From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #122 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 Thursday, August 3 2000 Volume 01 : Number 122 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:40:08 -0700 From: eedh Subject: [AML] Re: _Real World_ Actress Suspended From BYU [compilation of two posts from yesterday] In today's online BYU DAILY UNIVERSE, Julie Stoffer's parents discuss their reaction to her suspension. (They're disappointed, but they support the university.) You can read the story at - -Beth Hatch New information. I just saw a Letter to the Editor, written by Julie Stoffer's parents, "in behalf of. . .Julie" and in this letter, they say they "regret the decision by BYU to suspend her, as we feel that a warning or probation would have been a more appropriate disciplinary response." They also discuss the wording in the suspension letter that was sent to Julie. This letter can be found at: http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=10515&year=current - -Beth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 14:18:28 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Another Onion Mormon reference [MOD: Another post from yesterday...] Yeah, it's Onion day again. In a piece called Man Who Thought He'd Lost All Hope Loses Last Additional Bit Of Hope He Didn't Even Know He Still Had the following Mormon reference appears in a paragraph rehearsing his past losses of hope: "And one can safely assume that his rejection as 'unsuitable for conversion' by a pair of Mormon missionaries he attempted to befriend after they randomly knocked on his door must have cost him a significant amount of what precious little hope he had left." Pretty funny stuff. Chris Bigelow http://theonion.com/onion3626/man_lost_all_hope.html * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=EB00016373. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:58:08 -0400 From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Cheryl Ladd was a guest star on the show. There is a news list devoted to the Osmonds and I know for a fact that they can reel off every guest star that ever appeared. Its alt.music.osmonds everyone there (for the most part) is nice and very helpful. I just lurk on the thing whenever I need a giggle. These women are a hoot. Debbie Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:11:54 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing >Only one time in my life have I ever seen a film about which I knew >nothing other than it's title before I saw it. I regretted it so much >(the film was so bad) that I made a vow then and there to never darken a >theatre without knowing as much about a film as I could. And you know >what. I've never since been disappointed. The one that taught me that lesson was "Mosquito Coast." I thought that since it had Harrison Ford in it, it would be good. But no! It had me rooting for his character to die so I could go home! The man he played was one taco short of a combo plate, and I was appalled at how his wife dragged their children after him, endangering their lives. "Stand By Your Man" only goes so far! barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:15:23 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show [MOD: This is a compilation of several people's reply on one particular point from an earlier post in this thread.] Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole > Kidman(?). ... are Church of Scientology members, not Christian Scientists. Richard Gere is Buddhist. - -- Thom Duncan Cruise, Kidman, and Travolta being to the Church of Scientology--isn't that different from the Christian Scientists? John Perry John Travolta is a Scientologist, not a Christian Scientist, but I don't know about Tom and Nicole Anyone confirm these or add to my list? > [Laura Summerhays] You're mixing Christian Scientists up with Scientologists. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, Christian Science was started by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. Scientology was started by L Ron Hubbard in this century. Their tenets are way different, too. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com You have Christian Scientists (founded by Mary Baker Eddy) and Scientologists (founded by L. Ron Hubbard) mixed up. The three listed above are Scientologists (not a Christian religion). - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:34:57 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Eric D. Snider wrote: >>Scott Parkin wrote: >>Pokemon in particular is certainly no more cynical than those fine American >>efforts of media exploitation such >>as X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends. >> >I say there's an important difference: "Pokemon's" exploitation is >geared toward extremely young children, whereas "X-Men" and "Star >Wars" are geared toward teens and adults (and "Friends" was >exploited by the media, who loved the show, more than by the people >behind the show). (To some degree, that was intended as humor. Nevertheless...) Here we simply disagree. Every single property on television is an exploitation of some market or another. Change it to Blue's Clues, Barney, Rugrats, Magic Schoolbus, and Teletubbies, and my premise still stands. Take it back a few years to Mickey Mouse Club, Howdy Doody, and the Lone Ranger, and you lose little or nothing. None of those shows represent