From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #930 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, December 20 2002 Volume 01 : Number 930 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:23:19 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator on Thomas Murphy Case Thread Folks, It's been a high-volume time for AML-List, and a high-stress time for me with finals and all. And I've noticed that despite good intentions, the posts on this thread have been straying rather far from AML-List territory--which was perhaps inevitable from the start, given the subject matter. For the last several days, I've been simply holding onto posts on this thread, and not forwarding them to AML-List. At this point, we're getting close to Christmas, when I plan to take a week off from the list. I'm not sure what I'm going to do before then: possibly sift through the posts on this thread and send out the ones that seem to me most literarily oriented; possibly not. I'm most likely, however, simply to continue holding those posts, and instead send out others that are more centrally related to AML-List issues and less marginal in terms of AML-List guidelines. My intention isn't to leave anyone at a disadvantage in the discussion. However, I'm just not sure that we're getting much benefit out of this one, in terms of our core reasons for existence as a list--and, frankly, it's been a pretty draining thread to try to moderate. So apologies to those whose posts may have seemed like they fell into a black hole... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:25:27 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] AML-List Hiatus Dec. 24-Jan. 1 Folks, I will be sending out a full complement of posts tonight (Friday night), late as it is, and then another set of posts on Monday, Dec. 23. After that, I will be taking AML-List offline through January 1. Thank you all for your participation. I hope to see the discussion resume again unabated with the new year. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:20:35 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Movies News In a message dated 12/18/2002 11:00:01 PM Mountain Standard Time, andrewrhall@hotmail.com writes: << It reminds me of Gordon Laws' 2001 short novel My People, published by the BYU Family Studies Center and distributed by Excel, Zion Film's distributor. It was about a Mexican-American gang leader who joins the Church, and was designed to act as the basis for a film. I thought it was a very good book, but the similarity and connection are probably just a coincidence. >> I haven't read Gordon Laws' novel, although a copy was given to me. I put the copy on my shelf and decided not to read any of it until after GOD'S ARMY 2 is in the can. I wrote the treatment for GOD'S ARMY 2 a couple of months before GOD'S ARMY opened. Some think the storyline is too edgy for an LDS film. I guess we'll see. Richard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:06:25 EST From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies In a message dated 12/18/02 11:18:20 PM, susanpc@platformcreative.com writes: << There was a sex scene in it and I could literally feel the spirit leave when that came on. It felt like a vacuum just sucked it out of the room. >> Had he enjoyed the movie up to that point, including violence? John Perry - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:25:06 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Richard SNOWCROFT, _Ordeal of Dudley Dean_ (Review) At my advanced age, it may very well be that I had all the names conflated. Snowcroft? Ha! It may very well be. But honestly, I could swear I've heard the author's name in discussions at some point. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lisa Olsen Tait" To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Richard SNOWCROFT, _Ordeal of Dudley Dean_ (Review) > > Seeing the author's > > name, I wondered, could this be THE Richard Scowcroft? > > Indeed it was. > > > Who is THE Richard Scowcroft? You're not thinking of Richard Cracroft, are > you? Or is Richard Scowcroft related to the Brent Scowcroft of national > security fame (who is supposedly LDS)? > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:26:36 -0700 From: "Jennifer Ellsworth" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies I think that www.screenit.com is a fabulous resource. My husband and I check it before making a decision to see most movies and know exactly what we're getting into beforehand. - -Jennifer Ellsworth >My wife and I like Eric Samuelsen's comments on R-rated movies. We're >wondering where you get the reviews so we can also become better informed >before viewing movies? > >Glen and Kathy Sudbury > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:30:04 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] Review - Joyful Noise - Deseret News Deseret News, Thursday, December 19, 2002 'Joyful Noise' is a delightful drama By Genelle Pugmire Deseret News staff