From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #182 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, October 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number 182 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:14:53 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Women in LDS Film I'd like to reopen a topic that I kind of missed out on last time. Didn't we have a discussion about women in LDS film? (Or was it just about men?) Anyway, here's where my interest in this topic comes from. (Warning: I'm getting emotional as I write this). Last night, my husband and I downloaded the trailer for "Pride and Prejudice" directed by Andrew Black (the link, BTW, is http://www.excelentertainment.com/pride/). Well, I thought the trailer was kind of cute. It looks the like the production quality will be especially good, particularly the design, and I'm curious about the script. But, just watching the trailer made me want to pop in my Windsor Pilates DVD and work out until I was unconscious. When I was getting ready for bed and I looked in the mirror, I wanted to wretch at the horribly ugly fat woman I saw staring back. I felt, for at least a few moments, like cursing the fact that I could never be as darned cute as that little girl playing Elizabeth Bennet. Now, I know I've not seen this film, and I just might love it. But this is Pride and Prejudice. Why should I have so much anxiety about seeing a modern adaptation of a book that I really like (aside from my expectation that it will not do justice to the book)? Here's what I think the biggest thing is. Just like PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER MORMON FILM DIRECTED BY A MAN (save Unfolding, by Vuissa), the woman is kind of a barbie. Or, if she's not just drop dead gorgeous (with her darling little blond cork-screw curls), then she is just the cutest little thing you've ever seen. Blech! That's what I want to say. Pride and Prejudice is not about a cute woman. It's about an intelligent, passionate, _flesh and blood_ woman. Yes, she's supposed to be quite lovely (and not far from the ideal of her time), but she's so much more than attractive. She's the kind of woman that most women can relate to and cheer for. She cares for people other than herself. Yes, she's full of weaknesses, but she's still a hero, not just a lucky little girl. She is an observer of life, and she scorns the role women have to play in her society (and not just her own role). Now, I would LOVE to see a modern adaptation of that book which focuses on those issues, particularly addressing some of the misconceptions about women in LDS society. From the trailer, however, it looks like there's a very slim chance that this movie is going to do anything like that. I'm so curious about it, and yet I'm so angry that it looks so teeny-bopper. Stepping away from this particular film, though, I really want to address this. Maybe I'm just annoyed because these movies are being made by Mormons that my husband and I are often acquainted with, and maybe I'm just jealous that these lucky ladies get to be in movies. I don't know. I watch Alias, though, and I don't feel like turning anorexic each time I watch an episode. I feel empowered, and yet I will never, in my wildest, craziest dreams, be able to look anything like gorgeous Jennifer Garner or have her kind of success. I really think it's just because all of the Mormon women I've seen in Mormon movies (save Unfolding) are either so cute, so ugly, so weird looking, or so barbie. Where are the rest of us, the real ones with meat on our bones and normal, more common features, and brains in our head. Here's the punch line, most Mormon women are normal women. Most of my female friends are both attractive and decently fed at the same time. I want feedback on this. The movie "You've Got Mail," though being a modern remake of "The Shop Around the Corner" was seen by Nora Ephron as a kind of modern retelling of _Pride and Prejudice_, and yet I don't feel like gagging when I look at Meg Ryan, who's about as darling as you can get. Okay, I'm done spouting, and I'm ready for response. I just have say one more thing. Will someone please make a great movie adaptation of "The Way We're Wired" or "Joyce Baking"? (And if you dare put one barbie in it, I will hunt you down myself...) Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:32:42 -0700 From: "Clay Whipkey" Subject: Re: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value Thanks to those who replied. I haven't included commetns here because of=20 the nature of my reply. I actually posted that in the middle of last week, and on a couple forums,=20 and I've received a lot of insight into the subject. I guess that's why I=20 am so addicted to internet conversation. You can sometimes get glimpses of=20 people's thoughts and feelings that are too honest for them to ever be=20 uttered in "real life." My musings on negative themes in art, particularly film, were more=20 reactionary than comprehensive. I was just kind of annoyed with recent=20 works that I had chunked out money for, and gotten some bitter parts in=20 return. As much as I am growing weary of the glamorization of adultery and=20 murder, I find myself puting my own characters through a decent amount of=20 hardship. As most people have responded, the real world is full of conflict=20 and opposition, and although some look to art for escape, I think the real=20 value of art is in its ability to teach us things about our own lives, to=20 expose our own flaws through the intimate observation of an intriguing=20 character. We identify with and begin to care about those characters that=20 are experiencing things we have experienced. "That was hard for me, and I=20 still don't know if I handled that right... what will HE do?" Thanks again for the thoughts that were shared. cheers, Clay [Whipkey] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:17:06 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Concept of Giving Back Jacob brings up an interesting question about the language used in recent UFA press releases -- language which is quite widely used in certain circles, and asks, basically, "what does it really mean?" The phrase or expression in question is that concept of "giving back." I think the concept of "giving back" and the language of that particular phrase, comes from the cyclic or circular symbolism found in a great deal of Eastern philosophy and religion, which has become adapted to our modern "PC" or "new-agey" world. It ties directly into the circular ideas of "yin and yang" as well as the admittedly abused notion of "karma". To oversimplify, the karmic notion that the energy you expend out into the world returns in a direct measure, ie, hate begets hate, love begets love, charity begets charity, etc. There is also a notion picked up by therapist, but originally from some of these more religious concepts which addresses the idea of "sending out", that if you are in need of something, be it succor, money, knowledge, a broken chair for a prop for a play you are producing, that if you send out or project an image of such or give into the system or the universe love, charity, take time to teach, give away your own junk to DI, that you will in turn receive back those things you initially found yourself in need of. It is a notion that could be called, proactive prayer, I suppose. I need love, I pray for love, I give love...eventually, one hopes, I get love. I am always giving and at some point when I need, I will receive. Stripped of practical examples, it all sounds pretty wispy, filled with a psudeo-spiritualism that we frankly have too much of these days. But, in actual fact, these are not foreign or incorrect notions, if practiced in correct context. And so, I think, we have some explanation of how terms like "giving back" enter our parlance. Other than arguing about the semantic disparities or the rightness or wrongness of politically correct language in general, I think the basic concepts embodied in the language "giving back" is positive and, in the right context, very appropriate. When someone, in this case, an artist, says they wish to "give back" to their artistic community, I think it entails several things. As Jacob points out: "...the phrase...seems to imply...that a) something was taken FROM the community..." I think this is correct. If what the artist means is that the community which fostered him gave him education, support, insight, inspiration, that artist did indeed TAKE those things from the community. Of course, speaking of these esoteric concepts, is also like quoting that old chestnut: "The more love you give, the more you have", which may be what Jacob is implying: that NOTHING is actually taken (in the sense that what is taken is gone and no longer remains). While this is true, it does not dismiss the fact that something was taken from the community. In these examples, something can be taken and still be there. But in another sense, that which was taken took something to create in the first place. For example, if a community gives out knowledge, nurturing, opportunity for growth, etc., all of that came from somewhere. Someone had to provide mentorship, teaching, money, facilities, etc., for the student artist to derive those things he "took". And those things DO have to be replenished. Teachers, facilities, knowledge, must constantly be re-upped, to use a gaming phrase, or they will eventually be used up. So when an artist speaks of "giving back" to his artistic community, this notion can be quite literal. An artist, having achieved a certain level of success, be it critical or financial, is then in a position to literally offer something in return, something to "replace" or at least re-establish or reinforce, that which he "took": ie, his time, talents, knowledge, resourses, facilities, etc., for a new generation of student-artist to use and/or benefit from. So, far from being esoteric, "giving back " can be a concretely realized sentence. Saying "I'm Giving Back" does NOT necessarily imply that the artist saying it has never given back before, or has not yet ever