the height of artistic possibility (or achievement), but all of those shows exploit a very young consumer market with breakfast cereals, clothing lines, board games, video series, lunch boxes, school products, and more. All have justified themselves under the rubric of teaching moral lessons and/or illustrating good behavior. Each has succeeded at that goal to a different degree. I don't see how Pokemon is any better or worse at it than any of the others. With the exception of its massive popularity (with attendant monetary success) and its seemingly ubiquitous presence, it's of a kind with with pretty much every other show aimed at kids--or teens, or adults. (I would argue that a whole series of shows on The Cartoon Network, such as Cow and Chicken, Courage the Dog, I.M. Weasel, and Space Ghost Coast to Coast, don't even have the excuse of trying to teach moral lessons. Then again, none of then is even remotely as popular as Pokemon--though each has its own merchandising franchise.) I won't argue with you about whether Pokemon is good art, because taste is subjective and I generally agree with you about the artistic quality of the Pokemon franchise. At best it's passable animation, the characters are flat, and the situation doesn't bear up well under scrutiny (then again, neither do X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends). I don't care if anyone likes Pokemon or not. I just don't think it deserves special condemnation because it happened to become massively popular. That is, after all, at least part of the intent of every show produced for TV or film. >That's why I feel so negatively toward "Pokemon" (that, and, as the >letters I get have informed me, I have a cold soul of blackness that >can feel no love). (And I thought I was the only one who got letters like that...) We always come up with reasons why what we like is good, and what we dislike is bad. If these are your reasons for disliking Pokemon, great. As long as you're convinced by those arguments, they serve their purpose and bind you with others of like mind. I disagree and offer my own reasoning as to why it is, if not good, at least no worse than the vast majority of what's out there. Whether my opinion is popular or not is irrelevant to me; I've considered assorted arguments and come to my own conclusions. Diversity. Ain't it grand! Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:34:57 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Annette Lyon wrote: >Scott Parkin wrote: >Pokemon in particular is certainly no more cynical than those fine American >efforts of media exploitation such >as X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends. > > >I beg to differ. From what I've seen of the Saturday cartoon and the first >movie (which isn't that much, I must admit; I can't stomach the stuff), I >can boil Pokemon down to one simple idea--cock fighting. Think about it: the >show is based on a bunch of people who train their pets to fight each other. That premise bothers me, too (but for very different reasons). I think Pokemon stops well short of cock fighting, though, since: * No Pokemon is ever killed or seriously injured (not unlike Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner) * Pokemon naturally want to battle each other (not unlike Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny, or Tom and Jerry, or Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, or Bugs Bunny and...) * The whole league/training concept is intended to protect the Pokemon from abuse by individual trainers (though it sometimes happens, and those occasions are treated as great tragedies) * There is a complex network of Pokemon medical centers and health spas to help them recover from their battles (not unlike those offered for players in the NBA, NFL, MLB, WNBA, NHL, MLS, etc.) * And the point is relentlessly hammered home throughout the franchise that trainers must love their Pokemon as dearest friends. (There's a cynical comment to be made here about encouraging kids to love their franchise materials, such as posters, books, videos, game cards, etc., but I'm not quite that cynical.) ===== I don't really see any more connection between Pokemon and cock fighting than I see between opposing soccer teams and cock fighting, or between two football teams and the institution of war. Or equestrian events, or dog shows, or skeet shooting (a clay pigeon is, after all, representative of the real bird the shooters will target later--without the benefit of clay pigeon centers where the shot targets can recuperate). All competitive sport involves training, some form of direct confrontation (even chess and gymnastics), and a victor (with the implied loser). But Pokemon does successfully dramatize the question of how moral it is to force another living creature into the competition with you. Is it moral to train a horse to race? Is it moral train a dog to do tricks? What about training a whale or a dolphin to leap for Sea World? Pokemon at least have near human intelligence (unless we're using the Disney Hierarchy of animal >> child >> machine >> adult) and can choose not to compete (as they sometimes do in the series). In fact, Pokemon calls the whole institution of keeping domesticated animals--including pets--into question. >The morals seemed to be inserted for the sake of including a moral, and they >end up thin and pathetic. The first