From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #245 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, January 19 2004 Volume 02 : Number 245 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:59:29 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] HALE, "The Home Teachers" (newspaper reviews) Below are reviews of The Home Teachers from the SL Tribune, Deseret Morning= =20 News, Ogden Standard-Examiner, and Eric Snider The Salt Lake Tribune "The Home Teachers" By Sean P. Means 9 January 2004 2 out of 4 stars Rated PG for thematic elements and brief mild language; 81 minutes; opening= =20 today across Utah. The latest comedy from "The Singles Ward" director Kurt Hale is an uneven=20 buddy movie, showing the wacky misadventures of Mormon home-teaching partners --= =20 one anal-retentive and overzealous (Jeff Birk), the other a football-obsessed=20 slob (Michael Birkeland) -- ministering to reluctant ward families. The gags=20 (involving an overflowing toilet, a disrupted funeral service and a destroyed car) are=20 juvenile and plod on too long. The leads are engaging, particularly Birkeland, who has a= =20 goofy, Chris Farley-esque appeal. Hale is showing signs of improvement: backing off= =20 the local-celebrity cameos (with the woeful exception of radio personality Jimmy Chunga), taking pains to explain LDS culture to outsiders, and going beyond= =20 the green Jell-O jokes to talk about the Mormon faith. Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune. Deseret Morning News Friday, January 9, 2004 'Teachers' is lesson in bad storytelling By Jeff Vice 1.5 stars out of 4 That "The Home Teachers" looks and sounds more like an actual film than HaleStorm Entertainment's two other movies is a real accomplishment. Both "The Singles Ward" and "The R.M." were pretty much amateur hour - -- low- to no-budget films filled with out-of-focus shots and fuzzy sound, as well as little plot (truth be told, they resembled filmed "roadshows"=20 more than anything else). For all its technical achievements, the company's latest -- and least-funny= =20 - -- comedy makes you yearn for the quaint incompetence of the other two films. It's as if in trying to tell an actual story the filmmakers have=20 taken a large step backward. And its "homages" to such beloved comedies as "Tommy Boy" and "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" are too obvious, verging on comedic plagiarism. The title characters are Greg Blazer (HaleStorm regular Michael Birkeland) and Nelson Parker (Jeff Birk), two LDS Church members who begin butting heads when they're assigned to be home-teaching companions. That's because they couldn't be more different. Greg would just as soon spend his Sundays in front of the television, watching professional football and eating chicken wings. The gung-ho Nelson -- who's new to the ward - -- wants to start their visits immediately. And to Greg's surprise, his wife (Elizabeth Sands) agrees with Nelson and practically kicks him out the door. (She's basically hoping the experience will do him good.) But with the first visit, things go horribly awry. As Greg sneaks away to take in some gridiron action, he sets in motion several small disasters that destroy the unfortunate family's home. And things only get worse from there. The bits cribbed from other movies only make you wish you were watching those instead. And the tonal shift in the film's final third, from slapstick to more saccharine drama, is much too jarring. The two leads try to make the material better -- even if their efforts are in vain. Birk, whose character looks sort of like Jerry Seinfeld in a=20 Pee-Wee Herman Halloween costume, doesn't overdo it as much as you'd expect. And Birkeland does have a likable, everyman quality that certainly helps. "The Home Teachers" is rated PG for scenes of comic violence (hunting, vehicular and slapstick), crude humor and sight gags (relating to bodily functions) and scattered use of mild (and creative) profanity. Running time: 81 minutes. Copyright 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company Ogden Standard-Examiner 9 January 2004 Wait until the end of the month if you must see 'Home Teachers' Makers of 'Singles Ward' strike out with latest effort By Steve Salles 1.5 stars out of 4 For those of you who've had an unpleasant home-teaching experience, prepare yourselves -- you're about to have another. I was hoping the makers of "The Singles Ward" and "The R.M." had progressed a little further in their filmmaking skills by now. But this=20 latest release, "Home Teachers," shows one of two things: Either they're getting complacent in their craft, or physical, slapstick comedy is extremely difficult to get right. Knowing how badly these guys want to improve, I'm going to lean toward the latter. Greg (Michael Birkeland) goes to his local ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he'd rather be home watching football on Sunday, lounging in his Love Sac (first blatant product placement) and eating chicken wings. One of the few real laughs in the movie comes when Greg is forced to sit through another mind-numbing priesthood lesson on the values of home teaching. He is chomping at the bit to get home, but the clock on the wall actually appears to be going backward, and