From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #91 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 Wednesday, June 25 2003 Volume 02 : Number 091 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:03:10 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project ___ Doug Robinson: Deseret Morning News___ | Sure, Mormons will see "Austin Powers" and the James Bond | movies - films that are decidedly raunchy and certainly more | violent than "Brigham City" - but apparently they were | uncomfortable with the mix of toned-down violence and their | religion. ___ Isn't the issue more that people want to see fun movies? That movies are primarily for entertainment. Look at Hollywood movies in general. Those that are more contemplative and serious do at bet maybe 10% the business of what more fun movies do. Certainly the fun movies can have serious overtones and sometimes you break through the barrier for a wider audience. But typically the way the average Joe looks at movies is different from how the more literary inclined do. Perhaps I'm thinking of this because I just watched _Barton Fink_ which has this as its theme. (And interestingly also wasn't a mainstream hit) It is in some ways an updating of an old film from the 40's that was about a producer of comedies who wanted to make a film about the common man. He loses his memory and then realizes through various trips as a hobo that comedies was what the average people wanted. Barton Fink isn't quite like that. It is the story of a playwright who wins many accolades for his plays about the "common man." However he really doesn't understand the common man at all but never realizes this. He gets brought to Hollywood to write a wrestling picture and has writers block because he knows nothing about such B-movies. (Admitting that he never really watches movies) After a run-in with a character inspired I believe by F. Scott Fitzgerald he finally gets his script (I'm leaving out some important spoilers so as to not spoil the movie) The question is whether he really understands the common man he claims to be writing about. Not to knock _Brigham City_ in the least. And clearly I like these smaller kinds of films. But I wonder if those who complain about the failure of such films aren't like Barton Fink writing about the common man. To contrast the violence in James Bond with the violence in _Brigham City_ reflects, I think, a missing of what really bothers people. On the other hand. There was a great little small film last year that many missed. It was called _Frailty_. It was about a guy who has an angel visit him and tell him there are demons everywhere. He then is commanded to go kill the demons. It adopts a kind of Protestant view of angels and demons. (Angels have wings, for instance) Now the story is told such that this guy clearly is crazy. Further he is a widower and has two kids and the story is told from the POV of one of the kids who, in his 30's, goes to the FBI to say he know who a serial killer the FBI is chasing is. (I'll not give the plot away beyond that) Anyway, while the plot is dark and a little violent, what bothers a lot of people are the religious overtones. It is interesting because it raises all sorts of interesting questions in a Mormon context. (i.e. how would we react if Joseph Smith was our neighbor and claimed today what he claimed in the 1820's) It really, really bothers a lot of Mormons I've watched it with. Is it because of the mixing of religion and violence? The move out of the nice Sunday School presentation of religion where there really isn't much personal sacrifice on the line? Or is it simply bringing out the dark side of religion? I don't know. But people who wouldn't flinch at a violent war movie are bothered by it. Perhaps, if I can synthesize these two positions, people want something that makes them feel happy. They'll see dark movies like _Saving Private Ryan_ only because it makes them appreciate what they have. They want to come out of the theatre feeling better about their life. Not troubled by their life. Those who like dark films, who enjoy coming out feeling troubled are viewed as the kind of people who sit in the dark listening to Pink Floyd all night. (Not that there is anything wrong with Pink Floyd, but I think you know what I mean) Put more simply, people want hope - not doubt. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:17:01 +1000 From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] Musicals and morals (was _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review)) D. Michael wrote: >>"My Fair Lady," one of the most sophisticated, witty musicals ever written And Eric Samuelsen responded: >Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral >equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. [...] Ah... Laszlo Toth, the Pieta-smasher. As I note with mixed feelings, a compatriot of mine. And to bring it full musical circle, someone wrote an oratorio about him. The things ya gotta do... Jason Covell PS Well, actually, I admit that I have a fondness for My Fair Lady as well. And in its defence, it was my first introduction to Pygmalion (as I'm sure it was for many others) and to GBS generally, at a tender age when the whole romantic-comedy-pasted-on-ending didn't mean much anyway. PPS I do love it when Eric lets rip. ******************************************************************************************************* This e-mail, and any files transmitted, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and must not be resent by the recipient unless the permission of the originator is first obtained. It may contain confidential or privileged information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately destroy the original transmission and its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this e-mail do not represent the views of the Sydney Catchment Authority unless otherwise stated. ******************************************************************************************************* - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:34:29 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] HOWARD-JOHNSON, Carolyn _Harkening_ (Review) Title: Harkening Author: Carolyn Howard-Johnson 2000, America House Book Publishers, Baltimore, MD, 217 pp. $19.95 Paperback ISBN 1-58851-352-1 Title: Harkening Author: Carolyn Howard-Johnson 2002 PublsihAmerica Book Publishers, Baltimore, MD, 140 pp. $19.95 Paperback ISBN 1-59129-550-5 Award-winning author Carolyn Howard-Johnson (Masters' Literary Award, Sime-Gen's Reviewer's Choice Award, Red Sky Press Award) writes authentic stories about her Utah childhood. Though she is not LDS, she searches her heritage in much the same way Mormons do--revealing that the culture spilled into her. Carolyn began her writing career for the Salt Lake Tribune on fashion, news and food. And she wrote a teen column under the pseudonym Debra Paige. In New York she was an editorial assistant for Good Housekeeping Magazine who hobnobbed with Paulene Trigere and Christian Dior. Finishing her work with Ingenue in Chicago, she is now a columnist for the Pasasdena Star News and writes movie reviews for The Glendale News-Press. She is also retail editor for Home Decor Buyer. Both This is the Place and Harkening are the author's search for identity in a "Mormon world." As Sky in the first novel, she meets Archer, a Mormon boy, and their courtship and marriage pulls him away from his mission. She turns for questions to ancestors who have committed other "non-Mormon" deeds. She dislikes the Mormon stance against "outsiders" but represents the conflict with a remarkable objectivity. In elegant poetry, she comes close to excusing Mormon insensitivity, saying their: "history still curdles the very life forces--the air, the rivers of the state, the arteries and the veins of its people." She calls for "Objectivity, please. That's how they can be so insensitive. In Utah bygones are not gone." If she criticizes insensitive Mormons, she also tells the truth in beautiful poetry about her loving Mormon neighbors who took her in after school, bishops who were good bishops, mothers, aunts and grandmothers who quilted, scrapbooked, and canned, "made costumes together. Painted china tea cups the delicate colors of a sunrise and then tipped their edges in gold." A series of short pieces, Harkening is not as coherent a work as This is the Place. Continuing her research into the stories of her Mormon background and ancestors, she begins with a piece containing too many characters and no visible direction. But I was drawn to the writing, the nuanced language, and to her stories about milking the cow and composing music. Though she was never a performing musician, she was an originator who became a composer with beautiful words! Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:25:53 +1000 From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] ROWLING, J.K. _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ (Review) [MOD: I'm allowing this, although there's no explicit Mormon literature connection. I'd like the discussion to focus, though, on points which we as readers/writers can gain from this book, and how it can be applied to Mormon literature.] Hardcover: 870 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 9.34 x 6.28 x 2.15 Publisher: Scholastic (US); (June 21, 2003) ISBN: 043935806X [NB: Australian and other country publishing details vary somewhat from the US edition] - ---------------- Everyone read their HP 5 by now? Right then, I'll just dive in. (Feel free to hold off reading further if you want to keep _some_ surprises - I won't reveal the character who dies.) I finished mine around midnight last night (it would have been sooner, but you know, life). Having scrupulously avoided reading any reviews or anything that might give away the plot before finishing, I jumped immediately on the net to see what the Amazon.com reader-reviewers had said. Nothing. Looked up a few fan sites. Full of pre-release speculation, but nothing updated with actual knowledge of the book's contents. So