given back. The phrase itself implies, by the adverbial "giving," an on-going condition. Of course, the artist may never HAVE given back, in a literal sense, and may be doing so now, or deciding to do so. That depends on the situation. Jacob notes that as members of the Church, we are given to thinking constantly about the concept of service, and of giving or returning to "the universe" or our lives or our communities of our time, talents and energies. It's one of our mantras. And of course, he is correct. He says: "I hope that my actions are such that I am giving to the community every day." And of course, this is, at least from a religious sense, wonderful. It is, in a practical sense, however, never possible for a human being to be always, every day, returning like for like, truly giving in a sense to every facet of that persons life, and the overlapping "communities" that each of us reside in. I live in my immediate family community, my extended family community, my church community, my artistic community, my AML community, my work community, my home teaching community, my etc., etc., etc. Some days, I don't consciously "give back" or serve my home teaching community, for example. On Sunday, my Elder's Quorum President reminds me that I should, and I show a renewed effort in serving that specific, small community (or stewardship). Likewise, I may go for a while so absorbed in my work that I'm not giving my family the time that they deserve or require. A friendly reminder by my wife sets me back on track with a renewed vigor in serving my family community. And for this reason, we have programs, reminders, fund raisers, charity events, blood drives, Sacrament Meetings, etc. We find, as human beings, that we need from time to time to create VEHICLES which serve to remind us that we need to serve in any given "community". Because to do so always is not possible. We ebb and flow like the seasons. This is natural. So, an organization like UFA serves to remind artists to contribute to the rising generation (which it is easy to go for long periods of time not doing), just as a blood drive serves to remind us to occasionally serve the sick and afflicted, just as a Sacrament Meeting serves to remind us to renew our covenants for one more week. All natural and good. We can only do so much with the energy we have, and this idea of "vehicles" of reminders is effective in realigning our course from time to time. I hope that individuals do not feel what Jabob describes as a "burden" when he says: "...but I'm a little unwilling to shoulder the burden implied when someone is 'giving back to the community' and I am not." There is certainly never any need to feel this way. There is no implied guilt trip involved in the purely stated concept of "giving back". Often times, in our world, there IS an implied guilt trip, especially during PBS fund-drives! YOU are not GIVING! SEE all of these OTHER people who ARE?! We laugh at that, but it is terrible, and not nessessary. Actually, I feel that such a sense of "burden" undermines completely the purity of the original "karmic" impetus to give in the first place. I even think we have some Mormon doctrine about a gift begrudgingly given being not counted as righteousness to us. So I hope that when we are confronted with Sacrament Meetings, blood drives or some artist saying they are trying to "give back", that it does not imply a burden of guilt, but a freeing of self into an empowering new direction, IF such a direction is desired. I am certain that Jacob is right in that SOME PEOPLE use the phrase "giving back" as: "something of a code to imply motivation without actually claiming motivation." It is too bad if they do, and if so, will probably be counterproductive. Of course, Jacob then brings up that wonderful, ironic and suspicious nature of all "giving", the flip-side of "altruistic" behavior, which is that, as he states: "nobody's activities are purely altruistic any more than anybody's activities are purely self-serving..." Very true. Innate in the initial circular concept of "giving back" is embodied the idea that "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" or the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The whole IDEA of karmic giving is that the good you give will somehow, sooner or later, be returned to you in kind. There is nothing negative about this cycle of good begetting good (over time), in fact it is pure and enlightening. I think, or at least I hope, that when an LDS artist becomes interested in enjoining that cycle of perpetual education, motivation and formative energy, he or she is doing so out of a sincere desire to perpetuate good, both for the fact that good was received, as well as by and for itself as an end. I would very much hope that there is not any sense of compulsion. If the implications in Jacob's statement are true (the rhetorical question: "So I wonder what we really mean when we feel compelled to include the cliche "give back to the community" when announcing something.") no good can really come of it. That is, if there