movie had some redeeming qualities in >the first twenty minutes or so, but it flopped and didn't fulfill its >potential. My mileage varied. I thought the first twenty minutes of the movie (the opening short) to be interminable. Sure, it had the moral foundation of showing the Pokemon working together to rescue someone who had acted the bully from his own folly, but it didn't really entertain me. But in the main feature, I found the fact that Ash was willing to sacrifice his own life (and did, though redeemed by animation magic) for his friends (mere Pokemon) to be at least vaguely reminiscent of another noted sacrifice often alluded to in Mormon literature. Arguably, that's the most important story that can ever be told. >At least the characters in X-men and Star Wars are fighting for a noble >cause against a formidable villain (Just try to compare a mutant cat with >Darth Vader. Don't think so.) I'll give it a shot, because I don't think the comparison is nearly as ludicrous as you seem to. And keep in mind that Pokemon is intended for an audience that maxes out at around 10 years old, so the levels of complexity are inherently reduced. MewTwo was a genetically engineered creature enslaved by humans for their own entertainment and in support of their own acquisition of power. He was created as a weapon against other humans. His bitterness at his enslavement leads him to lash out at all humans. He eventually attempts to destroy humans under the banner of freeing Pokemon from their exploitative captivity, but stops (he was never defeated; he chose to stop of his own will) when a human (our hero Ash) shows him that some humans know compassion and love Pokemon as friends, not pets. Darth Vader was a genetically advanced human enslaved by other humans for their own entertainment and the power it brought. When his power was recognized, different factions competed over him not out of altruistic concern for his personal welfare, but because they wanted to control the power he represented. He eventually lashes out at all creatures everywhere, at least partially out of bitterness for his own captivity and fear of being taken captive again. He is eventually defeated (and destroyed) because he refused to rethink his immoral position until faced with his own death. Magneto (of X-Men fame) discovered that he had a genetic mutation that gave him unusual power while his parents were being enslaved (and later murdered) by other humans. Because of his power to harm humans, he is enslaved. His bitterness against that captivity leads him to lash out at all humans. He eventually attempts to destroy humans under the banner of freeing Mutants from their exploitative captivity. He is stopped (but not defeated) by other mutants, and vows to continue his bitter war despite seeing that some humans are noble, and that many noble mutants violently disagree with his beliefs. Other than the fact that Darth and Magneto never learned from their immorality (or learned too late to actually live morally beyond a single moment/decision), the differences in the characters are not all that significant. To paraphrase Jessica Rabbit, MewTwo isn't a trivial character--he's just drawn that way. >Thanks again to Eric for his column on the issue; I gave him a >mental ovation when I read it. In this one thing, as least, we can fully agree. I appreciated Eric's column even while disagreeing with the entire fundamental premise. It was entertaining and thought provoking--in other words, a clear success for a columnist. But I'll also argue that by publishing his column in a public forum, he invites (and, I hope, welcomes) opposing viewpoints. I offer such a viewpoint with no particular animosity, and without claiming moral corruption on Eric's part (or on the parts of those who agree with him). To abuse Eric Samuelsen's comments in another thread, we each have our own testimonies of the truth or falsehood of the Pokemon franchise. We have come to our respective beliefs through personal research and introspection, and can speak truthfully from our own experience. Whether you like Pokemon or not doesn't change the fact that I think there's much to be appreciated in it. The inverse is equally true. In the end, though, neither one of us is qualified to make an absolute statement on its real value, or the impact (for good or ill) that it may have on other viewers. The best any of us can do is try to do the best we can, and to produce the best work we can. Then we set it loose, and let each reader (or viewer) draw their own conclusions. Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:53:32 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Chris, My old friend the late Orson Welles was on the Donny & Marie show at least once. He was not a member of the church although he did have two wives [just kidding]. Of course if Orson had been a member then his friends Kermit the frog and David Carradine would have been members too-- not to mention Gilda [Rita Hayworth]. I am hopeful the work will be done for Orson and his family someday. kind regards, Randall Larsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:32:07 -0600 From: Richard R Hopkins Subject: Re: [AML] Julie and _The Real World_ On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:08:50 -0700 "Eric D. Snider" writes: > If anyone's interested in what a Daily Herald columnist (OK, me) has > to say about