these are purely my own thoughts, not having had the opportunity to discuss the book with anyone else who's actually read it. Well, first up, I liked it - not, perhaps, quite as much as I had secretly hoped, but it's a worthy successor to the first four books in the series. All the things I most admire about Rowling are still very much evident: her ability to keep drawing from an inexhaustible source of invention, her elaborate plotting and weaving of story elements, her faith and real investment in her characters and her willingness to treat them seriously. One of the great pleasures I take in her writing is how she can unfold whole new aspects of wizard life, fully imagined and realised, and a perfect fit with the ever-expanding alternate universe that has already been laid out in previous books. And to do so in a way which always makes me think "a-ha - why didn't I see it coming?" I have boundless admiration at her ability to keep her powder dry; holding things back that a less confident or imaginative writer would spill much earlier on. Book V is certainly one big, bursting-at-the-seams book. It gave the impression of containing about as much as the third and fourth books put together (thematically and in terms of sheer quantity), with some elements of the first and second books thrown in as well. Rowling has kept raising the bar on how many balls in the air she can keep going, how many plot devices and strands she can keep twisting. And it is the inevitable result that there appear to be more loose ends or unfinished bits of business than ever before. However, I am willing to believe that Rowling is still planning to develop and resolve many of these. (Most exasperating for me was the vision of Harry's dad - what on earth did this contribute to, except for Harry's further confusion and resentment? But, dear reader, all may yet be explained.) In fact, more than ever before (especially compared with the first 3 books) there is a real momentum at the end that cannot be stopped, not a neat and tidy winding up of events for the year. So, just as Book IV ends with a real "to be continued..." feel, Book V is even more dependent on the further developments to come in Book VI. The one major disappointment for me was the lack of a real twist at the end. Both the third and fourth books contained quite breathtaking surprise turns at the end (for me, at least): the "turn back time" solution in Book III, and even more so, the shock outcome of the final Tournament contest in Book IV. Nothing in Book V came as such a surprise. The chapters containing the much-anticipated "I will reveal all" speech of Dumbledore, didn't actually reveal much that was a surprise. I won't make this an extensive review, or even list of highlights. I'd much rather engage in a list discussion (if one ensues) about the good and bad points. One thing I will do is jot down a list of bizarre comparisons that popped into my head this morning on the train to work (lack of sleep will do that), sizing off Book V against the last Star Wars movie (Episode II, Send in the Clowns, sorry, Clones) * This is the 5th in the series in release order. * As well as being a coming-of-age drama featuring a protagonist emerging from childhood, there is a marked change in tone from any of the previous releases. * The protagonist lashes out frequently with bouts of adolescent anger and resentment. * There is a major awkward first-love plot line (admittedly, the awkwardness in Star Wars II is more a result of George Lucas not knowing what to do with his actors). * The big climax is a wild battle set in a weird rocky amphitheatre, with lots of wizards/Jedi giving it all they've got (the first time we've witnessed such a full scale battle from so many wizards/Jedi). * The main antagonist of the most of the drama is not the big baddie (Voldemort/Palpatine), but a lesser puppet or stooge (Cornelius Fudge/Count Dooku) who has to be dealt with before the final showdown of good and evil (not unlike Saruman being the stooge Sauron, come to think). * For much of the story the top wizard/Jedi (Dumbledore/Yoda) bides his time while grappling with a political system which is crumbling and rotting around him. Only at the end of the current instalment do we get to see Dumbledore/Yoda revealed in full power and might for the first time. I'd love to read what other Harry Potter fans on the list think (I know there's more than a few!) And I'll get some sleep, so as to come up with some more rational thoughts on the matter. Jason Covell ******************************************************************************************************* This e-mail, and any files transmitted, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and must not be resent by the recipient unless the permission of the originator is first obtained. It may contain confidential or privileged information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately destroy the original transmission and its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this e-mail do not represent