writer JOYFUL NOISE, Nauvoo Theatrical Society, Center Street Theater, 50 W. Center, Orem; through Jan. 4; box office: 801- 225-3800. OREM - In hustling and bustling to and from Christmas concerts and Messiah Sing-ins do you ever think about what it took for Handel to get his world-famous oratorio "Messiah" to Covent Garden? Well, it obviously took more than an edict from King George I. Who knew? "Joyful Noise," Tim Slover's intriguing story of George Frederick Handel, directed by Christopher Clark, is on stage at Orem's new Center Street Theater. The cast consists of a handful of talented actors and musicians. C. Heywood Bagley takes the lead as Handel. While his portrayal is adequate, his vacillating German accent needs some work. Standout performances go to Celeste Barrand, Mary Atkin and Hailey Smith, the women of the show. Each gave convincing performances - especially Barrand as Mary Pendarves and Atkins as Kitty Clive. The show itself is a slow starter, taking time to build individual story lines, but when it gets going, it moves along at a good clip. The set is simple, yet stunning, swathed in creams and golds. Costuming, with monochromatic hues, helps set the mood. Don't expect a lot of music.This is, afterall, a drama. However, you do get just a touch of Handel's music and a very lovely finale. On the whole this production is worthwhile, if for no other reason than to learn of Handel's opposition as he worked to create an oratorio that makes even the King of England stand in awe and praise. The new Center Street Theater is a 120-seat "black box" style venue. The company's goal is to be a facilitator for scripts written by LDS authors. "The Way We're Wired" by Eric Samuelsen begins Jan. 25. - ---- Thom Duncan Nauvoo Theatrical Society in residence at the Center Street Theatre "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:53:10 -0700 From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Some people have been asking where to get reviews that will help us know how to judge a movie beyond simply looking at its rating. Here are two websites that I have found extremely helpful: www.screenit.com This is a site geared toward parents that tallies every swear word, sexual act, act of violence, etc. in a movie. It is very useful, but be warned that sometimes the descriptions are almost as explicit as seeing the movies themselves. I generally look at the overall reviews (ie is swearing "extreme" or simply "somewhat") before ocassionally looking at specifics. www.imdb.com The Internet Movie Database is one of the best film sites out there. For just about any movie made they have complete information listed, and links to outside reviews. This is a good source if you like reading many different reviews of a movie from all parts of the country. I feel, like others have expressed, that we should not blindly follow the ratings system in making our viewing choices. I generally tend to avoid most things that are rated R, but usually it's because I have looked at the content and decided that the message is not worth it to me. Jessie Christensen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:53:29 -0800 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies > From: Christopher Bigelow > > My point is, this is a worldwide church, so the Brethren can't really use > the American R-rating as a prophetic benchmark. You will notice that the > "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlets do not even specifically mention the R > rating. > ------------------------------ > From: Derek1966@aol.com > > What advice was given to members in other countries who have the same movies > available, but not the US rating system? > ------------------------------ > From: Russell Asplund > > It's been a while since I've been back, but the Canadian rating system > used to contain an indication of what the movie was rated R for. That > was at least helpful. > The best part is, there isn't a single 'Canadian' rating system. In theory, each province and territory rates its own films, so there could be 13 rating systems. In practice, some jurisdictions piggyback (e.g. NWT uses Alberta's ratings). As well, they've mostly standardised their ratings. But there are still a bunch of different ratings. www.filmratings.ca lists them, but here's an idea: BC: G, PG, 14A, 18A, R, Adult. R isn't the same as the US R: it means 'no-one under 18'. 14A is like PG-13, 18A is like R, and R is like NC-17. But it's not a simple copying of the MPAA rating; 2-5 film raters watch each movie before classification. AB: Same kind of ratings. SK: Same kind of ratings, piggybacking much on BC. MB: G, PG, 14, and R. That's it. Heaven knows how that maps to MPAA's ratings. Again, R means no-one under 18. ON: Similar to MB, but named 'Family', 'Parental Guidance', 'Adult Accompaniment', and 'Restricted'. QC: The simplest system. G, 13+, 16+, 18+. G films that might not cut it for under-eights are called 'not suitable for children'. NS: G, PG, 14, 18, and XXX. NB and PE also use these ratings, whereas NF uses them voluntarily. Territories: YK uses BC's, NT uses AB's, and NU hasn't made up their mind yet (they only have one theatre in Iqaluit). And Russell, you're right, most (all?) provincial rating systems use extra text comments to discuss what's up with a particular movie, e.g. 