is "compulsion"; if the statement of giving back is indeed used as a "cliche"; or if there is an implied guilt-trip directed at others, then certainly, if any of these conditions exsist, such is a bad thing. But ultimatly, I fear that the question can never be resolved generally, because there are two areas of specifics that will always color the equations. First, there is the individual making the statement. That person can be true or insincerer, be using a cliche or really believe what they say, or any number of other variations. Second, there is the individual hearing the statement. That person can hear it at face falue, or suspect a disconnect, or any number of other variations. Utimatley, it depends on where you are at, I suppose. Language is always a tricky thing, and a two way street. For myself, however, I am always inclined to look inwards when I have such doubts. Wait. No, that's not true. My initial inclination is to look at others and second guess their intentions. But THEN, given time and the slow return to wisdom (if it ever returns at all!), I will turn the mirror around (sometimes!) and look inwards. Isn't it more important in the long run how I react and respond to the expressions of others than how then intended their expressions? And that question, perhaps, brings us back around to a genuinely literary tie-in (other than this vague artsy-fartsy theme thus far), the question of artist and audience relations and responsibilities. The artist "puts it out there"; the audience "interprets." Whose responsibility is greater? They both have a responsibility, of course, but when it comes down to ourselves, and this is particularly of issue to LDS audiences and consumers of media, etc., what we DO with that consumption is of vastly greater importance. For some, Mahler is a brilliant composer, and worthy of appreciation. For others, listening to Mahler may send you into a spiral of clinical depression, making him "off limits" to you as a consumer. Other examples abound. And many we can self-justify and delude ourselves ("violence does not affect me," etc.) Sometimes the solution is to simply abstain or avoid. Sometimes the solution is to reexamine and change the self. Someone's comment strikes me as jaded or otherwise negative. It may be that that person IS jaded. But it may be that that person is sincere and I am jaded, and so think that he is such. My disappointment in the Book of Mormon Movie, for example, may cause someone who loves the film to think bad things about me; conversely, my opinions of the film may color my attitude towards someone who likes the movie. In the end, my interpretation of that other person, and that other person's interpretation of me, have to do more with who WE are, individually, than with who each of us actually IS (to skew the grammar). So much for rambling and philosophizing. When I spend time, and I've spent hours here lately, talking to a group of high-school students, or conversing animatedly with a group of producers or setting up a class for gal who came in frustrated and at the end of her rope, I feel like I'm giving of a lot of my time, in the same way that I was given a great deal of time. And I know that I'm getting a lot of good out of it, even though I could be off in my office writing, which is a lot more comfortable. To me, for me, that's giving or giving back, or whatever other expression works. To someone else, those actions are either nothing, a waste of, or self-serving and publicity-hunting. Whatever. Everyone can think what they will and do what they will. But I hope that I can get UFA going such that I can afford to continue sharing and teaching. Yes, I hope to derive material benefits, as well as immaterial and spiritual benefits. And I hope that others can as well. I helped John Lyde get distribution for his movie. I hope that will somehow, karmically, help me get funding for mine. Teaching classes helps to pay the bills and to "advertise" my name and what I do. But it also helps one or two students find a new direction or overcome a stumbling block. Writing essays for AML sometimes jogs loose a notion that helps me in my work; sometimes its a big waste of time. Whatever. We just do, and try and put into the mix, and see what comes out. Half of the time, just showing up is victory. At any rate we have to try to contribute to "The Circle." Give-Get. Yin-Yang. Ebb-Flow. What works for me may not work for another. But as artists, probably more than any other group, it does behoove us to examine the idea of "give back" as a notion integral to our creations. Creation is ultimately an intensely vulnerable thing, desperately frightening. So much of it is about US, our ego, or needs, our hopes. Sometimes, rarely, it really is about "the gift". Not often, certainly not usually. But when we stumble upon something that really IS giving back (not that UFA is, by a longshot), but when we DO find it... How cool is that? Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:51:39 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Mormons in The Stand Hey, I had some ideas about this thread (if that's what we're still calling it) while listening to a couple of Conference talks! (That's a scary admission, that AML, fiction, literature and even the likes of Stephen King -- gulp -- could enter my mind during Conference!) I got to thinking about our culture's potential to meet up in chapels or temples at times of intense crisis (in this specific case, epidemic end-of-the-world-type scenarios). I forgot to write down the guy's name, but the very first Seventy who spoke on Saturday morning, I think it was, told the story of "The Freeze" in Ghana, a time of political repression of religion wherein all chapels where locked and guarded, and for about 18 months, members of the Church there had to worship in secret in their own homes. And though it was hard and taxing, it worked, and there was still a "church" there when the bans and oppression where lifted. It got me thinking about the fundamental difference in our organization versus so many other religious organizations, differences that would impact any speculative fiction or invented futures (particularly radical or apocalyptic futures) that an author could invent, that had Mormons in it. I realized that most churches are organized in very top-down structures. Now, at first sight, it would seem that we are very much also a top-down structure. BUT the difference lies when you get to the end of the chain. Whereas most religious organizations invest some authority in a "top" figure, as you descend the chain, such either administrative or spiritual vestments disappear by the time you reach the masses. In the restored Gospel, however, the family itself is the final religious unit, organized so that, in times of crisis, every necessary power and authority to continue and maintain an organized religious worship can continue unabated, without the need of a central pastor, priest or authority figure of any kind. Obviously we have these, and in normal times we respect and maintain these parish-level authority figures. But if for whatever reason the fabric of society was rent, our organization would tend to make us very comfortable with the establishment of a temporary survival-mode separation into small family units, each of which would reach out to others as opportunities allowed, but none of which would be religiously OBLIGATED to do so if the effort was somehow perilous. In a plague scenario, where quarantine and separation make medical sense, I would think Mormons would be more comfortable riding the storm out in their own homes than many other religious, from that basic fact of our structure. Not that some WOULDN'T gather at chapels, but it is very easy to suppose that there would not be any mass gathering. The idea of the INDIVIDUAL (with respect to salvation) was reiterated in several different talks this weekend. Concepts about autonomy, independence, etc., are a deeply ingrained part of Mormon culture. For as much as we get together as a society, we are fundamentally, at a religious level, individualists, ready at a moment to break apart into family or tribal structures in times of devastating upheaval. King would not have been plugged into this, I don't imagine, but how many of our own writers are truly cognoscente of it as well? I have two LDS alternate future novels on my desk right now, Lisa Adams's and Pam Blackwell's, neither of which I've had time to read, but I can't wait to get into them. I have my own apocalyptic future novel-in-progress, A LONE MAN, which I delight to tinker with in the very intermittent opportunities I get between other more potentially profitable projects. Bending the mind around such "What-If" scenarios is very fun for an author, and it brings things to the forefront that might not otherwise be explored or even realized. In the past, I have always dismissed such exercises when they have included the Church in their world view. I think I've said in the past, "Mormons in Space" or "Mormons in Far-Future Earth" scenarios have always seemed to me of limited worth, because I've believed that the vast majority of the LDS market simply doesn't buy those as realistic (even though its fiction anyway) possibilities. I think most people see the Savior coming back within their, or their kids', or their grandkids' lifetimes, and we just won't make it to space (unless of course you count beaming around in conduits of light like the resurrected Moroni!). But I'm starting to change my mind. Not about the Second Coming, mind you, but about the validity of such fictional exercises. As authors, such explorations may, I'm beginning to think, do a world of good, do what good fiction has the power to do: make us look at things in totally new ways, and affect our reality through the exercise of imagined unrealities. I've had great fun lately tinkering with a new science fiction story (UMBRA) wherein a little side-story concerns a conference of delegates from various religions meeting in a major way-station around Jupiter several hundred years from now, and including an LDS delegate who jokingly quips to the group while elbowing his Jewish co-delegate: "Our Jewish brethren have been waiting for Messiah for 5000 years; who are we to complain about waiting 500?" But the fictional conversation which ensues has been a fascinating one for me to contemplate. What would it do to us to wait another 200 years? And what would be different in our organization then than now, and why? It's really interesting. So I'm slowly being converted to such explorations as being valid literary exercises. Of course, the fact that my main (non-LDS) character has sex with a robot probably makes the whole thing utterly unworthy of my time and a truly horrible and dismissible effort -- but I never said I was perfect! Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:14:53 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] An LDS Nextbook.org? Have a read. I'm wondering whether list members might be interested in undertaking an initiative similar to the Seattle Writers project, below, for Mormon lit. - ------------------------- Nextbook is a national initiative to promote books that illuminate 3,000 years of Jewish civilization. Nextbook's programs include: partnerships with public libraries to build collections and to create innovative public programs; annotated reading lists that guide readers to exciting works of fiction, nonfiction, and poetry; a series of short books in which prominent authors take on notable individuals, issues, or events in Jewish history; and a website (http://www.nextbook.org) featuring a daily cultural news digest with links to stories and reviews from around the world.=20 Seattle/King County Writers=20 The Seattle King County Nextbook Writers Series is a project of Nextbook, the King County Library System, and The Seattle Public Library. The series promotes Jewish literature and culture through readings, talks, and conversations with internationally acclaimed writers and thinkers. The 2003-04 series includes appearances by Michael Chabon, Anne Michaels, and Philip Levine, as well as dramatic performances of stories by Grace Paley and Max Apple.=20 - ------------------------------ Looking forward to reading your thoughts. - --lauramaery [Post] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:30:40 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] REMINDER: Eric in concert next Monday, Oct. 13 [Please excuse the multiple mailings. Some of you are on the "Snide Remarks" list, too, which means you already got this today, not to mention the initial announcement a few weeks ago that some of you got. It's just that I would really like to see you all at the big show, and there's some chance you might actually enjoy it, too.] Unemployed Writer to Turn off TV, Get off Couch, Perform Comedy Eric D. Snider, author of "Snide Remarks," founder of The Garrens Comedy Troupe, and most recent casualty in the journalism world's attempt to make people take it seriously, will perform a show of music and comedy titled "An Evening with Eric D. Snider: Will Make Jokes for Food." The show is at 8 p.m. Monday, Oct. 13, at ComedySportz, 36 W. Center St., Provo. Tickets are $5 at the door. Doors open at 7:30. Eric performed a similar show in July as an experiment to see if a) people would come and b) they would enjoy themselves. People did show up, and there were no noticeable ill effects, so Eric has elected to do it all again. This time, he has beefed up the show, added some material, and will be recording it for a future CD release. "We want to get a high-quality recording, so we're using microphones this time," said Eric, inexplicably speaking in the third person even though he's the one writing this. "Having me shout into a megaphone while the vibrations were molded onto a wax cylinder didn't really cut it." The show consists primarily of songs Eric originally wrote and performed for The Garrens Comedy Troupe, a Provo-based sketch-and-improv group that entertained America from 1993 to 2001. He's written a few new songs since the group disbanded, too. The show will also include Storytime with Eric, in which he will recount various surreal episodes from his career as a waiter, pizza delivery guy, performer, humor columnist and critic in Provo. And yes, for the curious, he will tell -- for approximately the one-millionth and final time -- the story of how and why he was fired from The Daily Herald in August. "It will truly be an evening of mirth and frivolity," said Eric. "Expect all the usual monkeyshines and shenanigans, and perhaps even some tomfoolery, though we are still waiting for approval from the city council on that." So what are these alleged songs Eric has allegedly written? They tend to be about pop culture, Utah culture, love and dating, and Agent Scully. There are parodies such as "Your Thong," about inappropriate swimwear, and "Piano Man," about what it's like to be Mormon when you're also a pianist. Then there are originals like "Since My Best Friend Got Engaged" and "The General Authorities Song" (in which Eric sings the names of all the current LDS Church authorities -- respectfully, of course). Those who attended the show in July ought to return, for Eric has added new material and will be trotting out some old stuff that somehow didn't make it to the last performance. Eric's books, "Snide Remarks" and "Snide Remarks II: Electric Boogaloo," will be available at the show at a discounted price. Patrons will also be able to pre-pay for the CD recording of the show, which should be available in early November. Since the concert will be recorded, no children under 8 -- and that includes babies -- will be permitted in the theater. They wouldn't like the show anyway. For more information, visit www.ericdsnider.com or e-mail eric@ericdsnider.com. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:26:07 -0500 From: "Walters, Isaac C" Subject: RE: [AML] Form and Content in Theatre Dianna Graham wrote: "I really think that the honest, seeking, questioning artist is the sincerest truth seeker on the planet, and potentially the most spiritual. He is in a state of humility and exploration. He is reaching out for truth and is willing to embrace it when he finds it. Though he may be willing to swallow a mouthful of sludge from time to time, as long as he continues to search, I believe he can eventually find his reward and be cleansed." Dianna, I couldn't agree with you more. I believe that seeking and pursuing truth is a fundamental part of who we are as Mormons. I believe rather strongly that the fundamental distinction of our religion is the ability to ask questions and seek for answers. If Joseph had not acted on the scripture from James I don't know that any of us would be where we are today. I also recognize that as a people we do not have a monopoly on asking questions. In fact, I think that sometime we get fairly complacent about our own spiritual journeys and fail to pursue questions which will lead us to a deeper spiritual place. But I also recognize that one of things that can make us unique is the faith that when we ask questions of our Heavenly Father answers will come. As a Mormon theatre artist, that is the kind of experience I want to create: to join with an audience in asking those questions, in faith believing that answers will come. I often think that the answers that I may come up with to the questions I am asking can be pretty banal. But the answers the spirit reveals are always powerful. I also am aware that it is possible to ask question without really caring what the answers are or already having an answer in mind. Just asking the question is more interesting. I am aware of individuals whose testimonies have been shredded by individuals who ask them leading questions without the faith that God will reveal the truth. In those instances they are indeed "as a wave upon the sea, driven by the wind and tossed." "It's just the phrase "invite the Spirit of God onto the stage" that makes me nervous. Now, I'm totally an advocate for praying for the Spirit before performances and rehearsals, etc. I think that everyone, artists included should seek the Spirit in all of their dealings. What you are saying in the above is probably completely wonderful and innocent and true, but it just reminded me of something unpleasant I came in contact with years ago. Long story short, a friend of mine decided to give me an acting lesson. He had me recite a monologue that I was working on. I stunk, so he had me repeat it again and again. While I recited it, He, being rather large in stature, picked up a mat and came at me the whole time I was reciting this monologue. I knew the piece well enough to just do it by muscle memory. I didn't know the guy very well, and after a few minutes of me (who weighed about 140 lbs. at that time) fighting off this man (who weighed at least 200 lbs.), I was scared and had no idea what I was saying. All I knew what that I was kicking the mat and crying and fighting to protect myself with all that I had. When I had no more words to spout out (which is all I'd been doing at that point), I ran to the corner, curled up in ball, and sobbed. He laid very close to me and whispered, "That was beautiful. I know that you're happy right now. Do you know what that feeling is? That's the Spirit." Now, though I was 19 and had been a member of the church for just over 3 years, it didn't damage my testimony or anything, because I knew what the Spirit actually felt like. It was a misuse or misinterpretation of gospel principles, however. While I really think he meant well, it was a dangerous way of dealing with the spirit, as if it were something that we could channel or something. Do you know what I mean?" I cannot express my sorrow that this happened to you. I cannot think of greater misuse of the principles of the gospel in the theatre. It makes me sick that it happened. I have become more and more convinced that agency is a fundamental part of our Heavenly Father's plan. It is the foundation upon which all else is predicated. To try to force someone to feel the spirit, particularly through violence, goes completely against our heavenly father's plan. At the same time, I find that other forms of "Mormon" art may also infringe on an individuals agency. They confuse spiritual experiences when people describe how they were "moved" and filled with emotion. They then think that in order to create a spiritual experience for someone they must make them feel something, move them with emotion, and then inform them they have had a spiritual experience. To me that is emotional manipulation and contradicts the principle of agency as much as the experience you describe. At the same time (as you point out later in your post) you cannot create a performance that is flat, where no choices are being made in the name that agency is being ensured. No choice still negates agency. My dad has the theory that instead of forcing all of us to keep the commandments, Satan's plan may actually have been to remove the commandments all together. If there are no rules to keep or break, no choices to be made, then we cannot be penalized for anything we do. We also cannot progress. Contrast both of these examples with when someone bears their testimony. What happens when a missionary says to an investigator with the conviction of the Spirit, "I know that God lives. I know that Jesus is the Savior of the world. I know that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son. I know that the Book of Mormon is true"? What does that do to the agency of the investigator? I believe that it creates the opportunity for them to use their agency. They can choose to disregard it and go about their lives unchanged, or they can choose to go through it and discover what happens. Similarly, I find that questions that are truly asked in a spirit of faith also so ensure the agency of all involved. As individuals choose to enter into those questions they can emerge reborn. But they can also choose not to enter into the question. So as I think about acting, I wonder if it is possible to create a performance that is not about the specifics needed to create a character, but the specifics needed to share a testimony or ask a question of the audience. I'm still trying to figure out how to do that. Isaac Walters - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:16:38 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Talks About The Arts Although I assume we're talking about sermons about the Arts preached by GAs or other Church authorities, I have to say the one that really got to me was Richard Dutcher's address to the AML Conference in November of 2001. To paraphrase what really penetrated to my core, (or thick skull, if you like), was the admonishment that if we are not telling the stories we were meant to tell, then by golly, we are not fullfilling the measure of our creation! Really struck a chord that reverberated in my heart and head ever since. Finally got me to type or put on paper stories and ideas that have been there inside me for many years. The one thing that I really garnered from Pres Kimball's message in the Ensign was that he truly believed one could produce great Art of most any sort and still live an exmplary life. There is a sort of stereo- type, (not entirely unfounded), that artists tend to be tortured oddballs, deviants, or primadonnas with massive egos. It doesn't have to be that way he asserted, and I do believe him. Although I often consider writing to be some sort of sickness or compulsion. \;-) Recently, Dean Hughes came out my way to deliver a Seminary graduation address in my Stake and in part of his talk his mentioned his son had pursued an acting career, but at some point decided that that wasn't working for his family and he went on to something else. He emphasized not for it to mean it wasn't for others, but where the arts or a career in them was concerned, as with anything else, approach it spiritually as well and you'll find your place in it. Finally, there was an article in either the Ensign or The New Era in the early eighties not specifically on the Arts, but spoke of creativity in general. The GA who wrote it, (and heaven help me I can't remember who), said essentially that too often people think talents and creativity only apply to the Arts and only in certain ways, like whether someone is talented with performing in music, writing, acting, painting. But, he pointed out that creativity is much, much broader than that. When I pondered what that meant to me, I was impressed that I had the ability to seek. That is to say, I have always had the ability to seek out whatever or whoever I needed to help me accomplish something I felt I needed or wanted to do. I found the AML list didn't I? :) To apply it to the arts, we don't always appreciate that someone may have the ability to be the one who can edit or proofread well, adapt a book to a screenplay, find the right location for a movie, find the right person for a part, recognize the raw talent in a budding singer, etc. I would find stories about such people to be just as helpful to the arts as stories about all the many high profile talented folks we are blessed with. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #182 ******************************