the views of the Sydney Catchment Authority unless otherwise stated. ******************************************************************************************************* - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:50:26 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ >-----Original Message----- >> Does the author have a responsibility to balance a wayward character >> with a believing practicing character in a novel? > >Not at all. But, if the author expects ME to believe the >character is "real' then he will have to do some homework and >devise some method for making me believe. For instance, if >the author TELLS me that the character is a staunch Latter-day >Saint, but demonstrates to me that he has no idea what that >means, then he has lost me as a sympathetic reader. What is a staunch Mormon? That would be the basic question one would have to ask before beginning to portray one in literature. Do staunch Mormons drink Coke? Do staunch Mormons pay ten percent tithing but swear on occasion? I've heard people say that a staunch Mormon can't be a Democrat. The list could go on and on. Perhaps an author is protraying his or her impression of what a stanch Mormon is but is ultimately blinded by the reality that NOT ALL MORMONS THINK ALIKE. I don't think that any two Mormons, even spouses, think exactly alike on all issues. That's >all. But, if he doesn't care about losing LDS people (or >people who know what it means to be LDS) as readers, then he >is free to be footloose and fancy with the details. Maybe his understanding of the details differs from other Mormons' understanding. Scott, you have experienced this dichotomy with your own wonderful play, Poliphony. Some audience members couldn't believe the saints in your play, based on your own family, were real Mormons. >BTW, this is part of my problem with Angels in America. On >one level, I just don't think Kushner cared if he got all the >details right. I think Kushner got all the details right that he needed to. Do we not know some member somewhere who outwardly maintains a righteous front but who smokes cigarettes? Are there not some Mormon women and men addicted to pain killers? And what ARE the facts, anyway? Can any two Mormons agree on what the basic set of beliefs that must be adhered to in order to be considered a good LDS person. I had a conversation a couple of days ago on this very subject. I told a friend that, as far as I was concerned, if a person could in good conscience answer the TR questions to get a recommend, then anything else they believed or practiced was entirely an individual concern. My friend said that adherence to the TR questions meant that one was a good Terrestrial person but if one wanted to be Celestial, then more was expected. Here was a perfect example of two people with differing ideas as to what it means to be a good Mormon. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:39:28 -0600 From: Jared Walters Subject: Re: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 5: THE ULTIMATE TERMINATOR PARTY I wouldn't be too hasty to count T3 out as bad sequel just yet. While it's true that the odds on a 2nd sequel being praiseworthy aren't good, there are quite a few third movies that turned out quite good. A couple that come to mind are Rocky 3 (not as good as the first 2, but definitely a worthy followup and a fan favorite), Return of the Jedi (my opinion is that it was better than the first movie), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (not as good as Raiders, but better than Temple) and there are other examples. It's always tough on a franchise when its creator is not involved in a sequel. Cameron is a good director, but movies like Titanic reveal that he can be too cheesy and melodramatic for his own good. Jonathan Mostow may not be a big player in Hollywood, but based on what I've seen of his previous work (Breakdown, U-571), he's no slouch and definitely not your typical Hollywood hack. He's a good screenwriter which bodes well for the story arc of T3. There are times when a movie franchise gets a shot in the arm as a result of bringing in new blood and new ideas which is one reason why I think the Harry Potter films will improve with Chris Columbus off the directors chair. Early test screenings of T3 have proven fairly positive as evidenced by movie geeks at AICN: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=15455 Here's a great interview with Mostow about the challenges he faced in bringing T3 to the screen. Gives some hope that he's not out to ruin the franchise. http://www.moviehole.net/news.php?newsid=1817 There's no telling if people are gonna like the movie, but I'm in favor of giving the movie a chance and judging the movie for what it is and not for what it could have been had it been another man's vision. Jared Walters - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:20:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Deseret News: "Saturday's Voyeur" Full of Talent But Offensive Article from deseretnews.com 'VOYEUR' FULL OF TALENT, BUT OFFENSIVE For its 25th-anniversary edition of "Saturday's Voyeur," Salt Lake Acting Company has come up with what amounts to a muddled "best-and-worst" montage. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C510034912%2C00.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:23:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Ann Cannon on RAVITCH, _The Language Police_ EVE AND ADAM? -- GET REAL! by Ann Cannon WARNING: The list you are about to read is not a joke. In her new book, "The Language Police," educational historian Diane Ravitch lists words and stereotypes that creators of texts and tests for schoolchildren are presently encouraged to avoid. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C505039276%2C00.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:45:55 -0400 From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) We like to think there's a big difference between the Practice of sex and= the=20 Desire to engage in sexual activity. And for all sorts of policy and mora= lity- related reasons, in a large, bureaucratic institution, I suppose it's=20 important to make a distinction. But as someone who's been single for the= last=20 11 years and is now in her late thirties, I've thought a lot about how=20 sexuality works (I suspect most of us have thought about these issues, ma= rried=20 or not, but being single foregrounds a lot of things that married church=20 members don't experience in the same way). Sexuality functions as a compl= ex=20 set of interrelationships of behavior, attitudes, ways of relating to the= =20 world. (Eric Samuelsen's work explores these complexities in important wa= ys, I=20 think.) We often like to think of sexuality as a continuum, with intercou= rse=20 and abstinence on either extreme, with multiple behaviors in between. But= =20 perhaps it works more like a spiral, with all kinds of things interacting= with=20 each other. One's sense of oneself as a sexual being is an important part= of=20 being a healthy adult. Indeed, it is an important part of one's spiritual= =20 life, in my opinion. To say that the church is accepting and supportive o= f a=20 homosexual orientation is at best na=EFve. It denies the degree of=20 marginalization that homosexual Mormons feel in the church. We, as a chur= ch=20 and culture, have a long history of intolerance, even abusive behavior, t= oward=20 homosexuality that is not easily overcome. Church leaders are dealing wit= h=20 this issue in more sensitive ways. But how is a homosexual Mormon suppose= d to=20 handle such things as relationships, family, identity, spirituality where= =20 sexuality comprises such a vital element?=20 I have a copy of this video, too. Review forthcoming. Laraine Wilkins Quoting Annette Lyon : > "Troy is very capable of seeing the Church's hard line on morality as > being necessarily exclusive of his sexual orientation." >=20 > Or rather, it is necessarily exclusive of *practicing* his orientation.= BIG > difference. >=20 > Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:19:24 -0400 From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum Multilingual Issue I wonder if you would be interested in tapping into the Church's history archive. A friend of mine who works for them has taken trips all over the world in the last 10 years to collect oral histories from church members. He learned Russian just so he could go to Russia and interview people in Russian. He's done interviews in German, too. I know he's been to Africa, but I don't know what language(s) he interviewed in. He's talked about plans to go to various Asian countries. He says he's collected great, amazing material, which is available to anyone who wants to do historical research. Perhaps some of it's been translated. If you consider personal histories (oral) as literature, it could be interesting. Laraine Wilkis - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:54:41 -0600 From: "Quinn Warnick" Subject: [AML] Mormon Weblogs Request for Help Hello all, I am working on a proposal for the next AML Conference focusing on LDS writers whose primary publishing venue is online. I'm not talking about established authors who happen to have promotional or vanity website, but rather writers who maintain personal journal sites, weblogs (or "blogs"), or online portfolios of their writing. These writers may or may not be published authors in the traditional sense, but they should be using the web as its own medium, not just as method of promoting their "off-line" writing. Because one of the aspects I'm interested in studying further is the general perception of Mormonism by non-LDS bloggers, the writers may or may not be "active" Latter-day Saints. In addition, I'm interested in finding out why some LDS writers proudly make religion a part of their sites while others write about everything BUT religion. Hence, I'm also interested in LDS bloggers whose sites may not have any Mormon content at all. I am preparing an email survey/questionnaire that will go out to as many online writers as I