the never-ending closing prayer comes out in super slow motion. Home teaching is the LDS practice of monthly visits to assigned families in the local congregation. It's sort of an inside joke that home teachers wait until the last minute to fulfill their sacred obligations. A new guy in the ward, Nelson (Jeff Birk), is assigned to be Greg's new home-teaching companion -- and it just happens to be the last day of the month. Straight-laced and uptight Nelson is eager to meet his new families and shames Greg into leaving his TV, so off they go. So far, so good. The scenarios up until now seem realistic, and I'm sure LDS Church members will identify. However, this is where the movie begins to unravel. No sooner do the valiant home teachers begin their visits than things start to happen that defy logic and believability. Sure, a toilet can overflow, but to pull a wedding dress out of a closet for an emergency mop-up is ridiculous, unless you see it as an opportunity to display your second product placement (Utahweddings.com). This is where I started thinking I was being used to mop up the mess of this movie and, to add insult to injury, I'm being sold something? No way. Then the film becomes a blatant rip-off of "Tommy Boy" and "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" with a silly trip to Vernal -- for a memorial service on=20 Sunday where a stuffed deer head suddenly becomes hollow enough to wear? Cars are crashing with Ken Garff logos pristinely displayed, Ogio gets a plug on= =20 the bill of a cap, Red Bull drops by, as well as Krispy Kreme doughnuts -- and= =20 I'm sure I missed one or two. Shame on you, Kurt and company. You had a nice little franchise going here, and you had to ruin it with this schlock. And getting all warm and fuzzy at the end doesn't save it. I'd rather get daily visits from the worst home teachers in the world than to have to sit through these "Home Teachers" again. EricDSnider.com REVIEW: "The Home Teachers" By Eric D. Snider Kurt Hale and John E. Moyer are getting better at making films. "The Home Teachers," their second followup to the huge Mormon hit "The Singles Ward," is better focused and less chaotic. The useless and embarrassing celebrity cameos are almost gone, and so are the plot tangents. It now seems like they were actually making a movie, rather than throwing a party for all their friends. Unfortunately, "The Home Teachers," while more professional in some technical and structural areas, is a wreck in other ways. Hale's directing techniques are more polished, but his and Moyer's screenplay borrows too much from other films, suffers from an abrupt change in tone, and, worst of all, ISN'T FUNNY. As helpfully explained by title cards as the film opens, "home teaching" is the LDS practice of sending brethren around to all the homes in the ward each month to check on the temporal and spiritual welfare of the members. The good home teachers get it done early and have an honest interest in their families' well-being. The slackers wait until the last day= =20 and do it just to appease their supervisors. Our film opens on the last day of the month. Greg Blazer (Michael Birkeland) is a football dad, barreling out of church each Sunday as soon as the final "amen" is uttered so he can deposit himself on the couch and watch football the rest of the day and ignore his wife and three daughters. Home teaching, we gather, has not been a major concern of his up to this point. But his newly assigned companion, recent move-in Nelson Parker (Jeff Birk), is far more enthusiastic. Nelson wears a bowtie, carries a Palm Pilot=20 everywhere, and wouldn't dream of spending the Sabbath watching sports when there's so much of the Lord's work to be done. He drags Greg away from the TV and out to visit their three families. Here the film ceases to be about home teaching, Mormon culture, or even religion in general, and starts being a disaster comedy, with Greg=20 destroying everything he touches and the unflappable Nelson becoming increasing flapped. Situations grow worse and worse, and the results become, at least in theory, progressively funny. I believe Hale and Moyer have the right idea, using Mormonism as the context of a story rather than the focus of it. Problematically, none of it is=20 funny. They have seen hilarious farcical comedies, obviously, but they don't seem to understand why they were funny and therefore can't replicate them. I could just tell you that most of the comedy in "The Home Teachers" isn't funny, but that wouldn't help you. Let me explain why it isn't funny. For farce to work, it must obey the basic laws of physics and logic. Farce= =20 isn't where impossible things happen; it's where IMPROBABLE things happen. The genius of good farce is in the audience's realization that, while it's=20 unlikely they'd ever find themselves in that situation, if they DID find themselves there,= =20 that's probably how they'd react, too. Farce creates a new reality, where=20 improbable predicaments arise, but its characters are still bound by the laws of human= =20 nature and react accordingly. That's what makes it funny: the persistence of human nature even in the most bizarre circumstances. In "The Home Teachers," many things occur that are simply impossible. To=20 make matters worse, the characters react in ways that fly in the face of all=20 common sense and human nature. Not only COULDN'T we ever find ourselves in that situation, but even if we did, WE WOULDN'T REACT THAT WAY. The humor is=20 lost. Exhibit A is Greg's battle with an overflowing toilet in the home of one of= =20 his and Nelson's families. (We won't address the fact that approximately 1,000,000 movies have already used recalcitrant commodes as a comedy device, and we're tired of it, even when it's done right.) It is improbable that the toilet=20 would continue to flow so rapidly and thoroughly, but it's at least possible.