From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #646 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, March 14 2002 Volume 01 : Number 646 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:37:14 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] J.C. Duffy on _Brigham City_ (Part 3 of 3) [MOD: This is the last part of a three-part post from Scott.] (yes, Virginia; the torrent will end eventually...) John-Charles argues: <<< "The film's most horrific act of on-screen violence comes, of course, at the climax of the film, when Wes shoots Terry, blowing him out of his chair, in the presence of his wife." >>> Different tastes, I guess. The most graphic, perhaps. But not the most horrific in my mind. To me the most horrific act of violence was when an unseen gunman brutally kills Stu with no preamble, no opportunity for self-defence. Unlike Wes's repeated pleas that Terry stop the process that must inevitably lead to his death, Terry gave none of his victims a chance to choose their own fate. John-Charles continues: <<< "The film could easily have ended more peacefully: Wes could simply have wrestled Terry to the ground and cuffed him instead of standing there, ordering Terry to cuff himself while Terry calmly reassembles his gun, until things have reached a point where Wes is forced to shoot Terry in self- defense. But the film seems determined to bring about a violent ending. In fact, this ending looks uncannily like an act of blood atonement, a notion the film itself brings up early on." >>> Again, this is a case where I interpretted the film quite differently than John-Charles did. In my mind this is the moment of climax for Wes, the moment where he actually commits the sin that tortures his soul in the final scene. Of course a simple response is to say that evil must be utterly destroyed, and Terry has proven himself to be exactly that--unrepentant evil. Sin exists in Brigham City, but so far only Terry is truly evil. But I don't think that's actually what the film wanted to communicate, and I think other elements of the film argue for a different interpretation. Remember that Wes carries tremendous guilt about the car accident that killed his wife and child, an accident that he has absolutely no memory of. He fears that he somehow caused their deaths, and certainly bears the survivor's guilt for living even though they are dead. This fear is the thing that has seeded his complacency, his ongoing inaction in the face of encroaching evil. He is desperate to not cause the death of anyone else--perhaps part of his motivation in staying in Brigham City where he hopes he will have no need to kill in the line of duty. I hadn't considered the ending as an act of blood atonement until John-Charles suggested it, but I may be willing to accept that interpretation, if not in quite the way he describes it, because I don't think Wes ever considered the idea of blood atonement when he confronted Terry; it's an inside reference for those deeply familiar with Mormon culture, and a possible reflection of Dutcher's own belief. In the end the only possible act of contrition that could save Terry's soul in the eternities was willingly giving his own life in atonement for his sins, so I think Dutcher actually provided Wes with the one conceptual out that would allow him to shoot Terry and still find a way to forgive himself. Because in Wes's mind his own great sin was in not doing something earlier to stop Terry from committing what amounts to assisted suicide--just as he had failed to do anything earlier to stop Terry from murdering the citizens of Brigham City. This is the sin that Wes struggles with in the last scene--the act of omission that allowed his family to die, that led to the deaths of Stu and others of his congregation, and that finally required that he kill Terry. I believe Wes knows he could have stopped it earlier, that he could have wrestled Terry to the ground and forced him to comply. But Wes is also keenly aware of the issue of free will, of his bishop's duty to give people every opportunity to repent before pronouncing condemning sentence. I believe that Wes feels as guilty for killing Terry as he does for allowing the conditions that enabled Terry to kill others. (Okay, not for actually killing Terry--I think he knows that the act itself was both justified and right, though I also suspect he wished for his own non-existence at some point in the event, for freedom from the doubt and fear that's gnawed at him since his family's death.) It's all part of the same sin, the same paralysis in the face of predictable evil. It's the fundamental conflict he has in reconciling his role as judge--both as a law officer and as a bishop. It's the ongoing struggle to integrate his spiritual life with his secular one. I think Wes really does fear that he may learn to enjoy meting out lethal punishment, and fears what that means in term of his own spiritual health. That the people who have most right to fear him choose to stand with him in love and forgiveness at the end is a powerful resolution to this fear that has driven him since the very first scene in the film. That he finally forgives himself is even more powerful to me. (A digression into Scott's Own Life... When I was seventeen, I acted in a community theater version of "Pure As the Driven Snow: A Melodrama in Three Acts." I was Leander Longfellow, foreman of the local pickle factory