'contains scenes of extreme violence' or 'contains suggestive language'. My point is, as well-meaning as the counsel against 'R-rated movies' might be, it's completely useless for Saints outside of the purview of the American MPAA. Here in Canada, if you don't watch US channels, or don't look up your movies on the Net, you have no idea what the MPAA rating is, 'cause the movie posters, TV ads, and video store labels have the provincial rating pasted over the MPAA rating. That's why I was *really* glad to see For The Strength Of Youth updated. Just one paragraph in there says it all: "Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable." I know a lot of R movies that would dodge those criteria and be acceptable watching. And I know a lot of G movies that wouldn't. (IIRC, 'Jungle 2 Jungle' was recently on TV, and my wife watched it with the kids, and ultimately nuked it because it portrayed immorality as acceptable in a manner that was too blatant to ignore. I didn't watch it, but I trust her judgment.) 'Vulgar' doesn't just mean swear words. 'Immoral' doesn't just mean T&A. (For those who don't know that acronym, it means 'Breasts and Bottoms'.) I can't find it, but when I do, I'll post a link to something Orson Scott Card wrote on how he taught his family how to select and watch movies and TV programs. It's a lot more work than just looking at a rating and going yea/nay, but IMHO it would be a much more effective way to teach kids about what is and isn't good to watch. Robert - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too We used to catch toads, ram the nozzle of a bicycle pump up their back- sides, and blow them up till they burst. That's what boys are like, I don't know why. - George Orwell, Coming Up for Air - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 2002/12/06 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:00:26 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies "R.W. Rasband" wrote: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list > capriciocommercialary I've heard of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, but what on earth is this? Dang Yahoo nail spell-check! What I meant to say was the MPAA ratings system is arbitrary, capricious, and subject to commercial pressure. Yes it's a bad idea to leave our decision-making to a "panel of gentiles" (hee!) > I will continue to see whatever movies I think fit > to see, using my agency and discernment, until the day (if it ever comes, > which I doubt) when my bishop and stake president ask me point blank if I > watch "R-rated movies" during my temple recommend interview. Debra L. Brown wrote: >I was actually asked this question. It sounds like you responded in just the right way. I'm afraid my answer would be (with all due respect) far less diplomatic. I guess I'm just lucky (or blessed.) None of the priesthood leaders I have had have had never asked me such a thing, R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:14:48 -0700 From: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret Book Ad Campaign I live in Spanish Fork and my letter from Sherri just arrived today (12/19) I also get the book club mailings, so I figured that's why it came. Lu Ann - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:45:13 -0600 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies At 03:43 PM 12/18/02 -0700, Christopher Bigelow wrote: >Here's an uncannily apropos item from today's Deseret News: > >BYU bars use of R-rated movies > >[snip] > > BYU spokeswoman Carri P. Jenkins said, to her knowledge, faculty won't >be disciplined if they don't adhere to the guidelines. > The selection of visual and literary materials "will depend on the >wisdom of the faculty," said Jenkins. > But BYU's guideline tells departments to "counsel" with professors who >"repeatedly choose inappropriate materials or who present materials in >inappropriate ways." > Students who object to material being used in class on moral grounds >can ask to be given another assignment. If the professor declines, the >student can take up the matter with the chairman of the academic department >and college dean. > "With this, there's a lot of invitation for discussion," said John S. >Tanner, chairman of BYU's English department. Does anyone else get the impression that this is a clear invitation to the same kind of thing that has happened in the biology and geology departments when topics such as evolution or the age of the Earth are discussed, leading some student to complain to a family friend in a position of authority in SLC that one of his/her professors is teaching false doctrine in class which is damaging his/her (i.e., the