=20 What's impossible is that a thin stream of water would shoot up from the toilet=20 bowl into Greg's face. Toilets aren't made that way; it's not physically possible= =20 for that to occur. Now, if you were in this situation, you would turn the water off, because=20 you know there's a knob on the wall behind the toilet that will do that. (Maybe= =20 you don't, but a manly man like Greg surely would.) But Greg doesn't do that. Instead, he slips and slides around the wet floor, flailing madly in a Chris= =20 Farley-ish manner as he does. Next, he feels it important to soak up all the water with something. He does not grab towels, however, as none seem to be handy. Instead, he takes a wedding dress from the hall closet -- a closet that is otherwise completely empty; apparently this is a special closet reserved for wedding dresses only= =20 - -- and uses it as a sponge. We have already left the realm of probability and human nature, but wait, there's more. Apparently, this wedding dress is the one the lady of the=20 house wore when she was married, which happened ages ago. But people don't keep their years-old wedding dresses in the hall closet, and certainly not= =20 in new plastic coverings that say "UtahWeddings.com." They keep them in their attics, in trunks. So not only wouldn't this wedding dress be=20 available for use in real life, but even if it were, no sane, sober, adult person would=20 use it to mop up toilet water. Later, Greg and Nelson drive two-plus hours to Vernal, Utah, to attend a memorial service for a relative of one of their families. (No Mormon family= =20 would hold a funeral on a Sunday, and no home teacher would drive that far, spur= =20 of the moment, to attend he'd never even met the family.) Predictably, Greg winds up engaged in mortal combat with the dead body (another thing we've seen a bit too often in movies, though sadly not often enough in real life),= =20 and rather than simply dropping the body or putting it down, he dances around=20 with it draped over him. Meanwhile, two people faint (highly unlikely) and must= =20 be taken to the hospital (extraordinarily unlikely). I could go on listing the impossible events and the unbelievable reactions= =20 they inspire, but you get the idea. I suspect the writers thought of amusing end scenarios -- mopping up toilet water with a wedding dress; molesting a=20 corpse -- and simply couldn't come up with reasonable avenues of arriving at them. The film's third act comes back around to home teaching again, and=20 everyone's supposed to learn a lesson and hug. The shift in tone is jarring,=20 particularly after an hour of mayhem and hijinks. I hear the rebuttals already: You criticized "The Singles Ward" and "The=20 R.M." for being TOO Mormon; now you criticize "The Home Teachers" for not being Mormon enough. But on the contrary, my objection to "Singles Ward" wasn't that it relied on Mormon jokes; it was that it relied on easy-to-make,=20 obvious Mormon jokes. My criticism of "The Home Teachers" has nothing to do with the type of humor employed. It's the poor execution of it. Make Mormon jokes, make non-Mormon jokes, make whatever kind of jokes you want. Just make them funny, that's all I ask. So yeah, the farce doesn't work. Is the movie enjoyable? Meh. It didn't=20 actively irritate me the way "Singles Ward" did, but at least "Singles Ward" made me laugh a few times, amidst the irritation. "Home Teachers" produced hardly a chuckle. I'm not sure what the appeal would be here. Without the "it's funny because it's true" Mormon humor that made the other two films successful, it's=20 basically just another mismatched-partners/"Tommy Boy"-ripoff/one-thing-after-another comedy. And if that's what Hale and Moyer want to produce, they've got a lot of catching up to do before they're even close to being competitive with Hollywood. Grade: C- Copyright Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ High-speed users=97be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium= Internet=20 Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=3Den-us&page=3Dbyoa/prem&ST=3D1 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:03:02 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] OGDEN, "Whatsoever: The Story of Abraham" (DN) Deseret News Sunday, January 11, 2004 Openings this week Locally written biblical story is being revived By Ivan M. Lincoln "WHATSOEVER: THE STORY OF ABRAHAM," one of the late Mark Ogden's early successes, is being revived for the third time by the St. George Musical Theater, the company the playwright founded. Told with energetic music (similar to the tunes found in "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat"), the