Julie getting kicked out of BYU for her appearance on > "The Real World," you can read it at > http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/snide119julie.php3 . > > Plugging shamelessly, > Eric D. Snider I read the column and I've heard the arguments. So here's one more, for those not totally bored with this already. Here we have a young lady who is attractive and willing to put herself before the world, who actually projects a good image for the Church, firmly holding to her standards. What a great example. So what does the Church's university do? It slaps her down publicly, humiliating her as though she was lying about maintaining her standards. Why? For violating a rule that really is totally unrelated to what Julie did. (Seriously, is the rule against cohabiting, or is it against cohabiting with 24-hr a day chaperones in the form of TV cameramen who are continually filming your every move?) I know Clinton made this very unpopular, but one thing I learned to do as a lawyer was to take a close look at different fact situations and determine how to differentiate them for purposes of applying just principles of law. It seems that most people who are not lawyers are very bad at this particular exercise. Let me give you an example from tort law so you can see what I mean. Suppose I'm driving along and I run into the person in front of me. Is that my fault? Yes, you say. Always? Suppose the person in front of me stopped suddenly for no apparent reason? Too easy. Well, suppose the person in front of me stopped for a good reason and I ran into them because someone behind me was coming up very fast and I was trying to avoid a rear-end collision of my own. In my panic, I got too close to the person in front of me and hit them. My fault? (Actually, that really happened to me. It went to trial and I was found NOT liable.) What if the person in front of me saw the situation and could have moved forward a little bit to avoid my running into them? That is actually called "the last clear chance" doctrine. Whoever has the last clear chance to avoid an accident and doesn't, is liable. So, believe it or not, in that situation not only would I not be liable, but the person in front of me WOULD be liable! The point is that every real life situation is filled with nuances of fact. The Julie situation on Real World was clearly not even remotely in the minds of those who made up the "no cohabiting" rule. What I'm saying is that here, as in all of life, there's cohabiting and there's "cohabiting." It seems to me that such obvious differences should not be ignored. Now, on the other hand, there's an old saying that a bad example is always over-followed and a good example is always under-followed. So what does the Honor Code Office do when someone is to be sanctioned for "cohabiting" and they cite Julie as an example. Sure, the Honor Code Office could say, "Are you crazy? Can't you see that Julie's situation was totally different from yours? I mean, are you telling us, 'No really. I have MTV camermen filming me 24-hours a day while I'm cohabiting with my boy friend down in Springville'? 'Cause if you are, we'd like to see the film!" Well, that's probably what they should say, but let's admit that there are a few stupid people attending BYU who can't understand that difference. So what should the Honor Code Office do? Well, here's a suggestion. Why didn't they make a big public statement congratulating Julie on her and praising her as a fine example to the youth of the world, then say, "But we have this rule that you technically violated, and because we have some stupid people attending BYU who can't understand the difference and might use your situation as an excuse for their own cohabitation, we need to follow the letter of the law and suspend you for one semester (or whatever). We know you didn't do anything wrong. Heck, we have the film to prove it! But we really have no choice. We hope you'll understand and come back at the end of that time. We do want you to make a big announcement when you return that you will NOT be cohabiting with any members of the opposite sex.and that you have NOT cohabited since the Real World thing. Again we commend you on your fine example to the nation's youth and look forward to having you as a student at BYU once again." It's a thought. (Okay, this post has a very tenuous connection to Mormon literature, but I think it relate to the consequences of following a particular artistic vision . . . well, maybe. Whatta ya think, Jonathan?) [MOD: Iffy, but I'll let it through...] Richard Hopkins - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:55:59 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) At 07:05 AM 8/2/2000 -0700, you wrote: >[MOD: I note that at the current rate, none of us has a prayer of catching >up with Jeff on the review numbers...] > A few words of comfort: 1. I'm off work right now, on disability. This gives me a great deal more time to read and post. 2. Most of the reviews I'm posting are things I've had on file but just never had the time to finish them up and send them. 3. As some here know, I regularly volunteer at Deseret Industries in Chula Vista, Ca, where good LDS books come in regularly, at very reasonable prices. And so I humbly repent of the number of reviews I post . (N.B. My opinion -- the number of reviews isn't nearly as important as the quality of the reviews. As a non-member, I'm always working at a disadvantage, lacking the knowledge and familiarity needed to really work up a good review of many of the books I've read. You all are a great help to me as I work my way through this religion.) - --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com [MOD: No repentance needed on Jeff's part. What we need is for the rest of us to get off our duffs. For myself, I have at least four reviews I've been "planning" to do for about two years now...] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:17:16 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News Cathy Wilson wrote: > 5. The authors avoid discussing much specific on how a husband can help a > wife learn to respond sexually. I believe this could have been done > modestly and be very helpful. I appreciate Cathy's insightful critique into this book which has been intriguing me. I'm not so intrigued about getting hold of the book anymore. In particular, I'm fascinated by her wording above: "I believe this could have been done modestly and be very helpful." Not to criticize her wording, because I think she describes exactly the attitude toward discussions about sex that LDS members look for. But I'm trying to figure out what a "modest" approach to helping a wife learn to respond sexually would be. Beating around the bush? Using euphemisms for sexual acts and body parts instead of concise clinical terms? Only including techniques that are mild without regard to effectiveness so as not to offend? If a couple needs instruction on how to help one or both respond sexually, I seriously doubt a "modest" approach is going to help. Rather I suspect such an approach would perpetuate the problem, which is likely to be a combination of ignorance and/or unhealthy attitudes about sex. Being "modest" in describing solutions sounds to me like an approach which will neither alleviate ignorance nor heal attitudes. Never in any of the millions of Sunday School, Primary, Priesthood Meeting, Sacrament Meeting, Home Teaching, Seminary, Institute, or Fireside sermons I've been subjected to have I ever heard that living the law of chastity requires that we be ashamed or terrified of our bodies or of sex. We are taught that sex is a sacred power given to us by God, so why do we treat it like the filthy thing pornographers try to make us think it is? I understand this attitude is a cultural heritage that may not be easy for people to shake off, but how does it become so thoroughly misidentified as a Gospel requirement that few members of the church even think to question that categorization? For people hungering for information about a vital, intimate part of their eternal marriage relationship to receive nothing less than accurate and comprehensive imformation is a tragedy. To make "modesty" the concern that trumps all others in such a situation is a scandal. "Sorry, Mrs. Jones, I'd like to operate on you and remove your cancer, but I'd see your nude body if I did, and that would be immodest." I consider the hyper-repressed attitudes our society--especially our LDS society--have over sex and our bodies to be as destructive to our emotional health as cancer is to our physical health. What is so bad about talking or writing openly about sex? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:54:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News > We went to Provo yesterday and to an LDS bookstore. I skimmed through this > book. I was totally unimpressed. The authors write from a very archaic > viewpoint. True, I didn't seriously read the whole thing, > "supposed" to be "that way." > Obviously you only skimmed it. Most of your concerns could be answered by a careful reading of the text. Not that I thought it was great book - I much prefer the Christan version - "The Act of Marriage" By Tim and Beverly LaHaye. Unfortunately, many of the other manuals you reccomended were onew I would not suggest to anyone because I feel they offer unrealistic advice and make anyone who is not having ecstatic experience after ecstatic experience feel like a loser. Both the "Act of Marriage" and "Between H&W" at least don't give that false impression, though I prefer the way "The Act" handles it. - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:22:27 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) In a message dated 8/2/00 3:55:24 PM Central Daylight Time, richard_cracroft@byu.edu writes: [snip] As my son Jeff used to write at the end of every report, paper, book review (in jr. high school): And that's all I have to say about that! Richard H. Cracroft >> Wow, you have said a lot. Thanks, Richard. We will keep this painting, but it does nothing for me aesthetically. It is a big bunch of flowers, I think they are purple mums.BTW, if any old book collectors are out there you might be interested in an experience Stan and I had in Nauvoo last night to see City of Joseph. We went to the only book store in town--it reminds me of Sam Wellers place--and in the main case they had the Deseret Alphabet, pub. in 1868. We asked them what they were asking because we had two. They said maybe we should sit down. The price was $350. Stan picked up two in the church office building about 45 years ago for 50 cents. They wanted to get rid of a box full which they had out with a note saying "take what you want and leave 50 cents." We have made a good $1 