From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #970 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, February 6 2003 Volume 01 : Number 970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:41:13 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Lit and Interesting Questions Barbara hume wrote: "...and in this one a character says that in the Atonement, Jesus not only suffered for our sins, but also took on himself the grief we feel when life deals us a dirty blow... Is this something you've always understood? Have I slept through too many Sunday School lessons?" Barbara, I don't think you've slept through too many SS lessons, rather it's a concept that isn't taught forcefully enough sometimes. The answer is YES, but I don't know that I've always understood it. Rather, I came to an understanding when I had a real need for the atonement to function that way in my life. You can't really forgive if you can't get over being victimized. And you can't get over being victimized unless there is somewhere to put all that anger, grief, confusion. To tie this to Mormon letters, two books that helped me understand the power of that side of the atonement were IN THE ARMS OF HIS LOVE by Steven A. Cramer, and BELIEVING CHRIST by Stephen E. Robinson. Also check out THE BONDS THAT MAKE US FREE by Terry C. Warner. It's subtitled "Healing Relationships, Coming to Ourselves". It's not as easy to read as the other two, but it's worth digesting. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:59:29 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Disappointing People Stephen Carter wrote: > Last night my wife wondered aloud what might have happened had our housemate > been our bishop? It is evident that our completely different viewpoints of > life, our different conversation styles, and our differing backgrounds have > made communication on such an important topic as religion next to impossible. > If she had been my bishop and had harbored her opinion of my spirituality, > would my Church membership have been in jeopardy? Very likely so. I know from personal experience (of some close friends, not me) how a person's membership can be put in jeopardy because of the biases of one individual who is in authority. > It seems that Mormonism, with its mixture of a close social network and a > powerful hierarchy, offers plenty of opportunities for people to severely > injure each other because they don't understand each other. And we arteeests > and akademiks almost make a living by putting ourselves in a position where we > can be misunderstood. I've been starting to think that, just as sometimes we > cannot simply run away from evil, sometimes people's displeasure at our work > can pursue us relentlessly and even cause us injury. So what else is new? It's the lot of artists and prophets and other culture-shakers from time immemorial. It comes with the territory. So if you can't stand the heat... - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:08:39 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] R-Rated Movies Jerry Tyner wrote: > D. Michael, > > Next time we are in Utah please let us know what week you are teaching. I would love to sit in on your lessons!! We as a people need many more people who make us think as we leave Church rather than just say: "That was a wonderful lesson/sermon." (fill in the blank) I've been assigned the second week of every month. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:31:30 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] _Ender's Game_ Movie I recently went to OSC's Hatrack site and read up on the upcoming movie of Ender's Game. I must admit I was disappointed. It says that Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow will be combined into one movie. To me the conclusion of Ender's Game is so powerful that I can't imagine another book being tacked on and having the end result still have the same power. I suppose I'll have to read Ender's Shadow soon. But I'm still irked that Ender's Game won't be standing on its own. I'm interested to hear what those of you who have read both books think. Do you think the movie will lose strength by being two books crammed into one movie? It certainly didn't work with one of my other favorite series, only in that case it was three books in one movie. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:31:32 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Movie Editing at BYU My personal favorite was when they edited Kenneth Brannaugh's "Much Ado About Nothing" (not rated R). It's important to the plot to understand that the character John is illegitimate, which is why he hates his older brother so much and does villanious things. But they bleeped out "John the bastard" as if the speaker were swearing instead of explaining the bad guy's background. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:05:41 -0700 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Music Mike South wrote: >My sense is that these filmmakers see the soundtrack as a marketing tool >rather than an integral part of the film ... The disparity between the film >and its soundtrack got me to thinking... Speaking as a film composer, I have to say this is a problem that has existed in Hollywood for decades. How many movies have had popular songs tacked on that have basically no connection to the film in the hopes of increasing soundtrack sales or attracting people to the film? Probably most noticeable is when such songs are placed over the end credits, but many times a few seconds of a song are heard as source music over a radio and then it somehow becomes the key element of a soundtrack. In the R.M., portions of several of the reworked hymns and primary songs are played as background music at a singles dance. The question, then, is when you buy the CD, are you really buying the soundtrack? Well, technically yes, although the songs play a far less important role in the film than you would