production relates the biblical story of Abraham and his family striving to follow their faith. The antics of Lot and his wife, Lotta, add comedy to the mix. Dawna Kenworthy is directing a cast that includes her husband, Don, as Abraham, Kristina Kessler as Sarah, Jeff Long as Lot and Missy Hill as Lotta. Following the opening on Thursday, it will continue Mondays and Thursdays- Saturdays at 7:30 p.m. in SGMT's new home, 37 S. 100 West. Tickets are $13 for adults, $12 for students and senior citizens (60 and over) and $10 for children (12 and under). "Student rush" tickets, for any available seating on the day of the show at the door, are half-price for students with current school activity cards. To purchase tickets in advance, call 435-628-8755. _________________________________________________________________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:05:22 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SWENSON, _Iced at the Ward, Burned at the Stake and Other Poems_= (DN review) 'Iced at the Ward, Burned at the Stake and Other Poems' By Paul Swenson Signature, $14.95 Utahn Paul Swenson is best known for his film reviews for "Utah=20 Holiday" and "City Weekly." Few knew that he had ambitions to follow in his=20 illustrious poet-sister's footsteps. The late May Swenson was considered a highly=20 successful American poet. In this interesting work, Swenson takes on his own LDS culture with a vengeance. Ironically, it is unlikely to be understood by the people he is= =20 trying to reach -- the average Utah Mormon with all of his or her flaws conspicuously magnified. Although the poems are written with surprising diversity of styles,=20 their titles make the statements the poems themselves should make -- "Carnal, Sensual & Devilish," "Black Moroni," "Eternal Digression," "God Plans Her Day" and=20 "The Prophet Debbie" illustrate the problem. It's too bad Swenson did not define= =20 his audience more broadly -- because he has talent. - -- Dennis Lythgoe Copyright 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software =97 optimizes dial-up to the= max!=20 http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=3Den-us&page=3Dbyoa/plus&ST=3D1 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:24:41 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Folklore You'll get several if you type "mormon urban legends" into google and try other search terms. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:00:20 -0700 From: Eric D. Snider Subject: [AML] HALE, _Home Teachers_ (Review) Kurt Hale and John E. Moyer are getting better at making films. "The Home Teachers," their second followup to the huge Mormon hit "The Singles Ward," is better focused and less chaotic. The useless and embarrassing celebrity cameos are almost gone, and so are the plot tangents. It now seems like they were actually making a movie, rather than throwing a party for all their friends. Unfortunately, "The Home Teachers," while more professional in some technical and structural areas, is a wreck in other ways. Hale's directing techniques are more polished, but his and Moyer's screenplay borrows too much from other films, suffers from an abrupt change in tone, and, worst of all, ISN'T FUNNY. As helpfully explained by title cards as the film opens, "home teaching" is the LDS practice of sending brethren around to all the homes in the ward each month to check on the temporal and spiritual welfare of the members. The good home teachers get it done early and have an honest interest in their families' well-being. The slackers wait until the last day and do it just to appease their supervisors. Our film opens on the last day of the month. Greg Blazer (Michael Birkeland) is a football dad, barreling out of church each Sunday as soon as the final "amen" is uttered so he can deposit himself on the couch and watch football the rest of the day and ignore his wife and three daughters. Home teaching, we gather, has not been a major concern of his up to this point. But his newly assigned companion, recent move-in Nelson Parker (Jeff Birk), is far more enthusiastic. Nelson wears a bowtie, carries a Palm Pilot everywhere, and wouldn't dream of spending the Sabbath watching sports when there's so much of the Lord's work to be done. He drags Greg away from the TV and out to visit their three families. Here the film ceases to be about home teaching, Mormon culture, or even religion in general, and starts being a disaster comedy, with Greg destroying everything he touches and the unflappable Nelson becoming increasing flapped. Situations grow worse and worse, and the results become, at least in theory, progressively funny. I believe Hale and Moyer have the right idea, using Mormonism as the CONTEXT of a story rather than the FOCUS of it. Problematically, none of it is funny. They have seen hilarious farcical comedies, obviously, but they don't seem to understand WHY they were funny and therefore can't replicate them. I could just tell you that most of the comedy in "The Home Teachers" isn't funny, but that wouldn't help you. Let me explain why it isn't funny. For farce to work, it must obey the basic laws of physics and logic. Farce isn't where impossible things happen; it's where IMPROBABLE things happen. The