can reasonably contact given my time constraints. At this point, I am trying to compile a list of sites that may be eligible for participation in the survey. I currently have a list of ten or twelve such sites that I read from time to time, but I'd like that list to grow. If you or someone you know maintains such a site, please contact me off-list at quinn@whiteshoe.org. Another question for the group, stemming from Travis Manning's earlier call for help with an international issue of Irreantum: There has been some preliminary discussion of a possible issue of Irreantum dedicated to printing writing that originally appeared online. I am looking for content sites that publish original fiction, essays, or poetry dealing with LDS themes. I am aware of Meridian Magazine, and I know that AML-List publishes original essays from time to time, and I'm sure there are others out there that I'm forgetting. If you've got a favorite website for finding original Mormon writing, let me know at the above address. This topic may or may not be appropriate for the list. I'll defer to our esteemed moderator (or his capable assistant). [MOD: Absolutely relevant!] Thanks in advance for the input, Quinn Warnick - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:43:41 +0900 From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ R.W. Rasband states: But because he is still a priest conferred with the authority of God, God can work through him and he is still good for a miracle every once in a while. Such an understanding of sin and authority might have influenced Buckley's thinking about the personal morality of his Mormon characters. - --- And Scott Bronson spoke of unbelievable Mormon characters in "Angels in America." - ------ And now say I: I find this concept interesting and wonder why we, as Mormons have such a hard time accepting Mormon characters with flaws. I am not sure what it means to have "believable" Mormon characters. I have known a few Mormon women who have disappeared into a benzodiazepine induced haze when stressed out, as did Harper in "Angels." I have also seen the spirit work through "unworthy" missionaries, myself included. Not unworthy to the degree presented by Buckley maybe, but certainly with significant worthiness issues. How would we feel about a mormon character who gives his car a blessing? Most run of the mill Mormons might find this a bit unbelievable, but I think we are all aware of Eugene England's experience. How would we feel about a Mormon character who heals someone while drunken? Yet we have no problem believing it possible that Noah could curse his grandson while drunken (and possibly naked). Imagine a Mormon character in a novel doing such a thing. It would get similar responses to those on this thread. Yet Joseph Smith once taught that the Lord honored Noah's priesthood despite the fact Noah was drunk, and that the curse reamined upon Canaan to Joseph's time (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, don't have a page number since I looked it up electronically). Do we respond this way because we want Mormon characters to be ideal Mormons? Or at least more "run of the mill"? Doesn't this really reflect how we want our religion to be presented to the world? Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:52:21 -1100 From: Subject: [AML] Next AML Conferences: When? What are the dates for the AML Writers' Conference this fall, and for the Annual Meeting/scholarly conference next winter/spring? And what are the deadlines for submitting proposals for papers to the conference? Thanks, Frank Maxwell San Jose, California (hoping to save money by ordering airline tickets as far in advance as possible). - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:21:32 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Director Announced for _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > I must tell you this little > anecdote. The casting director told me this. Apparently there is a > scene where a character says these words: "I know about you stinking > Mormons." Well, in response to that line, one person reading for the > role said, "I can't be in this movie, I'm a Mormon." > > Now, there are so many things wrong with the attitude behind that > statement that I just don't know where to begin. I had a similar experience when I was casting for the sound recording of my opera, "General Prophet Joseph Smith." I had one singer who I would have liked to use. But when he came across two lines of lyrics, he couldn't "in good conscience" participate. The two lines were a part of "The Song of the Carthage Drunkards": We will take their women folk Poke the parts we should not poke. What did this guy expect Carthage drunkards in their favorite tavern to sing about who were anticipating some good mobbery against the Mormons? Incidentally, the singers I did use, all of whom were good Mormons as far as I knew, sang this part with relish. - -- 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:23:58 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. They