and all-around hero and good guy, complete with white overalls and shoes to go along with the big cowlick and freckled cheeks. At the end of the second act I rescue the Good Girl from the Bad Man. The scene ends with me standing there in heroic stance, the girl clutched in one arm and my revolver in the other, pointed at the ceiling. The gun accidentally goes off, and a bird falls to the stage as the lights go down. During one of the matinees on Thursday, the light guy missed his cue and didn't bring down the lights. So I stood there on the stage with no lines to say, a confused look on my face, and a rubber chicken lying on the floor in front of me. After about ten seconds--an eternity of silence on stage--I pointed my gun at the back of the room where the spotlight was and fired. The light guy went with it and brought the lights down immediately, and we decided to keep the bit in the play for the remainder of the show's run. But in the seconds when I stood on stage looking perplexedly at that rubber chicken, the thought went through my mind that I wished the gun was loaded so I could shoot out that annoying spotlight, which of course I then pantomimed. But the thought of real violence had already occurred to me, and I went on to wonder what it would be like to shoot someone, whether the Hollywood special effects were accurate. As I waited backstage between acts, I went on to visualize what it would be like to see the impact of the bullet and how the body reacted, to see whether blood really sprayed out from the back and whether a person really lost consciousness on impact. I wondered what the wound would look like, and how much blood there would really be. Of course I never acted on that impulse, but the memory of having it stayed with me. A year later when the Marine Corps offered me a scholarship, a very real part of my decision not to accept it came from my own fear that I might actually enjoy closing with and killing the enemy. It was a part of my own psyche that I very much feared could be aroused, a latent desire, a fear that I could very easily come to enjoy killing--and even seek out opportunities for it under the justification that the enemy deserved it. Which proves only that I am a nearly ideal audience for this particular story. It resonates with me at a deeply personal level, and I brought a great deal of my own unresolved fear with me when I saw Brigham City.) John-Charles further argues: <<< "Even if I'm pushing too far in reading Terry's death as an act of blood atonement, the fact remains that Brigham City adopts a shockingly violent response towards those who are, or who are merely suspected of being, enemies of the community of Saints. We saw that same kind of response in God 's Army: the violently angry reaction of Dutcher's character to Elder Kinegar, the doubting missionary. Dutcher's films are not about turning the other cheek, or loving our enemies, or burying the weapons of violence. As we saw earlier, the philosophy promoted in Brigham City is that such Christlike behavior is impractical in our dangerous world. If we, the righteous, are to survive in the midst of the wicked, we need to learn mistrust. We need to learn to be unforgiving. We need to learn violence." >>> To me Terry knew darned good and well what the expected behavior of Mormons was--to turn the other cheek and just take it like good sheep. Both Terry in Brigham City and Elder Kinegar in God's Army were betrayers, people who wore the facade of inclusion in the community of the Saints primarily so they could use that inside position to mask their own sins. They used their inside knowledge to ensure their own safety and to manipulate the reactions of people they had come to see as silly and contemptable. But even the Savior was roused to righteous anger, and even Saints are justified in utterly destroying unrepentant evil from off the face of the earth. More importantly, though, neither version of Dutcher (as either Wes or as Elder Dalton) revelled in his violence. Both characters believed their violent reactions were justified, but neither believed that violence was the best response to the situation. Both struggled with the issue and sought repentence for it after the fact. Far from advocating violent response, I believe Dutcher suggests that violence--even when justified--is among the least favorable of responses, and is a matter of deep introspection and contemplation, both before and after the fact. Again, we just had radically different interpretations of the same scenes. John-Charles suggests: <<< "But the film rushes to assert that Wes should not be condemned. 'Nobody blames you,' Meredith assures him. 