genius of good farce is in the audience's realization that, while it's unlikely they'd ever find themselves in that situation, if they DID find themselves there, that's probably how they'd react, too. Farce creates a new reality, where improbable predicaments arise, but its characters are still bound by the laws of human nature and react accordingly. That's what makes it funny: the persistence of human nature even in the most bizarre circumstances. In "The Home Teachers," many things occur that are simply impossible. To make matters worse, the characters react in ways that fly in the face of all common sense and human nature. Not only COULDN'T we ever find ourselves in that situation, but even if we did, WE WOULDN'T REACT THAT WAY. The humor is lost. Exhibit A is Greg's battle with an overflowing toilet in the home of one of his and Nelson's families. (We won't address the fact that approximately 1,000,000 movies have already used recalcitrant commodes as a comedy device, and we're tired of it, even when it's done right.) It is improbable that the toilet would continue to flow so rapidly and thoroughly, but it's at least possible. What's impossible is that a thin stream of water would shoot up from the toilet bowl into Greg's face. Toilets aren't made that way; it's not physically possible for that to occur. Now, if you were in this situation, you would turn the water off, because you know there's a knob on the wall behind the toilet that will do that. (Maybe you don't, but a manly man like Greg surely would.) But Greg doesn't do that. Instead, he slips and slides around the wet floor, flailing madly in a Chris Farley-ish manner as he does. Next, he feels it important to soak up all the water with something. He does not grab towels, however, as none seem to be handy. Instead, he takes a wedding dress from the hall closet -- a closet that is otherwise completely empty; apparently this is a special closet reserved for wedding dresses only -- and uses it as a sponge. We have already left the realm of probability and human nature, but wait, there's more. Apparently, this wedding dress is the one the lady of the house wore when she was married, which happened ages ago. But people don't keep their years-old wedding dresses in the hall closet, and certainly not in new plastic coverings that say "UtahWeddings.com." They keep them in their attics, in trunks. So not only wouldn't this wedding dress be available for use in real life, but even if it were, no sane, sober, adult person would use it to mop up toilet water. Later, Greg and Nelson drive two-plus hours to Vernal, Utah, to attend a memorial service for a relative of one of their families. (No Mormon family would hold a funeral on a Sunday, and no home teacher would drive that far, spur of the moment, to attend he'd never even met the family.) Predictably, Greg winds up engaged in mortal combat with the dead body (another thing we've seen a bit too often in movies, though sadly not often enough in real life), and rather than simply dropping the body or putting it down, he dances around with it draped over him. Meanwhile, two people faint (highly unlikely) and must be taken to the hospital (extraordinarily unlikely). I could go on listing the impossible events and the unbelievable reactions they inspire, but you get the idea. I suspect the writers thought of amusing end scenarios -- mopping up toilet water with a wedding dress; molesting a corpse -- and simply couldn't come up with reasonable avenues of arriving at them. The film's third act comes back around to home teaching again, and everyone's supposed to learn a lesson and hug. The shift in tone is jarring, particularly after an hour of mayhem and hijinks. I hear the rebuttals already: You criticized "The Singles Ward" and "The R.M." for being TOO Mormon; now you criticize "The Home Teachers" for not being Mormon enough. But on the contrary, my objection to "Singles Ward" wasn't that it relied on Mormon jokes; it was that it relied on easy-to-make, obvious Mormon jokes. My criticism of "The Home Teachers" has nothing to do with the type of humor employed. It's the poor execution of it. Make Mormon jokes, make non-Mormon jokes, make whatever kind of jokes you want. Just make them funny, that's all I ask. So yeah, the farce doesn't work. Is the movie enjoyable? Meh. It didn't actively irritate me the way "Singles Ward" did, but at least "Singles Ward" made me laugh a few times, amidst the irritation. "Home Teachers" produced hardly a chuckle. I'm not sure what the appeal would be here. Without the "it's funny because it's true" Mormon humor that made the other two films successful, it's basically just another mismatched-partners/"Tommy Boy"-ripoff/one-thing-after-another comedy. And if that's what Hale and Moyer want to produce, they've got a lot of catching up to do before they're even close to being competitive with Hollywood. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:13:45 -0700 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: [AML] _The Best of Lowell Bennion_ I just secured a copy of Lowell L. Bennion's selected writings = 1028-1988--edited by Eugene England--from Amazon.com. It was pricey, = but worth it as I am a sincere fan. Does anyone know where this book = can be found at a reasonable price? Also, is there anyone I can contact = personally about confirming some historical information re LLB that is = not appropriate for this list--historian, friend, family member? Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:45:37 -0700 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Deseret News: The Double Edge of Sundance Here's the line that amazes me: >Yes, it takes a kind of "guts" to sit through a >bloody, distressing Quentin Tarantino film, take the >body blows and not walk out. >But it also takes courage to see such for what it is: >Stylish, rhythmic violence that uses "art" to mask an >unhealthy fixation with atrocities. For what it 'is?' No. This is one critic's judgment call. Agree with it or don't agree with it as you will, but let's at least tell the truth: one critic (who didn't even have the 'courage' to sign his name to this editorial) didn't like Kill Bill. Or Pulp Fiction. Or maybe Jackie Brown, who knows. A Tarantino film, anyway. The assumptions in this editorial are absolutely staggering. We just assume, for example, that films that explore ugly subjects matter are unhealthy. We assume that all such films (all 'those kinds of films') are damaging. We assume that violent films, or films exploring issues of depravity are therefore evidence of sinfully depraved artists creating works of art for sinful and depraved audiences. We assume that folks who see films with violent or sexual imagery want desperately to forget such imagery, but can't, no matter how much they try. =20 None of these assumptions are universally valid, though of course some may be valid for some folks. This courageously anonymous editorialist, for example, may have felt genuinely damaged by Kill Bill. S/he may have been trying to get that film's images out of his/her head, and been unable to do so, in such ways that the experience of seeing the film was psychologically or spiritually damaging. For him. Or her. As the case may be. But it's also possible to see Kill Bill as a masterpiece, a film that truthfully and unwaveringly explores our culture's fascination with violence, a film that simultaneously seduces and repels us with its violence. Are revenge fantasies satisfying? Of course they are. So create the world's biggest revenge fantasy, and let the discussion begin. =20 The Deseret News is marvelous reading. I'm politically liberal, and therefore I should read the Salt Lake Tribune, I suppose. But I don't; I read the DN. (I also live in Provo, and could subscribe to the Provo Herald, if I wanted to, and I could, but geez, I've gotta draw the line somewhere.) The DN's such a wonderful mirror to the current state of Utah culture. (Especially the letters to the editor. Hardly the day passes without at least one letter that's genuinely insightful. And hardly the day passes without at least one that's completely insane.) And this editorial is Mormon culture (when it comes to film) writ large. We're more courageous than most folk, because we're willing to tell the Truth, and that's because we understand the Truth of All Things, and that is that films come in two categories, Safe, and Dangerously Depraved. =20 But is it safe to reject all that? I mean, I have learned a long time ago that I cannot talk about film with my neighbors, or with anyone in my ward. We just don't have any common frames of reference. When I reject ALL the assumptions of this editorial--and I do, for me--am I putting something equally valuable in their place? I hope so. If I love Tarantino--and I do--and if I think his films are morally defensible--and I absolutely do--then I don't have a lot of choice. I'm gonna have to put those ideas at the heart of my personal aesthetic, and see where it leads me. =20 Eric Samuelsen =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:30:46 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Cedar Fort Offer on My Manuscript I went to www.half.com where I found your book Ragged Circle for $11.44 = $11.96 and $16.40 and while they list the publisher, they don't = name the author. Debbie Brown ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Veda Hale=20 Has anyone run across my book, "Ragged Circle"? I doubt it. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:31:15 -0800 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Cedar Fort Offer on My Manuscript Dear Veda: Irreantum is running a review of _Ragged Circle_ in the upcoming issue of our magazine. Cedar Fort sent me a review copy of your book a few months ago--their publicist keeps me well-stocked with their latest releases. Best, Jana Remy Irreantum Book Review Editor - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:48:09 -0800 (PST) From: Jennifer Adair Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _Standing on the Promises_ "I think that DB could do a bit more do put a spotlight on them. I think that since so many people don't know that there were black pioneers, you have to do a lot more in advertising to show people why this is a part of our (collective LDS) heritage." MArgaret, I agree that the books need to and are probably aimed at LDS people, but I have used them more for non-LDS people. I teach multicultural education at a large, public university and I often get "attacked" (sarcastically usually) from