be led to believe. >How important is music to telling a story? More important than most filmmakers will give it credit. Okay, I know I'm biased as a film composer myself. It's true that music cannot save a bad film, but well done music can turn a good film with a good story into a great one. Or, poorly done music can hurt an otherwise good film. I would argue that although most theater-goers do not consciously pay attention to the music, that music still has a profound influence on the perceived quality of the film to audiences and the effectiveness of its storytelling. The problem is that of all the areas of filmmaking - from lighting to costumes to cinematography to editing, etc. - the one area of filmmaking where most directors and producers have the least technical knowledge is in music. To do it right costs money and takes time, yet this is one of the first areas to be cut when the budget is tight. Plus, after the director and editor have spent months editing the film together and missed their projected deadlines by several weeks, the composer is often expected to make up for lost time and throw a 60-minute score together in far too little time so the film can be released on time. Another common practice among low-budget productions and a huge mistake in my opinion is to take a bunch of prerecorded tracks from a music library, find one with a mood like you are looking for and slap it onto the film (a.k.a. needle drop music). What you lose when you do this is the precise synchronization and sensitivity to the emotional development and the storytelling of the film that a skilled composer can bring to the music. Music does not just create a mood for a scene or montage to play on. Well written music makes a statement - it reveals something beyond what is simply on the screen. It also makes the action of that scene play like a well-choreographed ballet. If you've never considered this, take a look, for example, at the chase scene near the end of E.T. Without the music, it's just a bunch of kids on bikes being chased by adults in cars. But John Williams carefully matches the pace of the action - even to the speed of the kids' pedaling. The chase becomes more like a dance on bicycles than anything else. It is the music that makes the audience part of the action, rather than observers, because you feel the rhythm and pacing as if you were on the bicycles yourself. When using needle drop music, filmmakers sometimes try to compensate for this lost element by cutting their films to try and match the preexisting music, but do you really want the pacing and editing of your story at the mercy of some music that wasn't even written with your story in mind? Another thing that a well-conceived musical score does for a film is to give it a sense of unity. Key emotional points in the film are accompanied by appropriate themes which then reappear later in the film, helping to tie events together. You may not even notice these themes consciously. But the effect is still present. While I was at UCLA, I had the wonderful opportunity to study film scoring with a true master of the craft, Jerry Goldsmith, who has been writing music for film and television for over 50 years, including such films as "Patton", "Planet of the Apes" (the original), several of the "Star Trek" films, most recently "The Sum of All Fears" - which I thought had an absolutely wonderful score - and about 200 others. A couple of things he said really strike home for me. "The function of a score is to enlarge the scope of a film. I try for emotional penetration - not for complementing the action." "There should be a structure, an architecture, to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." I think those are the trademarks of a well-conceived score. Yet so often, film scores are just pieced together tracks that do little more than create a temporary mood. Important opportunities are missed, and as a result, films have less impact than they ought to. A lot of the problem for the scores of LDS-themed films lies in their small budgets. I'm not sure what the financial arrangements were for the recording of the redone hymns for "The Singles Ward" and "The R.M.", but I know that the budget for the rest of the score was exactly $0. And it shows. Kurt Hale's uncle did some of the underscore with some pretty cheesy orchestral synths, and they also used a lot of public domain needle drop music on "The R.M." You really can't do anything with the typical music budget on an LDS feature. You have to remember that the music budget includes any studio time, hiring musicians, paying your composer - everything necessary for producing the music. Even for an all-synth score, there are the costs of choosing the appropriate samples, buying them if they are not already in the composer's library, and then there's a huge amount of extra time involved for the composer if he is going to properly tweak the synth performance to make it as effective as it can be to make up for the lack of acoustic instruments. (Most composers prefer to at least do a mix of synth and acoustic instruments when there is a limited budget, because the acoustic instruments can help to give the music a little more of the expressiveness that would take a great deal of work to achieve on a synth.) Gary Rogers has indicated that for his Book of Mormon movie they plan to use the London Symphony. Well, for a typical feature film paying a decent orchestra costs about $100,000 - and that's without paying the composer a cent yet for all the work that goes into writing a full orchestral score. That takes a huge chunk out of an estimated $2 million budget. Assuming that all these figures are accurate and they actually do use the London Symphony, it is obvious he is giving the music a higher priority than many filmmakers do. >Can (or should) the music be as important to the progression of the plot >and development of character as the acting, directing, and script? Yes, it