student's) testimony? - --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:49:24 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies At 01:41 AM 12/19/2002 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 12/18/02 11:20:03 PM, talleyrl@yahoo.com writes: > ><< I very specifically remember sitting in Sacrament >Meeting in 1977 when a letter from President Kimball >was read over the pulpit to the congregation >counseling us to not view R-Rated movies. >> > >What advice was given to members in other countries who have the same movies >available, but not the US rating system? > >John Perry One case in point--a senior missionary couple I know was recently on a mission to Scotland. They were permitted by their mission president to see the occasional movie and wrote to tell us that we just had to see "Billy Elliot" (not "Billy Madison", BTW, as I almost wrote in a moment of brain freeze). In the US it was rated R, but in the UK it was given a rating of "15" (which I'm guessing means no one under 15 without an adult?). Anyway, this couple--who would NEVER dream of seeing an R-rated film for the same reasons Rebecca Talley espouses--loved the film and found it appropriate not only as adult, faithful Mormons, but as missionaries as well. Did they disobey prophetic counsel? Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:22:24 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies - ----- Original Message ----- From: r talley To: Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies > We've been taught in the scriptures that the prophets > are mouthpieces for the Lord. Not to be flippant here, but let me remind you that the Apostle Paul--a fairly righteous dude himself--said that women shouldn't speak in church. And other such rot. Have you ever spoken in church, Rebecca? If so, then you were blatantly disobeying one of the mouthpieces of the Lord. So obviously it's not that easy. We'd all like it to be, but it's not. > > True, a movie rating may not be fair to a movie, but > is that what matters, or is it whether or not we're > willing to be obedient? No. I don't think so. The crucial test for me is this: did I think about the matter, using the brains God gave me, and did I seek the council of the Spirit before making my decision? That, to me, is what "being obedient" means: obeying the Lord's ultimate will for me by learning to use my own free agency in a righteous way. > My family has not and does not view R-Rated movies. I > don't care what the justification is, we don't view > them. We rarely view any movies because they are of > such poor quality. This is fine with me. You are your family are certainly allowed to make your own private decisions. But what irks me is the assumption that soooo many people make once they've decided this way: that everyone else who chooses to live differently is less righteous than them. I'm not saying YOU'RE assuming this, Rebecca. But I grew up in a town where I saw many, many Mormons create "extra-righteous" rules for themselves and then judge everyone else according to those rules. Creating these rules for personal behavior is fine; judging others by them is not. Just a hunch, but I think that particular behavior is going to get people to hell a lot faster than seeing a few R-rated flicks. > I personally don't believe we can pick and choose what > counsel we're willing to obey. I don't see it as a matter of picking and choosing. I see it as a matter of learning to exercise my moral judgment and thus maturing as a person. I believe I've become a better person because of some of the R-rated movies I've seen, and I KNOW I've become a better person through learning to choose them carefully. Closing myself off to R-rated movies would close an avenue of personal growth. Amy Chamberlain - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:37:06 -0700 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tracie Laulusa I do not have a problem with one person = > deciding they would like to let a handful of people they don't even know = > decide what is or is not appropriate, as long as they do not make = > comments that imply that those who do not choose to use that same = > standard are disobedient, spiritually immature, or in some other way = > inferior. Ah. There's the rub. In my experience, the Mormons who DO take this stance (I lovingly call them "fundies") have a hugely difficult time refraining from the temptation of "I'm toeing the line completely, and am thus more righteous than you." Who knows, though. Maybe someday an open-minded and kind-hearted fundie will come along and prove me wrong and change my opinion of them. I sincerely hope so. > Personally, the most offensive movies I have watched are rated G. Amen, sister. Actually, NOTHING will probably ever offend me as much as _Johnny Lingo_ did. Wow, the most offensive movie I've ever seen was viewed in a church setting. When I think of that, I kind of have to pat myself on the back for still being a member. Amy Chamberlain - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:06:16 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies Rebecca, How about you give actual sources for your quotes? [MOD: A good point to remember. When we're citing sources, it's a good idea for all of us to include the information that will help people find the resource themselves afterwards.] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:05:16 -0700 From: Russell Asplund Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies On Thursday, December 19, 2002, at 01:52 PM, Paris Anderson wrote: > To me the council not to watch R rated movies lost a lot of > credibility when > I saw the movie "Glory." To me it was very uplifting, and it demand > that I > reconsider some ugly attitudes I had (hope they're gone now). Why > would the > Prophets want me to avoid that movie? There was no sex in it. No > nudity > and no obscene language. There was plenty of violence, but I know they > don't object to that. If they wanted me to avoid excessive violence > they > wouldn't have sent my father to Argentina. > > (wait a minute . . . that sounds bitter.) > > Paris Anderson That movie was more or less the turning point for me as well. Good heavens, the movie even feature a testimony meeting. I found it very moving spiritually, and even the violence was used for specific purposes. There was really only one shockingly violent scene, right at the start--and the was necessary to set up the characters willingness to change. But, to repeat my other posts, I will definitely wait until my children are mature enough before I ever let them watch it. And they will have me there to speak with them about it before, during and after. Russell Asplund - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:54:35 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: R-Rated Movies My own feelings about the R-rated movies question are somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, I respect the comments of Eric Samuelsen and others about the fallibility of the rating system and the need to study out movies for ourselves. And I have to admit that one of the most powerful movies I ever watched was, indeed, rated R--_Ordinary People_. (Probably would be rated PG-13 today, but still.) At the same time, I also have to say that I'm not much of a movie person. I don't spend a lot of time watching movies. I also know that I'm powerfully affected by images on the screen. And I'm a father of three children, ranging in age from 2 to 13. For right now, my standard (inconsistent though I acknowledge it to be) pretty much is that I stay away from R-rated movies for myself as well as for my family. I'd rather make that my default mode for the time being. It's a form of laziness, certainly, but I also think that it's a (partial) protection from certain types of problems that I'd just as soon avoid from the time being. I say this, by the way, in full agreement that many PG and PG-13 movies are quite crude, and many movies rated G have horribly offensive themes. I try to avoid the first, and when I encounter the second, I try to discuss it with my children. And since I'm a book person, I do a lot of work with talking with my children about themes in what they read. Hopefully, they will learn to transplant that capability for literary analysis and critical judgment into film as well. In the meantime, on those rare occasions when I do go to see a movie, I'd just as soon avoid this entire complex set of issues. Cowardly, I know--or lazy--but you just have to choose your battles. (Current battle: helping my 13-year-old digest his way through Gene Wolfe's _Book of the New Sun_. He's finished _Shadow of the Torturer_ and is partway through _Claw of the Conciliator_. I am frankly amazed. This is a wonderful, wonderful set of books--one of the top 20 science fiction stories of all time, and I'd argue one of the top novels of the 20th century as well--but tough. Way too tough, I would have thought, for a 13-year-old...) Ambivalently yours, Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:17:35 -0700 From: Russell Asplund Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies On Thursday, December 19, 2002, at 02:48 PM, Thom Duncan wrote: > > Rebecca says: > >> I don't think we, as adults, are any more capable of >> erasing impure images from our minds than the young >> men to which President Benson addressed his remarks. > > Perhaps not but we ought to be more capable of deciding not to act on > those images. I maintain that, as adults, we ought to be, and if we're > not, perhaps we need to get counseling on impulse management. Or perhaps, as adults, through real life we have already been subject to images and experiences that are far worse. I really can see both sides of this argument, and maybe there are people who would be better off missing out on some good to avoid the bad. But I'm also struggling with some disturbing issues from my past and I feel sometimes art can help give