'You're a good man, Wes. You really are.' Actually, Meredith is mistaken: when Wes walks into sacrament meeting, we're given the impression that the ward does blame him, especially Ernie and Evelyn, the parents of one of the murdered girls." >>> Followed by: <<< "When the ward refuses to partake of the sacrament, are they saying to Wes: 'We don't think you merit condemnation in the first place; on the contrary, we think you're such a good man that if you're not worthy to take the sacrament, then none of us worthy'? Or are they saying: 'We think your negligence was blameworthy, but we forgive you'? (Though in that case I'm tempted to ask: Will Steve, or Judy Perkins, receive such ready forgiveness?) Or are they saying: 'We think your negligence was blameworthy, but we recognize that we've all been guilty of that same negligence and gullibility'? It's not clear. What is clear is that this scene is meant to restore our sense of the community's innocence (meaning guiltlessness). All is well in Brigham City as the final credits roll. The Saints have had a horrific experience, but they've learned from it how to protect themselves, and their virtue, from the threat posed by the outside world. The black and white worldview, the siege mentality, has prevailed." >>> I'm not sure that it matters whether the ward condemns Wes or not, or what basis they use in offering him their forgiveness. When he enters the room, Wes condemns himself and all other condemnations are to some degree irrelevant at that point. There is no room in Wes's heart for self-forgiveness; he knows he has failed his own expectation. Perhaps every single person in that room also condemned him--certainly several would be justified in such condemnation. Wes proves to be honest, to be broken hearted. He arrives late, dishevelled, and clearly downhearted. He doesn't take the pulpit to justify himself, and asks no one to forgive him. Perhaps he doesn't believe he's earned anyone's forgiveness. But he certainly doesn't believe that he has a right to ask for it--not while he stands condemned in his own eyes. But then the moment of grace occurs. The Saints discover a thing in both themselves and in each other that they had not imaginged: they discovered the capacity to set aside fear for just a moment--fear that they had been betrayed by incompetence or evil intent, fear that they were spiritually led by a man who could kill without remorse, fear that after being hoodwinked by one of their own they might discover yet another imposter in their midst, fear that evil had entered among them and would destroy them. Instead, they learned compassion. They learned to mourn with those that mourned. They learned to forgive even when they had justification not to. In seeing a man they knew to be good in heart condemn himself, they came to understand the need to treasure their community over their fear. They stood in solidarity with their bishop. They judged the judge with more compassion than he judged himself, and so taught him to forgive himself. In other words, the community changed. It grew beyond the passive, complacent faith in its own security to a more tested, active faith in its ability to survive and grow despite the evil they now knew they could not avoid. Rather than returning to the same old pattern, the community has been drawn together in a way they had not anticipated, a way they could never have planned for--and that they would never have sought on their own. Are they happy for their pain? Certainly not. But I think they are aware--or at least they become aware--that this pain has led to a new level of spiritual understanding and growth they could not have known by any other means. Restored the community's guiltlessness? Not in the film I saw. Restored the community's faith in itself, perhaps. But the world had already changed forever and they knew they could never go back. They grew up a little, and in the process were forced to put away some things that belonged to a former age. Evil dwelt among them and tested them, but they survived--changed but intact. Not the same, but better. Would the ward forgive Steve and Judy so readily? I don't know. We have no evidence that the ward has ever condemned them because we already know that Wes has kept confidence. But I think they learned that they have the capacity to do so--a critical knowledge that they could never have discovered had they not been tested by their brush with evil. Since they perceive that evil to have come from within, I question whether they really see evil as an external phenomenon. We already know that Wes will not share what he has learned in confidence, so I have no reason to believe that they even know that Terry was an imposter. Maybe they do; maybe they don't. I think it's irrelevant because I don't think this is a film about how Mormons should insulate themselves against the outside world, but rather is a film about how people should prepare themselves to deal with whatever evil it is that penetrates the veil of complacency, wherever that evil comes from. To me this film is not about petty judgmentalism and seeing the world in black and white, but rather is a story about discovering forgiveness within ourselves--and perhaps even a little nobility of spirit--and finding the capacity to become more than we were through a direct interaction with both good and evil. Remembering that for Mormons, the fall of paradise was the beginning not only of this vale of tears, but also of our greatest hope to learn and grow and become even as the Gods, knowing good from evil and choosing our course in knowledge, not superstition. We appear to have seen two very, very different films despite the startling similarity in images and dialog. A Counterargument ================= I've actually already presented all my arguments for a different interpretation of this film, so there's no real point to going over it again. I accept that John-Charles sees Brigham City as a simplistic object lesson about how evil only comes in from outside, and that Mormons only see the world in terms of right and wrong, black and white. Evil must be violently suppressed or we risk losing our innocence. In my mind innocence