definitely can. I can list off a bunch of films to demonstrate this, but I'll settle with just one - "Laura". If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Without "Laura's Theme", that film just doesn't work. The music is as important to the development of the plot and characters in that film as anything the characters do or say. Should it? I guess you'd have to take that on a film-by-film basis, but on the whole, I would say there are more missed opportunities to use the score in this way than there are films that try to do so and should not have. On the other hand, filmmakers should not rely on the music to save a film that is dreadful in any other way. Music can work magic, but not that kind. >Are there possibilities for using music to tell our stories outside of film >or theater? Obviously. In fact, telling a story with music was a major driving force in music throughout the 19th Century. >Is music inherently manipulative when used in conjunction with telling a >story? Not necessarily, but that seems to be a different discussion entirely. Is acting inherently manipulative? Is the act of editing a film inherently manipulative? When you say inherently manipulative, what do you mean? Enough for now... Thomas - ------------------ "What I find sad is the number of missed opportunities. Because when you see a great film score, your jaw just drops .... Film scores could be so powerful, and they tend not to be." - Richard Kraft Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:23:43 -0800 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Nominations for AML Awards I meant to ask this question -- do these rules apply for reviews, too? T= hat is, should=20 reviewers refrain from reviewing theology books, biographies, etc? [Jeff Needle] [MOD: I'm going to go ahead and answer this, at length, because I think I'm the one to answer at least part of this question, and because I'd rather not take up an entire additional post on this. First, _Irreantum_, the AML awards, and AML-List are three distinct things. In the case of Irreantum, the focus is clearly bellelettristic, and Chris and the other editors of that journal decide what types of works they feel are worth reviewing for that venue. (I think they typically include only literary works or works that follow the general guidelines Chris mentioned.) The AML awards are officially sponsored by AML and run through the AML board, and typically refer a bellelettristic focus, though with some aberrations as I think Chris pointed out. AML-List, on the other hand, is a free discussion forum, sponsored by AML. Since publication of a review here does not involve any outlay of funds on AML's part, I as moderator am pretty loose about reviews that I allow to run here. (Since AML-List is the portal of reviews which are subsequently included on the AML web site in the reviews archive, I figure that my decisions are also the ones that ultimately decide which reviews go into that archive--at least as matters are currently arranged.) I'm not sure I've ever excluded a review of a Mormon book simply because it's not bellelettristic in focus, although clearly bellettristic books are closer to the heart of our focus. So the short answer is: If you're talking about reviews on AML-List or on the AML-List archive, the standards are a lot looser than for awards and _Irreantum_ publication. --Jonathan Langford, AML-List Moderator] 2/3/2003 7:32:05 PM, Fred C Pinnegar wrote: >I was going to back out of this conversation with an =93excuse me,=94 an= d =93pardon my >rant about the dimensions of the AML awards,=94 but it seems that there = is an >ideological conflict between what the AML website says about the aims of= the AML >and what Chris and Melissa say about it. > >Chris says: =93It=92s also VERY important to remember that the AML=92s f= ocus [is] on >belletristic literature, not ALL written literature in Mormonism. To rem= ind >myself again what that word means, I just looked it up and found =93lite= rature >that is an end in itself and not merely informative.=94 > - ------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:52:01 +0900 From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Editing at BYU In 1985, when I was at Ricks College, they showed "A Christmas Story" on campus, and then proceeded to blank out every swear word that was said by the father, and the swear word uttered by the son when he realizes his secret decoder ring is advertising for Ovaltine. As Thom as stated, it was laughable. Unfortunately for those in the theater, my friends and I proceeded to loudly fill in the blanks. Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:10:00 -0700 From: Deborah and Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] R.M. Movie Soundtrack I wrote: > My band recorded the other version of of "Onward Christian Soldiers" on the > soundtrack (not the "hey ho" one) and then Christine Atkinson wrote: > Hey Mike, > When did Strech Armstrong record the song? Did the band get back > together to do the recording? (For some reason, I thought that the > filmmakers snagged an "unauthorized" version for the movie. ) And > why don't I have it in my collection? It was in late October shortly after our reunion concert. I was a little wary about the idea at first because we had never written or recorded any religiously-themed music before, but the producer (Scott Wiley, an extremely talented person with whom we had previously worked), and the opportunity for a little extra cash around the holidays changed my mind. All credit for the arrangement of the song goes to our drummer, Dave Thomas. He worked the whole thing out in his head and then we started rehearsing it two-days before we recorded it. And after that bit of fun, Stretch Armstrong faded quickly back into non-existence. As for why you don't have the song in your collection yet, well...next time you're in town, I'll make sure you get a copy . (For those of you who don't know--and I