took Pygmalion, one of the great plays of all time, one of the classic examination of the gender issues we've been talking about (as well as one of the great comedies of language), and they turned into yet another blankety blank blank romantic musical comedies. THEY HAVE ELIZA END UP WITH HIGGINS! THEY LET THE AUDIENCE HAVE WHAT THEY WANTED! There isn't a torture exquisite enough that they wouldn't deserve it. I suppose next you're going to say that "Les Mis" sucks too. - -- 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:58:12 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Revising Original Works Jonathan Langford wrote: > And yet, I remember my reaction to _The Lord of > the Rings_, and I wonder: Am I right? Is Eric right? How shall I approach this? I could come at it from the direction that you are setting yourself up for insanity if you let this sort of thing bother you. Movies are here to stay--they are an integral part of the world's culture. Things _will_ be adapted, and through that adaptation, will be changed. It will happen over and over again. Fretting about it will only cause the fretter hopeless anguish. Or shall I come from the direction of the cross-fertility of art? Art is nothing if not a gigantic, worldwide, millennia-spanning conspiracy to steal. Artists of all types feed mercilessly off the creativity of each other, past and contemporary, throwing it all together and mixing it up, changing the original elements beyond recognition. Nothing ever stays the same. I could never see Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" the same way again after seeing a production in my high school years that located it in Brazil. In college it was changed for me again when I saw a Napoleonic version produced at BYU. (The Brazilian one was better, more passionate. The BYU one seemed sterile.) Do I even need to discuss how thoroughly Leonard DiCaprio and Claire Danes changed "Romeo and Juliet" for me? This sort of stuff happens with Shakespeare all the time. Sometimes the connection is obvious, as with movie adaptations. Perhaps that's what makes us more sensitive to the changes that occur there. But the art of the past is constantly being rewritten in the raging minds of new artists. Who can ever hear the William Tell Overture in the same way as pre-Lone Ranger audiences did? Perhaps it will help if I describe my experience with "To Kill a Mockingbird." I saw the movie several times before I read the book. I loved the movie. It was powerful and moving. Then I read the book. I loved the book. It was powerful and moving--and different. I went back and watched the movie. It now seemed pale and shallow compared to the book. I was able to positively experience the book, even after repeated viewings of the movie. The movie may have affected my reading of the book. (Atticus will always be Gregory Peck to me.) But reading the book affected my viewing of the movie too. The book, being great, transcended the movie, which was also great. I think "Lord of the Rings" will survive the movie. Movies and musicals are incapable of preserving the complexity of more literary forms of art. So why disturb one's inner peace by getting all a-flutter when they don't? This is part of life. We can bemoan it, or we can enjoy the new creations that arise from the fodder of the past. The one thing we cannot do is stop 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:45:56 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Clark Goble wrote: > Perhaps I'm thinking of this because > I just watched _Barton Fink_ which has this as its theme. (And > interestingly also wasn't a mainstream hit) It is in some ways an > updating of an old film from the 40's that was about a producer of > comedies who wanted to make a film about the common man. He loses his > memory and then realizes through various trips as a hobo that comedies > was what the average people wanted. The movie you describe is Preston Sturges' masterpiece, _Sullivan's Travels_ which was, tangentially, provided the germ for _O Brother Where Art Thou_ which was made, tangentially, by the Cohen brothers who also made, to close the circle, _Barton Fink_. > After a run-in with a character > inspired I believe by F. Scott Fitzgerald he finally gets his script I always could have sworn that this was a thinly disguised spoof of William Faulkner during his Hollywood years. Let's call the Cohens and ask them. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:53:02 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Eric Samuelsen wrote: > D. Michael wrote: > > >"My Fair Lady," one of the most sophisticated, witty musicals > ever written > > Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. And let's add to the crimes that the film producers replaced Julie Andrews who absolutely owned the role of Eliza with Audrey Hepburn whose singing voice was so bad it was dubbed over. So add a crime against Julie to the more general crime against art. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #91 *****************************