is already lost; now the question is whether we can regain compassion and overcome fear and condemnation--both of ourselves and of the Other--in light of that loss. To me Brigham City tells a story not about how all is well in Zion and all evil resides outside of it, but rather that evil is inevitable and the best we can do is prepare to deal with it, because there is no hiding from either the evil within or the evil without. Paradise, like Zion, is a glorious concept to be sought after with all our hearts and strength and faith--an act of overt creation through pain and joy and struggle and hope, not a thing that occurs to us passively. Intentional naivete can be survived, but it's neither a good thing nor a desireable one. The only way we can truly build it is by confronting our fear and pain and passing through it; only by confronting and defeating evil can we make it irrelevant. Only by leaving the paradise of someone else's creation--often forcefully (who would willingly leave paradise, after all?)--can we hope to learn the tools to build a paradise of our own creation, a paradise not of naivete but of the knowledge of good and evil. A story of loss, but also a story with a powerful promise. A story of sin and personal failure and not only the hope of redemption, but the very real fact of it as well. A simple story, perhaps--but not simplistic. At least not in my opinion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:24:47 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes - ---Original Message From: Harlow Clark > > You can probably learn as much as you need to know by > > strictly studying modern poets. But personally, I am forever > > grateful that I read (and discussed and analyzed) Donne and > > Eliot. By comparison, most modern poetry leaves me cold. > > But Eliot is the quintessential modern poet, and I would > suspect that a lot of what leaves you cold is a direct > working out of the forms and ideas in Eliot by his literary > descendants. Try making sense of "The Wasteland," > "Gerontion," "The Hollow Clucks," or "Ash Wednesday" on first > reading. Eliot and his miglior fabro, E Lb. created > poetry-as-dense puzzle-for-the-modern-age. I dislike modern poetry because it has no rules and is mostly un-reachable pap with a heavy tendency to privilege nature worship and faux-spirituality. I particularly dislike the tendency of modern poetry to be prose with randomly spaced carriage returns. If I can remove the line breaks from a poem and it turns into prose, then it just isn't poetry (IMO). And, on the other end of the spectrum, if I get the feeling that a poem is a scatological mish-mash of free-association then I'm not going to be very impressed, either. Now, I know that I've just vastly, and unjustly, over-simplified modern poetry, and I know that there are some good modern poets out there. Modern Poetry just makes it hard to weed out the garbage. The absence of poetic norms makes it tough to categorize modern poetry very well--leaving me without adequate filters to find the things I might enjoy. I don't have the time to search on my own, don't have an "editor" I can trust, and what little I *have* seen has been extremely disappointing. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:19:11 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Popularity of M*A*S*H Reading these responses has clarified my own thoughts on why M*A*S*H was/is such a popular show among Utahns/mormons. I agree that the show was well written, as Annette Lyon points out. But, for my family and I, the not so good parts of the show were enough to keep us from enjoying it. R.W. Rasband wrote: "Some not-so-good things about the show were its very '70's attitudes about sex and alcohol, and its cheap left-wing politics." Craig Huls wrote: "Most of us hated the Army and the war the ridiculous formations for clerks and accountants having to go out and fire weapons we never used. Not happy to be there. Making the best of what we had and praying that those we were sending to VN would make it back home to their families with their lives and all their body parts. What kept us united was each other, not the silly routines that made the 'lifers" happy. I guess M*A*S*H allows me to remember with a smile, a tear, and gratitude a time of my life that might otherwise be considered a time of 34 months down the tube." >From Craig Huls we get a good example of the lack of understanding or sympathy many mormons hold for soldiers (who he refers to in his post as "lifers"). Sometimes, this attitude goes as far as disdain and contempt. I have found this attitude to be fairly prevalent among mormons, Utah mormons in particular. M*A*S*H caters to this attitude in its unswerving dedication to promulgating the idea that all soldiers are morally bankrupt and would never, given their druthers, have chosen to actually go to war for their country, thus allowing the audience to feel good about not volunteering or about harboring prejudice and hatred for men and women in uniform. We watch shows, and read books that reinforce our own beliefs or justifications. Why do many mormons have such a nasty attitude towards soldiers? Perhaps it's just plain prejudice, I'm not sure. I've experienced the effects but I have no idea as to the cause. As to the idea that the show helped Vietnam vets feel better: Craig Huls wrote: "I do not recall when M*A*S*H first hit TV but I believe it went