON" Subject: [AML] re: LDS vs National Publishers I must have missed something here. I thought the whole point behind = writing, whether you're Mormon or not, was to have a little fun. Or = maybe to help you understand some things--kind of help you think it out = better. I think it's kind of arrogant to assume we could write to an = audiance other than ourselves. Whoever listens listens. If readers = have fun with something I wrote--that's great! But, it really doesn't = have anything to do with me. If readers identify with something I wrote = and feel some comfort from it--that's great. But again--I has nothing = to do with me. If I'm wrong convince me. Paris Anderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:34:32 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] Writing by Mormons and Non >There was a limited release of the Left Behind movie early this year. It >played at one of the theatres here in Irvine, California. It was like God's >Army in that respect (played at a limited number of theatres). But I think >God's Army had a better turn out. > >Jerry Tyner > "God's Army" was a better movie by at least 1,000-fold, too. I was glad to see we Mormons had not cornered the market on bad art that people take part in simply because it's of high moral quality. Eric D. Snider - -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:00:59 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] AML Writing Group/Feedback Wanted Stephen Goode wrote: > Finally, if there is some interest in writing groups again, and if it would > be advantageous to use a bulletin board system on a website as opposed to > email, I'm willing to host (in terms of space, bandwidth, and software) an > AML-List writing groups area on one of my websites. Or take a look below my signature and join an existing one. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:17:27 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons Kellene Adams wrote: > I have to be obnoxious. . . . Is Christ boring? Good question. I like obnoxiousness if it makes me think. I don't think Christ is boring, but I do think "perfect" characters are boring. How to resolve this contradiction? As you say, Christ is the only sinless person who ever existed. That means a very simple thing: when Christ is depicted as perfect, it's the truth. When anyone else is depicted as perfect, it's a lie. I think that's where the contradiction is resolved. I think it's fascinating to study what Christ must have been like. What was his personality? What was his sense of humor like? Did he go around looking morose like so many films show him? He certainly didn't speak in King James English, but what sort of language did he use? High-falutin' language like King James English sounds to us? Or more common speech, so he sounded like a regular guy? When we show him only quoting himself from the Bible, is it a reasonably accurate depiction of how he was, or an iconic fantasy we hero-worshippers manufactured? Just how perfect do you need to be to be perfect? What does it mean to grow up from infancy and learn line upon line, precept upon precept, and yet never sin? These and many more are all questions that make the Savior a fascinating character study. But they are fascinating because it's a given that he really was perfect--he's our role model for what perfection is all about. Any other character who is perfect is not fascinating: it's just bad characterization--or blasphemy. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:27:41 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Church-Sponsored Art On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:06:49 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" writes: > Barta Heiner, the world's greatest > actress (for once, I'm being sincere) I have played Henry to Barta's Eleanor in "Lion in Winter" twice now and I can honestly say that I have never had more fun on stage. Even when we totally muddle up the "I-slept-with-your-father" scene it's magical working with her. And Eric brings up an interesting subject. I have not really enjoyed very much Church-sponsored art. In high school (before the advent of video cassettes) a bunch of us youth would occasionally go to the Mormon Battalion Visitors' Center in San Diego on a Sunday evening and get the couple missionaries to show us some of those old movies ... if they weren't doing tours at the time. But, that was more of a social event than any kind of art appreciation fireside. So, as for Andrew's poll, I don't really have anything to point to as a favorite ... except a particular performance. I loved Mark Deakins as Christ in "The Lamb of God." So far it is the only time I have seen the savior in a church project where something was actually happening behind the eyes. Mark's Jesus FELT things, THOUGHT things, even FEARED things. These are tiny moments, but to an actor they speak volumes; when Pilate (one of Michael Flynne's best performances) pushes Christ aside, Christ LOOKS at Pilate. He doesn't just stumble away in abject humility, he reacts to that disrespect. When the soldiers escort Christ to the top of Calvary and give him a shove and walk away, Christ turns as if to rebuke them but stops when he sees his disciples. Now this calls to mind another thread: Writing about "good" people. That whole discussion is really off the mark as far as I'm concerned. Remember who started that whole thing (Thom) and you'll realize that we started with pretty much a false dichotomy. Thom doesn't believe in "good" and "bad" people any more than anybody else does. As has been pointed out, there is only one "Good" man and He is rather interesting after all, despite his lack of "badness." What we're really talking about is conflict. We write about (hopefully) realistic characters who are embroiled in the battle between Good and Evil. What makes these characters interesting (or not interesting) to us are the choices they make in the face of the conflicts before them. I suppose you could say that Atticus Finch is a "good" man, but what interests me about him is not his relative goodness or badness considered in an abstract vacuum, but how he deals with the adversity that he finds in his life. So, Mark Deakins as Jesus Christ is the best there's ever been in any church sponsored project that I have seen. The nut of it