investment. The temple in Nauvoo has a long way to go and it looks much smaller than I thought it would. Violet Kimball - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:33:38 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Grumpy Moderator Note Folks, I'm concerned that the discussion at present is wandering in a lot of directions not too closely connected with Mormon literature. I see this in both the _Real World_ thread and the _Between Husband and Wife_ thread, and to a lesser degree in the Pokemon and Nudity threads. Let's remember that our purpose here is to talk about Mormon letters. Certainly each of these topics has an appropriate connection with Mormon letters; but we need to be careful not to wander too far from that connection. And I'm concerned that these "peripheral" topics seem to be generating most of the List traffic right now, with little real discussion of Mormon art and artists. This isn't meant to point a finger at anyone. I for one enjoy pursuing tangential paths--on the theory that everything winds up connecting to art, and especially literature, in one way or another. But I also don't want us to lose track of the fact that Mormon letters is our central subject matter. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:52:56 -0600 From: Eileen Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > > [David Hansen] "A Room With A View" I believe would be an example, in my opinion, for nudity as art. A very well done scene in that film - men having an innocent "bathe at the sacred lake." Eileen Stringer eileens99@bigplanet.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Well, I had my laugh for the day, Barbara: "One taco short of a combo pla= te." Ha ha. I've never heard that before. Maybe I've had my head in the = beans. Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:27:22 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity David Hansen wrote: > > > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Anyone remember _The Bible_ back in the 60's? Adam and Eve were seen naked from behind. My Seminary teacher took his students to see it. _Schindler's List_, the shower scene. Very powerful and appropriatly displayed, imo. Any attempt to NOT show the hundreds of naked Jews running around confused and scared would have lessened the reality of the Holocaust by several factors. _The Graduate_. The quick cuts between Mrs. Robinson standing nude at the door and Dustin Hoffman's shocked expression accomplish its purpose of showing nudity while not titillating. _Waking Ned Devine_. Zefferelli's _Romeo and Juliet_. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:36:46 -0500 From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity David Hansen wrote: > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where > nudity would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > >[David Hansen] _Schindler's List_. Interestingly enough, this film was shown almost unedited on KSL channel 5, the Church-owned TV channel. One scene with possibly gratuitous nudity was edited, but for the most part the show was shown as Spielberg had intended, with considerable nudity -- none of which do I think conjured up much arousal in anybody. (Who would dare?) Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:36:04 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] _Mosquito Coast_ (was: Movie Viewing) "Barbara R. Hume" wrote: > > >Only one time in my life have I ever seen a film about which I knew > >nothing other than it's title before I saw it. I regretted it so much > >(the film was so bad) that I made a vow then and there to never darken a > >theatre without knowing as much about a film as I could. And you know > >what. I've never since been disappointed. > > The one that taught me that lesson was "Mosquito Coast." May I be so bold as to suggest that you missed the ENTIRE meaning of Mosquito Coast if you considered it worthless. MC exists as a film to teach us about the dangers of fanatacism. It shows that a too-faithful devotion to any ideal can lead to severe problems within one's own family and one's relationship with the rest of the world. I find its message particularly resonant among Mormons, who, in our zeal to "Follow the Brethren," can sometimes run the particular risk of embracing close-mindedness. MC shows there is a difference between believing in a cause and using devotion to that cause to inflict pain and agony on others. I saw MC as a cautionary tale against blind devotion to a cause, even a good cause. - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:29:02 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) >And so I humbly repent of the number of reviews I post . > >(N.B. My opinion -- the number of reviews isn't nearly as important as the >quality of the reviews. As a non-member, I'm always working at a >disadvantage, lacking the knowledge and familiarity needed to really work >up a good review of many of the books I've read. You all are a great help >to me as I work my way through this religion.) Your reviews are excellent, Jeff, so don't repent--write more! barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:50:51 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] _Mosquito Coast_ (was: Movie Viewing) >May I be so bold as to suggest that you missed the ENTIRE meaning of >Mosquito Coast if you considered it worthless. MC exists as a film to teach us about the dangers of fanatacism. Yes, I understood that that was the point. I just hated watching it. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:19:14 -0500 From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Is the new Donny and Marie show still on? I thought it had been canceled. But last nite I saw an interesting promo spot for the Donny and Marie show. They were doing a parody of the _Blair With Project_. This tiny little spot brings out in the open what we have been talking about for a couple of months concerning LDS literature. I certainly hope they weren't implying approval of this show. My guess is that they've never seen it. On a business trip last October to Australia, I found this movie on the list of films shown during the 13 hour trip. (We had small LCD TV's for each seat and could select which movies we wanted to watch.) I watched parts of Blair Witch and I was so appalled at the language that I couldn't continue watching it. Otherwise I might have been interested in it. Now Donny and Marie are doing a parody of it, hence the conflict of LDS ideals and the "evils of the world." This is a big problem with LDS literature, because it's hard to accurately portray life sometimes and at the same time attract LDS publishers and readers. How do you achieve an appropriate balance? Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:59:18 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing "Hollywood will get the message" that . . . A few points that I think might be worth making: First of all, there is no such entity as "Hollywood" responsible for = movie-making, just as there is no such entity as "Detroit" responsible for = automobile manufacturing. "Hollywood" is simply short-hand we use to = describe the literally hundreds of studios, stars, production companies, = independent producers and super-agents who have the power and resources to = green-light a picture. As William Goldman points out in his new book = (which rocks), you too can be a Hollywood producer. If you can raise = $50,000 by taking out a second mortgage, you can buy enough film stock and = rent the equipment needed to make a movie. We all know this, of course; = we all know that saying "they" should make more movies like God's Army is = silly. Richard Dutcher made God's Army, not some fictitious entity called = 'Hollywood.' But we do say this all the time in relation to films we = don't like; "why do 'they' make crass, tasteless films like this? Why = don't 'they' make more decent family entertainment." I have no idea who = was the muscle behind Nutty Prof II, but I assume Eddie Murphy was a large = part of it. And he made it because he thought it would be successful, = that it would make money. And he was right. To the extent, however, that the ad hominem usage of "Hollywood" perfected = by Michael Medved has any meaning at all, however, it would go something = like this: the main people in power in Hollywood share certain attitudes = and beliefs which are not widely shared by the mainstream American public. = They in general do not attend church or believe in God, and they = generally hold social and cultural beliefs that are unique to a few = neighborhoods in SoCal. And their sexual lives are quite shocking, and = casual drug use is rampant, and so on and so forth. So they tend to make = depraved movies, being depraved people. =20 I've been contributing to the list long enough for y'all to know that I = reject basically all the above premises. So let me add my own list to = Thom's excellent one. I think films get made for lots of reasons, and = that the people who make movies are as individual and idiosyncratic as the = people in any business. I also think that making movies is very difficult,= and that nobody knows what's going to be successful. Anyway, here's my = own subjective take on what Hollywood really believes: 1) Brand name loyalty. If we liked Mel Gibson in one movie, we'll like = him in any movie. If we paid to see Eddie Murphy clown around once, we'll = do it again. If we enjoyed The Bevely Hillbillies on television in the = sixties, we'll enjoy a remake on the big screen. If we liked one film = titled Lethal Weapon, we'll enjoy four more. And a new Star Wars flick = will gross 200 million even if it sucks. This is why the worst script in = the world becomes the best script in the world the second Tom Cruise = decides he likes the story. Remember, making movies is very difficult, = and nobody knows where magic will strike next. Brand name loyalty is one = way of bringing order to chaos. 2) Both men and women like movies that present a fantasy world; women a = fantasy world dealing with relationships, and men, a fantasy world dealing = with action and adventure. Men tend to make the decisions about which = movies couples see, but it's best if any movie has something for both men = and women. Thus Anna and the King, essentially a relationship movie, = concludes with some action sequences, while most adventure flicks also = feature a love story. (Remember, I don't agree with any of this. But = this is what I think 'Hollywood' thinks.) 