a long way towards helping VN veterans feel a little better about a war that was a politicians war drummed up to keep the bankers and the manufacturers happy." The combat veterans of Vietnam that I know are all disgusted by the show's completely one-sided parroting of the media's politics of the time period. Which politics, by the way, (in that they influenced politicians who wanted to get re-elected more than they wanted to do the right thing) led to the execution of over a million South Vietnamese when the North swept into the South after the U.S. broke its pledge to support the South with troops and supplies. [MOD: I'm allowing Ethan his response on this point, but I'd *really* like to avoid getting into a discussion of the pros and cons of the Vietnam war here. Let's just acknowledge that different people have different views of it and leave it at that, okay?] I'll point out here, because it makes a connection to mormon letters, that I have been greatly disappointed with the treatment of soldiers in the mormon literature that I have read. Everything from the novel "Here Stands a Man" by a Yorgason to short stories by Douglas Thayer paint soldiers in a negative light. The assumption seems to be that anyone who would choose to be a soldier is somehow flawed, doomed to be or become a "bad person." In my own writing I strive to present a balanced portrayal of soldiers, a group of people that includes at least as wide a variety of character types as the population at large. And in my towering arrogance I am of the opinion that others could benefit from following the same practice. Sgt. Ethan Skarstedt 1/19th Special Forces Utah Army National Guard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:29:19 -0500 From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: RE: [AML] "Name Withheld" Sugar Beet Article I thought the idea that ALL of the articles with tagline "Name Withheld" were actually written by one person whose name was Sister Name Withheld was very funny. One of my friends didn't get it at first either, but after I explained it to her then she thought it was actually quite funny, too. I think that people might be having the initial negative reaction simply because of the seriousness of suicide, which, frankly, no one *likes* hearing about. But I liked it, anyway... To Chris, congratulations on having your Sugar Beet idea made real! I don't even mind when the articles seem to be poking fun at me. (i.e., when I read about the band that sucks, but, hey, they're appropriate/inspired, I must admit, memories of one of my past posts came to mind)...(*sheepish grin*) Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself, you're likely to go the way of Sister Name Withheld... Kristy Thomas >From: Christopher Bigelow >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: "'aml-list@lists.xmission.com'" >Subject: RE: [AML] "Name Withheld" Sugar Beet Article >Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:30:18 -0700 > >Huh. We're already embroiled on staff about whether this piece makes fun >specifically of suicide, and now you've added a new wrinkle. > >I have to say, I felt absolutely no reservations and absolutely no vibes of >misunderstanding or insensitivity regarding this piece (whereas with the >Packer piece previously discussed, I felt a teensy bit of hesitation). I'm >surprised it seems to be this issue's hot spot (I thought my LaBute piece >might provoke, but it hasn't so far). > >Clearly Eric is sending up the Ensign's Name Withheld scapegoat used for >nearly all the sins discussed in the magazine, and he has taken it to the >next bizarrely logical step for humorous purposes. I don't see how it could >be read as making fun of all the actual ills that have been heaped onto >Name >Withheld's head (Lord knows I've suffered a few of them myself, or been >intimately involved with those who have). > >I wonder what the hot spot in the NEXT issue will be . . . (I hope we >always have at least one, or we're doing something wrong.) > >Chris Bigelow > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:41:17 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] _Saturday's Warrior_ Doctrine Chris, I'm not always sure what you hear in your ward. In mine I have heard just as much about "making things work" ourselves (with our will) as I have that we are constantly directed (actually more). As for the variable of "chance" that may be pre-empted by faith, I don't see it as "rare" at all. It happens routinely among those I know. Anyway, I hear ALL the words ALL the time and mostly look past them to the spirit of the thing. Cheers! Marilyn - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:11:15 -0600 From: "Kumiko" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report March 8 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) by Tom Baggaley and Preston Hunter, www.ldsfilm.com Weekend of March 8, 2002 SHERIFF WES COMES HOME: According to Amazon.com, the video and DVD versions of "Brigham City" will be on sale as of April 30, 2002. The movie is currently still playing in a couple theaters in Canada. HOOP DREAMS: Trent Hanson, a native of Utah (and Latter-day Saint) who was an actor for many years in Los Angeles, is in the pre-production stage on a feature film. Hanson wrote the script and will direct. The plot focuses on "Jaron Peterson", a Latter-day Saint basketball star who finds himself torn between the values he was brought