imagine that's everyone on the list--Christine is my extremely talented sister-in-law.) Now for a Mo-lit connection to keep this post list-worthy. Hmm...well I'll pose a question following this bit of background info: approximately half the members of our band (there were eight of us) were LDS, the other half were not. With the lone exception of the song on this soundtrack, nothing we recorded had specifically Mormon or religious ties. My question is, can art that is produced collaboratively be considered Mormon art if the only distinctly Mormon quality about it is the church membership of some of the collaborators? - --Mike South - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:26:48 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] _The Ring_ (was: R-Rated Movies) Okay, I finally saw "The Ring", a movie some of us here on the list liked. If you haven't seen it yet and still want to, you should stop reading here. I thought this was a terrific film. It had some thematic elements which surprised me. There was the downbeat ending, where the plucky feminist reporter made things worse instead of better (the warnings crazy old Brian Cox gave Naomi Watts turned out to be correct.) A "special needs" child turned out to be horrifically evil (although one or two others depicted weren't.) A horse met a graphic death (although the film carried the usual "no harm was done to any animals" disclaimer.) So why did the film turn out to be so popular? Because it is scary as h-e-double hockey sticks. A rare horror film that actually has you dreading the next scene because it's so good, not because it's so bad. I saw it with a packed house, and I don't think I've seen audience hysterics like that since "Carrie" or "Poltergeist." If you go back over the story you can find some inconsistencies, but it's mostly well-written and thought out. A puzzle where the pieces actually fit together. Although some things were left deliberatley vague. What *is* Samara, and where exactly did she come from? And of course there's the strong, almost overpowering imagery, mercifully seen mostly in quick cuts and glimpses. So why should a Latter-day Saint bother with "The Ring"? First, because it's rated PG-13, not R (heh, heh, heh.) Second because the characters have real humanity, as they struggle with forces beyond their control and are brought down by their own flaws. You can learn empathy in the movies, as well as in real life. I particularly have a crush on Naomi Watts. Fresh here from her triumph in "Mulholland Dr.", she gives a feisty, three-dimensional performance as a working mom who comes to realize what's really important (another surprising thematic element.) I wish she had gotten more recognition earlier in her career like her friend and fellow Australian Nicole Kidman. Finally, the horror genre is like tragedy. You have little artistic rehersals of the bad things in life that inevitable occur. So you can sort out and work through your feelings. And discover what's eternal. (Even if, like in "The Ring", it's that evil never sleeps.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:16:13 -0800 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Effects of DB Policy 2/4/2003 9:48:15 AM, "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > >I didn't know it was my job to further the goals of the church. I >thought the church was supposed to further the goals of the church. I'm >supposed to further my goals. Of course, the issue isn't what YOU perceive as your job, but rather how Deseret Book perceives any given work to further the mission of the Church. I'm guessing your good book will never see the light of day if you're depending on them. - ------------------ Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com "I have a personal philosophy of deeply confused ambivalence." (Jasmine Cresswell, "The Conspiracy") - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:17:03 -0700 (MST) From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: RE: [AML] Nominations for AML Awards This response was posted already, but it was garbbled in transmission. I was going to back out of this conversation with an "excuse me," and "pardon my rant about the dimensions of the AML awards," but it seems that there is an ideological conflict between what the AML website says about the aims of the AML and what Chris and Melissa say about it. Chris says: It's also VERY important to remember that the AML's focus [is] on belletristic literature, not ALL written literature in Mormonism. To remind myself again what that word means, I just looked it up and found "literature that is an end in itself and not merely informative." My reply: First, the AML website says nothing about the organization being focused on belletristic writing, and the term is not used there at all. In fact, the first sentence there reads: "By Mormon Letters We Mean. . . literature by, for, and about Mormons and criticism of same. We mean essay, family history, autobiography, children's literature, sermon, and the literary dimensions of scripture. Or join the conversation and come up with your own definition. Second, the term "belletristic" is anachronistic and nonsense as a concept in literary criticism. The concept of "fine writing" seems useful, but Holman's Handbook to Literature tells us that the term is Now sometimes used to characterize light or artificial writing." The definition from Webster's Collegiate Dictionary which Chris offers as our standard, "literature that is an end in itself and not merely informative," seems to be "writing that is about nothing." LDS writing is intensely about informing, and we, as a people, are suspicious of artistry that is only about itself and does not have anything to say about life eternal. Third, for an organization which is focused, as Chris claims, on "belletristic literature," we sure spend a lot of time talking about third rate movies and books. I am OK with Melissa's explanation of why