all being that I could tell that his Jesus was CHOOSING to be perfect, even if he felt at times like not being so. As much as I like Mark's performance in this movie, I wish that the camera had spent more time on him. With Mark's talent we could have had more than just a glimpse. Still, it's more than we've ever had. Yesterday I ran into the man who played Peter in "Savior of the World." I will not rehash my feelings on that show, but I want to share something that I learned that supports something I and others have been saying for some time. Most recently Eric Samuelsen has made the point that what offends me may inspire you. Many people can't see the truth in that but I heard it again yesterday when David told me about all the physical permutations he went through trying to get the right look for Peter. What amazed him was that one person was so grateful that Peter had a goatee (at one point) which made it possible for them to identify with him. David walked down the hall and two minutes later had a conversation with someone who was glad that the goatee was removed so that they could identify better with the character. David's conclusion was that if you come seeking the spirit, you will find it. What it means to LDS artists is, you CANNOT please everyone. Make your work between you and the Lord and forget the critics. As Thom says, "Let the chips fall as they may." J. Scott Bronson -- Member of Playwrights Circle - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- "The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do." Galileo - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:56:55 -0600 From: Chris Grant Subject: [AML] Miscellaneous Remarks Thom Duncan writes: [...] >The paintings on the cover of the Ensign are not art. They >are illustrations. Why don't the _Ensign_ cover paintings qualify as art? And does this include the cover paintings by people like Minerva Teichert? [MOD: Another message from Thom in today's batch of posts (Saturday) addresses this question.] D. Michael Martindale writes: [...] >I'm sure Brigham Young didn't want to hear about the real >follies of real people--but that says nothing about fiction. >Since your quote from Brigham Young contradicts Amelia's >quote from Brigham Young--unless we make the distinction of >real vs. fictional--I have to assume Brigham Young also made >that distinction in his mind. The references I cited (to passages I will not quote here because of their length) specifically address works of fiction. It would be an understatement to say that in these references Brigham does not come across as a fan of novel reading as a useful pathway to the truth. Eric Samuelsen writes: [...] >If I'm not totally mistaken, didn't George P. Lee play Tom >Trails? Tom Trails was Gary Smith. (See Wayne B. Lynn's preface to _Tom Trails: A New Beginning_.) In a different thread, Eric writes: [...] >I suspect that Elder Packer would be the first to disavow >that label 'artist.' He has made such disavowals. I think modesty played a part in them. >He certainly paints, and his paintings are quite competent >landscapes. I am much more impressed by his carvings. To my untrained eye they are more impressive than many things I see in the HFAC. >But "The Arts and the Spirit of the Lord". the talk to which >you refer, is filled with his own protestations that he's not >an artist, and that there's a fundamental level at which, by >his own admission, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The only place I can see him discussing his inadequacy as an artist is in the 4th paragraph. In the following two paragraphs, he asserts, nevertheless, his credentials for speaking on inspiration and the arts. [Of the play President Kimball saw in San Francisco, Eric writes:] >The play was clearly a comedy It's not clear to me. A few sentences before the ones I quoted, he called the play a "drama", but perhaps he was using that term in its generic sense. He did say that the audience laughed, but that doesn't just happen in farces, does it? [...] >I said that I have never known an artist who created >anything intending to do evil in the world. Obviously >artists are as capable of sin as any mortals. But I have >never once known an artist who has said "I know, I'll write >this play/novel/poem/song or create this painting/film/ >sculpture in order to promote evil in the world." That seems to set the bar pretty high (or low, depending on your perspective). A lot of evil acts done for evil reasons fail to meet this standard, don't they? Chris Grant grant@math.byu.edu - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:33:04 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons Tracie Laulusa wrote: > It is basically about two good people who have been > building a life for 50 or so years together, with all the ups and downs life > generally throws people. I haven't found it a bit boring, discovering tiny > piece by tiny piece, who they are and how they've lived their lives. > So, I don't know what your "technically 'good'" involves. Maybe you could > explain in a little more detail. A character who has no foibles, no weaknesses, who never makes a wrong choice, who has no blind sides to his outlook on life, who never hurts anyone, intentional or otherwise. A character who, while "building a life for 50 years," never faces any tribulation which isn't resolved in a simple, pat fashion. A person who never gets discouraged unto despair. This is basic Fiction 101. Your heroes need to have some endearing foibles, and maybe even a not-so-endearing one or two, or we'll begin to disbelieve in and resent them. Mostly good people are still not all-the-way good. We've been coming at this from the "good" end, but it works the same way in the opposite direction. Have you ever heard of "one-dimensional" or "cardboard" villains? Your villains need to have some good points to them, or they are just as unbelievable and boring as all-good characters. They must at the very least have understandable, sympathetic reasons for doing the evil they do. So you see, I'm not just trying to get everyone's characters to be bad. It's that balance thing again. Good people need to have some bad to them, but bad people need just as much to have some good to them. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #394 ******************************