up with and the NBA lifestyle. Filming is scheduled to begin in May, and a Fall 2002 release date is planned. ARIZONA LOVES HEAVEN: Mitch Davis's "The Other Side of Heaven" opened this weekend in over 20 theaters all over Arizona (with a large number in Phoenix). This gave the film a big boost at the box office, with a weekend take more than double last week's figures. Interestingly enough, "Heaven" was only 3 places behind "Ocean's Eleven" in the national rankings, although "Ocean's" was in three times as many theaters. The movies, both with young LDS main characters played by non-LDS actors, opened within a week of each other. "Ocean's Eleven" has earned over $182 million domestically. SINGLES WAR: Salt Lake Tribune reviewer Sean P. Means wrote another article about Kurt Hale's film "The Singles Ward." Means' article, "After 'The Singles Ward' Got Raked Over the Coals, Readers Did the Same to Me," published in the Tribune on Sunday, March 10, 2002, was his second article about the movie written since it was released, in addition to his review. In this latest article he quoted many of the letters he received in response to his negative review of that movie. He said he has never received a heavier or angrier reader response in reaction to a movie review. Last week "The Singles Ward" had one of its best weeks yet at the box office, taking in over $38,000, for a cumulative total of over $300,000 (or 75% of its total budget). This is $8,000 more than last weekend's total. A source who works for the film's distributor, HaleStone Distribution, claimed that positive word of mouth is responsible for this. The latest total (including Monday night's revenue) means that "The Singles Ward" has now earned more than the $299,200 box office total of James Merendino's 1999 movie "SLC Punk!," which was also about young single people in Salt Lake City. SURVIVOR: NELEH -- Neleh really, really, really rocked on the 2nd week of "Survivor: Marquesas." Let's be honest: On the first week, she didn't get much air time. But this week, SHE WON THE IMMUNITY CHALLENGE. Not just her team. Her. Both teams were challenged to eat a horrific, Stygian raw fly-covered fish-in-seawater dish (a local Tahitian delicacy). Every member of both teams was able to get one of the fish down. That meant that the two teams were tied. The tie breaker? One member of each team was chosen to race in eating an ENTIRE BOWL of the raw fish. Here's the kicker. Each team chose the contestant from the OPPOSITE team. Well, Neleh was Rotu's "weakest link" during the initial phase of the competition. The other team saw that she had the most difficulty getting the raw fish down. (Not a popular food in Layton, apparently.) So Neleh was chosen. And she triumphed, finishing off the bowl of raw fish while the other team's contestant couldn't finish his. Afterwards everybody (on the Rotu team) cheered Neleh. It was incredible! This ten-minute block of television was more thrilling, more interesting, had more heart than 97% of the feature films released by Hollywood during 2001. [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days - --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 39 Ocean's Eleven $114,252 102 94 LDS characters: Malloy twins 182,023,645 42 The Other Side of Heaven 86,424 38 87 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 1,650,841 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 44 Behind Enemy Lines 52,562 121 101 David Veloz (screenwriter) 58,767,833 45 Mulholland Drive 49,150 42 154 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 7,015,283 51 The Singles Ward 38,375 16 38 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 290,315 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson Lincoln Hoppe, Tarance Edwards Michelle Ainge, Gretchen Whalley Sedra Santos, etc. 73 Galapagos 8,017 3 864 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,393,191 80 China: The Panda Adventure 5,674 5 227 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,988,129 85 Mark Twain's America 3D 2,837 1 1347 Alan Williams (composer) 2,169,247 89 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 2,803 2 675 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,103,294 107 Island of the Sharks 671 2 1046 Alan Williams (composer) 10,647,192 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:24:44 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: Re: [AML] "Name Withheld" Sugar Beet Article Thom Duncan: > > > > >In the article by Eric Snider http://www.thesugarbeet.com/ entitled "Name > > >Withheld Finally Commits Suicide:" ... well, I have mixed emotions. > > > > > >I *hope* that Eric is making fun of the Ensign's policy to not name authors > > >of certain kinds of articles and *not* making fun of the people who have > > > > >those problems. > > > > Closer to the former, and not at all the latter. Eric was imagining that those Ensign articles were not anonymously written, but had in fact all been written by someone whose name actually was Name Withheld, like when you joke about how this 'Occupant' person sure seems to get a lot of mail at your house. (At least I joke about that; I assume the thought has crossed others' minds, too.) > > Eric D. Snider - ---------- Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:24:51 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Desensitized Nudity At 03:29 AM 3/12/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Clark