shape, meaning and grace to parts of life that are unpleasant and challenging. Do we ignore those parts of life in our art? Do we limit the power which we display them? Maybe you have never scene acts of violence, and if so avoiding movies may keep you from those images. But maybe, like Paris, you've seen these things in real life. In that case, a great movie can help frame those experiences in new ways, and bring some sense of peace and order. That being said, I find many R rated movies that I think are acts of evil--where the violence, language or sex is not used to highlight life troubles, but to actively encourage sin. It is like walking through a mine-field, and it would probably be safer to stay out of it. But for me, there is enough there to keep my eyes open and tip-toe carefully through the field. Russell Asplund - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:18:02 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies The saddest thing about the rating system, IMHO, is the excuse it gives some people to exercise unrighteous judgment on their fellow Mormons. For example: Rebecca Talley wrote: {I mean no offense, Rebecca. Truly. I'm sure you didn't mean to be judgmental. It's just that what you wrote provides me with a good foil for a general discussion of this problem.} > I don't think we, as adults, are any more capable of > erasing impure images from our minds than the young > men to which President Benson addressed his remarks. Of course not, but we aren't talking about impure images. We're talking about R-rated movies in general. If an R-rated movie has such images in it, then Pres. Benson's admonition would rightly apply to it. But if not, are you willing to acknowledge that the admonition does NOT apply? Gladiator had no such images, and there are many other R-rated movies that do not. > Our minds, just as theirs, will never be the same. If > we've been counseled to "run" from such material, why > don't we? Again, we are not talking about the material from which we are admonished to "run." Those who do not watch R-rated movies do not know what is in them. They should not assume that they all have such material in them. Nor should they imagine that those who are willing to watch certain R-rated movies are drenching their minds in evil. That is not the case. (At least, it shouldn't be. :-)) > Why roll around in the mud? Who's rolling around in the mud? Of course, there are R-rated movies which expose their viewers to a lot of "mud." If you are inclined to roll in that "mud," you should consider the adviseability of following the admonition of our leaders not to see such films. But do NOT assume that all R-rated movies have "mud" or that all who watch them roll in it if there is any. > Why pay money > and encourage filmmakers to produce such films? Why > not lift the bar and demand movies that rise above > what is usually available? That's what has been done in the case of those few R-rated movies that have been mentioned on this list as being worthy of viewing. I note Gladiator as one example. Eric Samuelsen mentioned The Ring. I would also note The Game (with Michael Douglas). There are many others, some of which may be flawed by some harsh language, graphic violence, even some inappropriate sexual innuendo (more common in PG-13 films, however). I don't find such "mud" attractive to me, so I don't "wallow" in it. If I did, however, I would consider it important that I stay away from such films. One of my favorite films is a great Peter Hyams monster flick called The Relic. It has graphic violence and a few "F" words, but the script is well written, there is no sex or nudity, and it really gets the adrenaline pumping! If seeing a monster tear someone's body apart is too graphic for you to enjoy, fine. Don't see it. But don't judge me for enjoying it. A shark or a lion will do that to a human being, and God made those animals. Will we judge God? > Why not produce profound, > thought-provoking movies that don't wallow in the > filth, but rather inspire us? Why do those who don't watch R-rated films assume that they all wallow in filth? The truth is that if the Bible were converted faithfully into a film, it would, of necessity, have to be rated R! There are many R-rated films that are extremely inspiring. Gladiator was one, for example, but I wouldn't say that everyone should see it. In fact, I would encourage those who find the depiction of the wicked world in which we live to be offensive not to view R-rated films. At the same time, I would advise such people not to read Judges 19, or the story of Ammon and those who tried to scatter the King's flocks in the Book of Mormon. But the bottom line is this: Please do not judge those of us who do watch such movies (and read such scriptures). It is far worse to misjudge your fellow man, to be intolerant and self-righteous, than it is to watch any R-rated film! Judge yourself, stay away from what will cause you to sin. Stay away from what offends you and causes you not to enjoy art. Guide your children away from what you know they cannot tolerate. But do not judge those who have a different level of tolerance to such images or enjoy a different type of art. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:53:50 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Titanic Jacob Proffitt wrote: > I sometimes worry that we assign too much validity to our vicarious > experiences. I'm not one to go in for the whole existentialist dogma > and say that we can't communicate with each other at all, but I wonder > if we aren't sometimes too facile in our belief in our own > understanding. Is seeing the Titanic enough to claim we know just what > it's like to have been there? Is seeing NYPD Blue enough to claim we > know just what it is like to be a cop in New York? Is watching Notting > Hill enough to claim we know what it is like to date a movie star? Is > watching the West Wing enough to claim we know what it is like to be the > President of the United States when terrorists take down the Twin Towers > in New York? Maybe. I'd approach such claims with some care, though. Then why bother with any art at all? We can't try to get an inkling of what something was like because it doesn't give us the full experience as if we lived it? - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:02:34 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret Book Ad Campaign Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > DB's has obviously designed their new ad campaign in response to the Richard > Paul Evans kerfluffle. The slogan is "What matters to you matters to us." > I've seen one billboard with just that slogan in large letters, and they say > it on their TV ad. It seems to be on the side of every UTA bus in Salt Lake too. Obviously, this ad must not be speaking to me. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:26:35 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Eric Russell wrote: > I think that may be the fundamental problem. We think our righteousness > is based on what we see, read or hear, when it's really based on who we are > and what we do. I quite agree. What really makes me cringe is when Mormons refuse to see a highly moral and inspiring film just because it is R-rated, but are ready to dash to the latest Bond flick because it is rated PG-13 and hence "okay to see," even if it has much more sexual innuendo and "skin" than the R-rated film. Mind you, I'm not condemning Bond, just the judgmental attitude this situation reflects. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:41:19 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Gae Lyn Henderson's reaction is an excellent case in point of the kind of damage that can follow from judgmental, self-righteous intolerance. It is critical that we avoid such intolerance especially when it comes to artistic endeavors. And frankly, in my experience, the prophets generally do so, contrary to Gae Lyn's impressions. For example, she writes: > ...how often can I raise my > hand in a meeting and offer a contradictory opinion? Only at the > risk of being labeled apostate, which is exactly where people who > think outside the box end up. I think outside the box a great deal, but have never been labeled an apostate, and I raise my hand often in church to offer a contradictory opinion. (My wife cringes, but the other members seem to enjoy hearing a different view.) There is plenty of room for contrast and diversity in the Mormon Church. Those who do it intelligently, in fact, are often labeled "scholars." What we need a lot less of is self-righteous intolerance, and it can come from critics of the Church as much as from members. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:31:01 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Jesus Christ Superstar_ John Dewey Remy wrote: > I think that many conservative Christians (I include Mormons in this group) > find the portrayals of Christ in productions like Jesus Christ Superstar > and in the Last Temptation of Christ problematic because they reveal the > humanity of Jesus. Perhaps many Christians/Mormons feel that portraying > any sort of perceived human weakness in Jesus belittles or denies the > divinity of Christ. I hope you're not grouping me into this category. The problem is not that these works reveal the humanity of Jesus. It's that they are utterly inaccurate in portraying the humanity of Jesus as I understand it. > (For those of you who haven't seen Scorcese's Last Temptation of Chris--the > most controversial scene is essentially a lengthy temptation--Jesus does > not actually sin by giving in to temptation. The christology of the movie > was actually fairly conservative.) Did we see the same film? Jesus is presented as being very troubled and doubtful about who he is and what his mission is. This is conservative christology? > Mormons and Protestant/Catholic Christians often forget that the mortal > Christ was a historically unique combination