colleagues because I am LDS and teach about multiculturalism and white privilege. I can now talk honestly and somewhat more confidently about our black heritage and send them resources in the books. There are, of course, critiques I cannot do anything about but I feel like the books validate in some way my views and concerns about race issues in the U.S. and especially within church culture. I also feel good about knowing Joseph Smith was progressive in his views on slavery, etc. In fact, I spoke about this in a larger panel discussion at the National Association for Multiclutural Education. I've used some of the quotes in the books' reference pages in talks/lessons to help bring up the idea of black heritage without really bringing it up. . and it has led to good conversations and I think a website would be another great reference to send people - lds people and non-lds people alike. Jennifer Adair ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:11:11 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Tony Kushner on Mormonism If anyone is as curious as I was about how "Angels in America" came to be, here are some extracts from the book "Tony Kushner in Conversation", edited by Robert Vorlicky, University of Michigan Press, 1998. It's a collection of interviews Kushner has given over the years. (I have edited out the questions.) "I have spent time in Salt Lake, but that's not particularly where the theme came from. Mormonism is a theology that I think could only really have come from America. The 'Book of Mormon'--since I don't believe it is actually from God--is fairly clearly a work of nineteeth-century American literature. It's not the most readable book, but clearly of a tradition that also produced 'Moby-Dick' and 'Huckleberry Finn'. The theology is an American reworking of a western tradition that is uniquely American: the notion of an uninhabited world in which it's possible to reinvent. It's part of the political project of westward expansion and genocide against native American populations because it gives a moral ranking to color of skin: the darker you are, the farther away you are from goodness. I think the Mormons in Britain have a very different reputation. They seem to be more 'cultey.' In America, when you visit them in Salt Lake, they have a kind of indiginous dignity that they may not have when they travel abroad. They're very interesting people, the ones that I've met and known personally, I've always liked them a lot. They're very decent, hard-working, serious, intelligent people. But they're very reactionary. And it's very much a pioneer religion. That conjunction is intriguing to me. Reactionaries like Roy (Cohn) are a lot of fun but they're as lousy as you feel the consequences of their ideology are. Mormons always seem much nicer people than what they wind up visiting on themselves and the rest of Utah. That contradiction is very interesting. In a way it reminds me of Judaism in that they have an interesting ambivalence toward sensuality and the flesh. They are actually a very 'touch-ey' bunch of people and yet they have a lot of strictures about physical contact and sex that are as puritancal as one can imagine. It's older and far more confusing in Judaism. There are a number of similarities." (pages 24-25) "I was also involved in this six-month-long sort of flirtation with a Mormon missionary in the subway in Brooklyn near my house where I lived, and became very fond of these two guys who were standing there in New York City talking to crazy people all day long about 'The Book of Mormon', and became interested all over again in Mormonism. I read Fawn Brodie's astonishing biography of Joseph Smith, 'No Man Knows My History', which is like one of the great all-time reads. It's a perfect beach book. Everybody should get it this summer. And Wallace Stegner's amazing book, 'The Gathering of Zion', which sort of picks up from there." (page 197) "There is a whole history of utopian social experimentation in the years of the early Mormon church. And Brigham Young was like Lenin. He was willing to try anything, and damn the consequences, which is a problem. They certainly had tried collective ownership of property, and various forms of economic organization that would have solved the deficit, if we had gone further with them. But those were all abandoned because, as is always the fate of revolutions, they were surrounded by a country that wasn't about to let that. Along with polygamy, one of the things the Mormons had to abandon was that form of experimentation with property ownership when it became clear that they wern't going to become a kingdom unto themselves, and needed to become a part of the United States. I'm very intigued by it. I'm also very intrigued by the whole utopian movement in this country in the nineteenth century, and I would like to continue exploring it. 'Angels' comes out of that tradition. That's my Americana." (page 209) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:55:34 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Deseret News: The Double Edge of Sundance This Sundance editorial really sounds like Jerry Johnston wrote it. (It was uncredited, wasn't it?) Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #245 ******************************