Goble wrote: > >If our society assumes an inherent sexuality in the act of undressing, >then that's precisely the thing I'm decrying--the artificial cultural >sexualizing of an inherently nonsexual act. Neither undressing nor >nudity need be construed as sexual if we're not socialized throughout >our lives to believe it. That contextual meaning is artifically imposed >by culture, not inherent in the situation. Actual acts of flirting, >foreplay and sex are what make things inherently sexual, not a state of >dress. >> Further, if she does things like close >> curtains, close the door and so forth, don't those actions (context) show >> that her act is in fact sexual? > >This intrigues me. I would have expected the opposite argument. So >closing one's curtains is sexual, and leaving them open is not. Okay, >I'll play along. Since in my scenario the voyeur could see her >undressing, she obviously has the curtains open and therefore is >communicating that this is not a sexual act. > >Try that one on your wife, she what she says. > >-- >D. Michael Martindale >dmichael@wwno.com I don't exactly know how to approach this, but the ultimate sexual"ness" of the act of a woman undressing is an act with a wide variety of meanings. Undressing in the closet or hiding from a possible voyeur is certainly an act of sexual awareness as would be the langourous article by article disrobing in a state where the shadow is thown on the window blind. Both of these convey and absorb meanings. I will have been married fifty years in 2008. I have seen and experienced all kinds of sexual and "anti" sexual messages from my dear wife in that time. I can tell you that her routine of dressing and undressing is very consistent, but I can usually tell instantly (without any discernable change) when there is a sexual communication in either activity. (d or und). And those sexual messages can have a wide variety of meanings within them that create further message carrying phenomena. (Ick, I am on the verge of sounding vaguely like that ultimate oxymoron the post modernist.) Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:32:20 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Desensitized Nudity "Tracie Laulusa" writes: I wonder if any of us can really overcome the cultural conditioning along with the 'way we are wired' (to borrow from Eric Samuelson) to be totally unaware of the sexuality of the opposite sex. I think we can act like we are, and maybe even come very close, but totally....? Maybe all the Finnish Sauna people have an opinion on that one. I've never personally been put to the test. > > To put it as simply as possible--no. You can't become totally oblivious of the sexuality of the opposite sex, but that's a good thing or it can be a bad thing. It could be bad because it could put you in jail for a year--if you're a massage therapist. The reason it can be a good thing is that the same energy that is used for sexual arousal is also used for spiritual evolution. It is channeled differently. And believe it or not the post does have a connection to Mormon literature. I recently read Chris Bigalow Missionary Memiour. It was absolutely brillient. The thing that was so beautiful to me was how well and how forcefully he illustrated this idea of sexuality leading to spirituality, which is enhanced and stregthened by sexual frustation. Brillient job Chris--I mean Christopher, sir. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:48:40 -0500 From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: Re: [AML] _Saturday's Warrior_ Doctrine [MOD: I'm letting this go out as Kristy's own personal reaction to _Saturday's Warrior_. However, I don't want to start down the road of either denigrating other people's tastes because they like _Saturday's Warrior_, or denigrating people's spirituality and charity because they don't. (Or vice versa, for that matter.) It's fine to share personal reactions, and especially either virtues or concerns you think you see in this or any other work of Mormon lit. But let's be careful not to suggest in our own posts, or read into someone else's post, criticism of other people for the different views they may hold. 'Nuff said.] I don't think there is a song that grosses me out more than.... "I've seen that smile somewhere before I've heard that voice before It seems we've talked like this before..." Oooohhh, that was painful to even type! I have a distinct gagging feeling in my throat! Help, help, someone grab a trash receptacle! I agree with Chris...some people have taken the notion of "Cursed is he who confesses not the Lord's hand in all things" to extremes, and I don't like the literature (or whatever you could classify the above / SW to be) that implies pre-destiny rather than fore-ordination. "Jimmy, oh, Jimmy don't listen to them How can they say they're your friends?" (Yes, as you can tell, I was a childhood SW junkie - I KNOW all the songs and I will never forget them...no matter how hard I try...") "I take this paper in my hand... And with a pencil draw a man" (AUGH!!!) We also believe--don't we?--that nothing thwarts the plan of God, so if someone fails to live up to their duty, whether, you, me, prophet, or missionary, God will raise someone else to do the work... not that we won't be accountable for the good we might have done... Kristy Thomas - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #646 ******************************