the awards are restrictive in categories, but I will only go half way with the belle-lettre idea. I am interested in "fine writing" "by, for, and about Mormons," regardless of genre, whereever it is found, including the walls of the bathroom stalls. Fred Pinnegar - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:24:28 -0800 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] B.J. PETERSEN, _Hugh Nibley_ (Review) Great review -- thanks for it! You mention below that Boyd will address ome issues in the next printing. Do you happen to know the criteria Kofford uses to determine whether a book will see a second printing? So many books never see the light of day again. >Book review of Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life by Boyd Jay Petersen. >Published by Greg Kofford Books, Draper, Utah. 480 pages, including preface >and appendices. $32.95. ISBN # 1-58958-020-6. Available January 2003. Reviewed >by Fred Pinnegar. > >Petersen's biography is an outstanding and stunning achievement, and unlike >other recent biographies of church notables, it is equal to the life it >portrays, and we don't walk away saying is that all there is? It is well worth >reading and worth sharing with others. The faults are minor, and Boyd promises >to address them in the next printing. > >Fred Pinnegar - ------------------ Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com "I have a personal philosophy of deeply confused ambivalence." (Jasmine Cresswell, "The Conspiracy") - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:27:34 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] re: Shameful First Works I am sympathetic with Richard Dutcher's account of his shameful first film "Girl Crazy," which I very desperately want to see (because I suspect, even in its badness, it is better than many films that receive theatrical release on almost a weekly basis). For me, I take a perverse sort of pride in letting people see the things I wrote when I was younger and dumber. All the columns I've ever written are cataloged on my Web site (www.ericdsnider.com, plug plug), going back to when I was in high school. There are even samples of things I wrote in fifth grade for our weekly small-town newspaper -- I reported on events at my elementary school -- including an instance when I guessed a girl's last name was Perez simply because she looked like she could be the sister of a kid I knew whose last name was Perez. (I have since raised the level of my journalistic efforts, though I could still swear that girl looked like Ruben Perez's twin sister.) When I made a CD of some funny songs I'd written, I included samples of things I recorded as a teen-ager, most of which are categorically not funny, even by "I was just a kid" standards. Anyway, I'm not sure why I let these things roam around in public. Maybe it's a subconscious desire to keep myself humble, although I doubt that. Maybe it's knowing that people are going to find them anyway, and if I'm the one presenting them and making fun of myself for them, then that means no one else can make fun of me for them. I think it's healthy for artists to let their public -- those who have any interest in the artist's work -- see their early, failed attempts. For one thing, some of them probably aren't as "failed" as we think they are. (Is anyone more critical of an artist than the artist himself?) (I apparently exclude the makers of "The Singles Ward" in that statement.) For another thing, it gives the viewer an intimacy with the artist, more of a connection, more of a personal interest. People are far less likely to turn on us, and more likely to be supportive, if they feel like they've been along the journey with us, and especially if they know we're fallible. All of which is my way of telling Richard Dutcher to please send me a copy of "Girl Crazy." I'll show you mine if you show me yours, as it were. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:31:54 -0800 From: "Halverson, Tom" Subject: RE: [AML] Shameful First Works Richard Dutcher wrote >Most would watch "Girl Crazy" and forget about it five minutes later. For me >it is a graphic illustration of my anemic spiritual state during those five >years. I remember the pain of my subsequent repentance as well as the shame >of my cinematic sins. Ok, Richard...believe it or not I saw this movie on TV years ago and I thought it was fun! If I remember right, he was really good to all of his women tenants and parts of this movie were really funny. I think I even told a couple people about it. However, I do admit that I had completely forgotten about it until I read your post. :-( Don't be so hard on yourself, I have seen alot worse...."The Singles Ward" for one. Tom Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:33:43 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit Thom Duncan answered someone's questions: > > >And I have a question for those you write and produce plays: > >Is it against= copyright, or fair use of the material, to > >omit lines of dialogue, to skip= scenes to ignore stage > >directions written into the play? > > Yes, it is. For dialogue. Stage directions can be adapted to the stage > environment. > > Of must every= word be > >spoken, etc. to make the production legal? =20 > > > > > Yes. In fact, if you want to change words, you must receive written > persmission from the copyright owner. > ... a law that many Utah theaters violate on a regular basis, by the way. (Probably elsewhere, too, but my theatrical experience of the past several years has been almost exclusively in Utah, except for trips to London and Broadway, where I suspect this practice does NOT occur.) Theaters routinely drop swear words or other potentially offensive elements. In some cases, I am sure they ask permission. In many cases, however, they do not. This is yet another aspect of the ongoing CleanFlicks-inspired morality debate: Is it moral to make a play more "moral" by dropping swear words, and thus breaking the law? Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:45:32 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Music Kim Madsen: > For me, a moment of perfection (in film) when the music and the visuals cam > together was the montage towards the end of OUR STORY. Just as a clarification, the film is actually called "The Story of Us," though "Our Story" is certainly a more word-efficient expression of the same basic concept. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:03:31 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward Richard Dutcher wrote: "The point is: Although my movie didn't break any records in the Mormon market, I humbly point out that it is kicking some serious butt in the rest of the world." Cheering, flagwaving, the crowd goes wild at the Madsen house... Yes! Ri-chard! Ri-chard! Ri-chard! Kim Madsen, a rabid fan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:44:09 -0800 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward > But the film teaches, essentially, that Pride saves, that when we > think we're better than those benighted Gentiles, we're right. > In essence, the film insists that Cammie's rejection of Jonathan's > stand-up act saves her soul, is necessary for her salvation, and > also, that it saves his soul too. And I think most people in the > audience the night I saw the film thought that too. And that > makes me really really not want to be a Mormon anymore. > Eric Samuelsen Hmm, I didn't get that at all. Maybe I'm just slow. And I don't remember the film very clearly--but the impression I have is that she wasn't objecting to what he said so much as the fact that his stand up routine showed his attitude towards the church and the gospel. That's what I got from it, anyway. I'll pay more attention if I ever see it again. Susan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:46:06 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: RE: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit "And I have a question for those you write and produce plays: Is it against copyright, or fair use of the material, to omit lines of dialogue, to skip= scenes to ignore stage directions written into the play?" I can't comment as to copyright issues because I am unfamiliar with them. However, in response to the comparison of film to drama, I would point out that a performance of a play is very different from a screening of a film. A performance lives in and of itself. There is a dramatic text (dialogue, stage directions, set directions, etc.) and then there is an interpretation of that text. Each new interpretation or performance is a new piece of art. It can be absolutely true to the dramatic text in the most literal way. Or it can be a very liberal interpretation of the text. And when you read a wide variety of plays taken from different time periods, you can see the development of the dramatic text as a text in and of itself, not just a set of directions for how to create a performance. For instance, in _Arcadia_, Tom Stoppard includes details in the stage directions that couldn't possibly be realized in a performance; they are present for a reader. They will certainly help the director (a reader) of the play create his interpretation of the play, but they cannot be realized on stage. Another example is in Tony Kushner's _Angel's In America_. Because of the vastness of the play, the length of time required to perform it, an audience really can't leave the play without condemning Joe (the gay Mormon man in the play). The performance piles condemnation on condemnation of Joe and at the end of the play he seems to be a shallow, weak, destructive human being. But when you can read the play and really study it, you can see that Kushner creates a double trajectory for his characters. Under all the details you see Joe's anguish as he struggles with finding his place in the world. You understand his humanity in a way that the performance doesn't really allow. Same thing with Hannah, Joe's mother. Kushner apparently liberates Hannah from her strict, patriarchal Mormonism and allows her to be the sage by the end of the play. But underneath the liberation is the fact that she turns immediately from being Joe's mother to being Prior's mother. She doesn't escape in any way the Mormon gender stereotypes criticized by Kushner. They just transform in context not in substance. There is a subtext that isn't necessarily visible in the performance but is in a reading. The point is that a movie, typically, is a movie. It is an artwork that is the same everytime it is seen. And that artwork was created by the director (and everyone else involved; but it's ultimately the director). Changing it outside of the private sphere is a violation of his copyright. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:59:07 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Editing at BYU Justin, We must have seen the same version of that movie. But the instance I remember as being laughable was when the bleeped the word "bastard" when describing the prince's brother who really was a bastard (as in illegitimate child, not a real jerk). Thought that was pretty amusing. And when I say _A Few Good Men_ and they tried to bleep every single swear word that came out of Jack Nicholson's mouth while he was on the stand in court, I had the same lip-reading experience that Thom Duncan described (not to mention it seemed like they never could manage to bleep the entire word; they'd almost always manage to miss the very first sound so if you had any questions not answered by lip reading there was a little audio hint to start with). It always made me laugh. amelia >My last experience at the Varsity Theater was when they bleeped "God" when >one of the characters in Branaugh's adaptation of _Much Ado About Nothing_ >says "Thank God." > >Justin Halverson _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #970 ******************************