3) The rating system is an essential part of marketing a film, and = carries no moral implications whatsoever. I can't emphasize this enough. = No one in Hollywood thinks he or she is making an immoral picture. Every = film made (with the possible exception of porn), is made by people who are = convinced they are doing good in the world, as they define it. Ratings = decisions are made solely on the basis of what the green-light folks think = will sell. Thus G-rated films are kiddie flicks, and they'll always do = well in the box office eventually, even if they tank on first release. = This is because parents, looking for a film to rent for the kids, go = straight to the children's section of New Releases, and pick something = they've heard of. If Iron Giant is in, great. Otherwise, let's grab = Inspector Gadget. How bad can it be? And since there are relatively few = G-rated films that get made annually, they all do well. (This is also why = The Straight Story bombed--it's rated G and it's not a children's film. = Bad marketing.) (This is also why people draw all the wrong conclusions = from these studies that show R rated movies doing poorly in the box = office.) R-rated means a seriously intended picture for grown-ups, with = lots of violent action and/or sexual material, which, remember, is = intended by the filmmakers to discourage violence or illicit sexual = behavior. A PG-13 rating means a film that is intended for teenagers, who = tend to have more discretionary income than grown-ups, and also less = discretion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The rating system = is without value in determining the possible or probable quality of a = movie, or the potential moral impact of it. Nor does any responsible = filmmaker pretend for a second that the rating system is anything but what = it is; a marketing tool.=20 4. Filmmaking is an art form, and scripts for tough, edgy, dark films that = explore difficult moral ambiguities in an intelligent, non-didactic way = are very rare. So when a green-light guy (and that could be a star, a = studio head, an indie producer, an agent, a big-name director) gets hold = of one, that film is probably going to get made even if it's unlikely to = make a lot of money. Money isn't the only motivating factor. Remember, a = lot of films get made because someone felt passionately about making it. = Period. =20 Let me take just a second and try, without the benefit of any actual = information, to decipher the process by which the last few films I've seen = got made: Anna and the King: there's a story that's been told several times before, = and really doesn't need to get told again, except that Jodie Foster wanted = to. And that meant, I'm guessing, that that script got moved to the top = of the pile. A lot of strange things happened in that film. Two = screenwriters are listed in the credits, which often means one guy wrote a = great screenplay, and then another guy got hired to Hollywoodize it. Thus = the silly action sequence at the end of the film, and the emphasis on the = love relationship between Anna and the King, which is a real yawner. = What's really interesting in that story is this king who has this amazing = tightrope to walk, wanted to 'modernize' without turning his country into = a colonial vassal. Without much help from the writers, the brilliant = actor Chow Yun Fat managed to capture all that in his characterization,whic= h means he stole the picture from its star, and darn near made it work = despite itself. =20 High Fidelity: An excellent Nick Hornsby novel that a lot of people = loved, especially John Cusack. He's not a big star, but he clearly got = behind the film, co-produced it, and got people like Catherine Zeta-Jones = and Tim Robbins to be in it for nickels. A labor-of-love picture, which = didn't do well financially, and realistically they probably knew it = wouldn't. R-rated, and a kind of sordid story, with an exceedingly = unattractive leading character. I loved it, BTW, but it does typify why = R-rated movies don't do well. Topsy Turvy--Gilbert and Sullivan and the making of the Mikado. I guess = it was R (I usually don't both knowing); this was a Mike Leigh film. = Major indie director doing his thing. A truly great, eccentric film, and = not a film that was going to make anyone rich. Why make an R-rated film = about Gilbert and Sullivan? What's the box office appeal? Why would = Hollywood make this film? It doesn't matter; Mike Leigh wanted to make = it, and did.=20 Cradle Will Rock: About the Federal Theatre project and censorship in the = arts in the thirties, and about Orson Welles directing Marc Blitzstein's = musical The Cradle Will Rock in 1936. A mess of a film, written and = directed by Tim Robbins. It's preachy, it's convoluted and confusing, = it's all over the map stylistically, it's uneven. I loved it, but don't = recommend it. But why make an R-rated film about the Federal Theatre = Project? Why does Hollywood make films like this? Answer: Hollywood = didn't. Tim Robbins did. He got people like Bill Murray and Susan = Sarandon and Vanessa Redgrave to be in it, again probably working for = peanuts. And the result is . . . what it is. =20 You see my point? Hollywood doesn't make films. People make films, each = for their own reasons. And then the marketing people take over, and work = with the director to trim or add material as needed to get the rating they = think they can sell. =20 Having said all that, let me echo what Thom said. Read, think, watch, = consider. And ignore the rating system. It is without value. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #122 ******************************