of human and the divine--the > son in flesh of the Almighty God and the mortal Mary. These two works attempt to take the human side of Jesus and use that as an excuse to show Jesus as a human fraught with weaknesses. He was human, but he was sinless. He was tempted, but he didn't give in to temptation. Nor is there any historical record of him ever doubting who he was or what his mission was. The only moment of doubt or weakness we have record of was in the Garden of Gesthemane, when he faced the most excruciating experience any entity ever has experienced or could possibly experience. He took a moment to ask God if there was any other way to accomplish what needed to be accomplished. But in the midst of this request he immediately acknowledged that he will do whatever God asks him to do. Hardly qualifies as weakness or doubt or regular-guy humanity by any standards we live under. > I agree with Eric that Jesus Christ Superstar does not deny the divinity of > Jesus. Did we see the same opera? I am incapable of seeing how people can make this statement about that work. The opera's whole purpose is to deny the divinity of Jesus. Two individuals now have made this assertion on this list. I'd like to hear them back it up with concrete evidence. Where in the opera is one statement that acknowledges Christ's divinity? > (The same could be said for the Jesus in the Last Temptation of > Christ.) At least this is true of "Last Temptation." It did acknowledge the divinity of Jesus. > I can relate to the Jesus in these productions Of course you can, because Scorsese and Webber and Rice made Jesus a regular guy like you and me, rather than the Jesus we meet in the scriptures. You could relate to anybody if a work of art about that person distorts him into a fictional character that everyone is confortable with. > this is the Jesus who struggled with the bitter cup in Gethsemane and who cried out in > anguish of heart and body, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" No, it's not. Jesus did not doubt and complain like Scorsese's Jesus. Jesus did not moan and groan at God like Webber and Rice's Jesus, or shout at a bunch of afflicted people seeking help to go "Heal yourselves!" because he felt overwhelmed. Jesus stood firm to his mission from day one to the last moment. Just because he vocalized his misery in the worst moments of anguish does not mean that he struggled with doubt or weakness in the Garden of Gesthemane, on the cross, or anywhere else. I think it's a terrible insult to Christ to use these moments of tremendous strength and determination as evidence that Jesus was weak, doubtful, and troubled. He was just suffering incomprehensible pain. > I struggle with bitter choices. I > cry out similarly while nailed to my own private crosses. I'm sorry, but I doubt you or anyone else has had an experience remotely similar to Christ's as he performed the atonement. > Unfortunately, we gloss over the more human protrayals of Jesus and of the > prophets. We prefer the bland, one-sided images of Jesus in many Church > productions I do no such thing. My Jesus in a work of art would offend many members of the church, and probably many Christians of many denominations, because his humanity would be very apparent. The bland Jesus irritates me as much as you. But my work would not use his humanity as an excuse to drag him down to my level, as "Superstar" and "Last Temptation" do. And it wouldn't for one simple reason: that would be a distortion of the historical facts as we have them. It would be a lie. > The Joseph Smith presented in Church > productions displays his meekness and compassion but shows little of his > dynamism, his confrontational style of teaching, his bold confidence, his > mischeivous humor or his love for getting rough and tumble (not to mention > enjoying a beer or spitting tobacco on Emma's floor). The interpretation > of Moses by Charlton Heston and the creators of The Ten Commandments leaves > out many crucial human elements of the Biblical Moses. > > In many modern portrayals of God's servants we are left with castrated > images that have little in common with the human condition. Now you've gone and switched the topic of discussion completely. I'm fully with you when it comes to prophets. They _are_ as human as you and I, and will display the weaknesses and doubts that plague the rest of us. The issue at hand is Jesus, who is in a class by himself. To show him as a regular guy is to demean him and to rob him of the power his example can be. The thing I love about Jesus is he shows me what it's like to be human and perfect at the same time. He takes the unfathomable perfection of God and makes it human, accessible. "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "Last Temptation of Christ" destroy this aspect of Jesus. "Last Temptation" dilutes it to where it is impotent. "Superstar" denies it outright. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #930 ******************************