From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #188 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 Sunday, October 12 2003 Volume 02 : Number 188 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:34:21 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Duncan" > My question, Jon, is this: Your speculation of what a > film will make is certainly helpful, but give us some > insight into specualtion on the budget process. I've > felt that a ten million dollar budget for a major film > about Joseph Smith isn't enough money. Do you think > ten mill for a film on Joseph is enough and why? It isn't $10M, it's $7M. Plus an additional $3M for prints & advertising. Is seven tight?. Sure. 1$ goes to Kilmer. Another chunk to other stars and actors. Ultimately, you make the entire film for $5 in below-the-line negative costs. Is that tight? Sure. But how much do you think all of this costs? $5 million dollars is a whole stinking lot of money. And to spend much more on the JS story is financial suicide, for exactly the same reasons I talked about before. Would he like to do it for $20! Of course! But sanity dictates you probably just can't afford to do it for more. So you tighten your belt and do it the old fashioned way: ingenuity. You don't build the vast majority of your sets. You rent existing locations: Upper Canada Village, Genesee Park in New York, etc. Costumes are mostly rented. You only build costumes for your stars. You house everybody in fifth rate motels, except for your stars. You reduce amenities. You shoot on 35 with a tight shooting ratio (but actually, Richard is a director that covers himself very well, and is very generous with takes for performance, so you'll be 10:1 to 12:1, minimum, probably more, which is costly, but still, you move right along). For your score you get somebody really good, but early in their career and still not too expensive. Like Thomas Baggaley. You budget $200,000, record it in Prague. You finance through investors in a limited partnership and not a bank. That means you don't have to buy a completion bond. You don't pay interest on bank loans. You don't use Teamsters. You use soft money options, like Canada's extensive tax-incentive deals. It's a pain in the butt to jump through all the hoops, but it gives you a $7 to 8 million value for only $5 million spent, including that 30% on your dollar you save by the Canadian exchange rate. You work on a very tight 5 to 6 week schedule. Exhausting, yes, but you can't afford a 12 to 24 week shoot. And on and on and on. You be smart. You cut corners like every single independent filmmaker in the world. If there are no special effects, the only thing expensive on a film is cast. Film, processing, equipment rentals: all of that is pretty much the same for everybody. That aspect of budgeting is fairly constant. The only variables are salaries (ALWAYS negotiable) and how long you expect to take. Four to five million can make almost any film ever written that does not have big crowds, big sets, big stars or big special effects. It is SALARIES that make the difference. That is the huge variable. Okay, there are a lot of other variables, too. But this is not a class in budgeting. You get the picture. You remember Merchant Ivory? People were always shocked to find out that those guys made all those costume dramas for $10 to $15 million. They got people to give them access to castles and costumes and bent and scrapped everywhere they could. It can be done. We've been brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking it's $50 million or nothing. That's why Hollywood LOVES independent filmmakers. They know we go out and do the impossible and then bring them the finished product with no risk. Can Prophet be done for $10? Sure. Can it be done for $100? Sure. Can it be done for $5? Sure. There are compromises in every case. Pros and cons. And there are limits: Can it be done for $300,000? Well... no. Not with any value. Look at Goodman's "Handcart". A $300,000 pioneer movie. Insanely low budget for what he wanted to do. Impossible task. Silly in the opposite direction. There has to be a sense of balance. "God's Army" at $300,000 was almost impossible. Insanely difficult. Absolute madness. But desperate measures paid off. People ask Richard all the time, well can't you just go make another one for $300,000? They just don't understand what that means. So, in the end, you get what you can and make it work. It's just part of doing the math. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Stepping Up to the Plate I want to issue a challenge here--hoping that the spirit of my challenge comes across as invitational rather than confrontational, but that also if some of you (like me) tend to need a little prodding from time to time, this will provide a poke or two. We here on this list have an interest in Mormon literature--otherwise, we wouldn't be here. We want to see it grow and prosper. We have, of course, different visions for how that can happen, but one thing most of us (I suspect) agree on is that a strong community of Mormon letters can promote the kinds of broad development we want to see. I read with a great deal of interest, admiration and pride the AML Overview post sent out by Chris Bigelow. I know that it had received commentary and polish from the AML board. AML started out, a number of years ago, largely as a vehicle for scholars interested in the study of Mormon literature to share their ideas. It didn't have a populist base, it didn't do much to promote--let alone publish--literature, and it didn't attempt to reach out to writers. Over the last 10-15 years or so, AML has made a conscious decision to change that focus--to reach out, to embrace the various genres of Mormon literature, to encourage discussion of the type that happens on AML-List. The writer's conference, Irreantum, AML-List itself, all are products of this. This broader focus is reflected in AML governance as well. The AML board includes a broad spectrum of views--indeed, the "academic" perspective, once central to AML, is now often a minority viewpoint. Which is in many ways a good thing, especially if we want AML to be an umbrella for the broad community of Mormon letters. And now we come to the challenge. Folks, there are simply not enough hands to do the work. AML is much bigger now than it used to be. There's more going on. The stalwarts of the past, who created the original organization, have largely moved on to other things. Many are retired. They gave way gracefully to a broader, more populist approach to the organization. Now, it's our job to make sure that the work continues to get done--at least, if we care about the results that come from it. Irreantum needs additional hands to do the work. AML-List needs additional hands to help out with moderating. The events need help with organizing. How many of us on this list are even members of AML? How many of us subscribe to Irreantum? My encouragement would be to find what interests you and consider whether you want to be more involved. Do you want to help with the AML-List moderating? Email me. Do you want to help with Irreantum? Email Chris Bigelow. Do you want to help support the AML as an organization, with its awards and everything else? Sign up as a member. And so on. Again, my intent isn't to make anyone uncomfortable here. Everyone is welcome to participate, whether you want to become more involved or not. But sometimes I think we take for granted our sponsoring institution and the benefits it provides us here. Folks, I'm here to tell you--the volunteer corps is us. And we need a few more people to step up to the plate. Thanks to everyone on this list for your involvement, and especially those who do already give generously of your time with helping to run things. I'll climb down off my soapbox now... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:27:55 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Long-Winded Books (was: _Work & Glory_ Move) Linda talks at length about the, well, length of Harry Potter book 5. I haven't really looked at it with an eye to how it could or should be improved (I've been an editor long enough now that I do my best *not* to read things as an editor whenever I possibly can). The main complaint I had (and it's not original; it was my wife's first) is that we've gone on too long with Voldemort making only short appearances. Next book had better be (finally) *about* the conflict with Voldemort, not about the Ministry of Magic being dufuses and all that stuff. But I think I may know why the recent books have been as long as they are, and I think it does have to do with the genre. I think that different readers have fallen in love with the characters--more each book--and I think, frankly, that Rowling has done so as well. And I think that's a common thing in the best children's books (and those in many other genres as well): that we read them in part to have a fun time with our favorite characters again. So the book isn't just about the storyline. The problem is that on top of that, Rowling is writing a story with a mounting plot line, one that must by its nature become more complex in a way that books from a typical children's series do not have to do. In other words, I think Rowling is serving two masters here, artistically: her readers' love of the world she has created and the characters in it, and the story she is trying to tell. Both get more involved with each book. So far, greater and greater length has been her solution. Thinking about it, I think you're right: this latest time, it didn't work too well. Somone needed to put this book on a diet. (Keep in mind, however, that with the current state of the publishing industry, few publishers have the type of editors around anymore who will actually provide detailed critique on how to improve a work. Those editors are largely gone.) And so I think it's probably not a matter of self-indulgence. Rather, I think that Rowling is trying to do a pretty hard thing. The strengths of her storytelling--the fun time we spent with Harry and his friends just being kids, even if it's in a magical setting--are actually becoming potential liabilities as the plot complexity and seriousness mounts and mounts. Note that if Rowling decides to go for a leaner, meaner writing style that focuses on the plot, she'll lose a huge segment of her audience--the ones who love spending time in her world, who may in fact be her core audience. She has to be careful, whatever she decides to do. I also think that plotwise, she's been incurring debts in the previous books: things she put in there that refer forward to something that will happen later on. Now she's having to start paying some of those debts, and at the same time move the plot along. I strongly suspect that if she had managed to write a draft of the entire set of novels first, instead of just an outline, this would not have been as big a problem. Of course, who can wait to eat until an entire seven-novel series is written? Anyway, though, she's locked in at some level to her original plan, even if she wanted to change it at this point. And I suspect that's part of what is making the books long (and the writing take longer than anticipated). Anyway, that's my take. As for the more general literary connection: actually, I think it's a pretty important thing to understand, viscerally or intellectually, what the points of appeal are to readers in whatever genre you're writing. Do people read it for the characters? For the setting? For the affirmation of familiar ideas? For the cool trees? (I'm a fantasy reader and writer, and yes, I admit that I read books in part for the cool trees.) For the plot and suspense? For the intellectual ideas? For the snappy dialogue? For the lyrical description? Different genres and writers have different strengths. In the end, I think that the success of any given literary work has less to do with excellence across the board (i.e., all of these together) than with how well it meets the core expectations of its audience. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:14:53 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Concept of Giving Back I think Jongiori is right--my quibble is a semantic one and not terribly important. And yes, I do contradict myself a bit in my own definitions and reflections. I'm wondering what the impulse for the phrase is and if my discomfort with it has any foundation. Still not sure... Jacob - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:33:06 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium - --- Original Message --- From: "D. Michael Martindale" >Now if you're talking about television, I might agree. Few good ideas=20 >floating around there. So you're saying you don't like "Becker?" Thom [Duncan] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:38:09 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or "Do The Math" Eric Sn., why do you tease us? Please post your review of Day of Defense,=20 The Work and the Story, and The Book of Mormon Movie on the list for us! Okay, we'll go to your website. Everyone, follow me . . . http://www.ericdsnider.com/index.php Andrew Hall - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 07:10:08 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Typical LDS Disaster Reaction Did I miss something? What was the great tragedy?=20 Alan=20 - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Kathy Tyner" To: Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Typical LDS Disaster Reaction > We had a service out here in my area of Southern Calif. > My husband was able to leave work around noon and go to a nearby LDS=20 > Chapel to watch the broadcast from SLC. Several of his non-LDS=20 > co-workers joined him there and there was a great spirit of=20 > worshipping together. Some of them told him they were very touched by=20 > what was said and how they felt. It was a choice experience in a time=20 > of great tragedy. >=20 > Kathy Tyner > Orange County, CA >=20 >=20 > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature=20 > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:04:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Stock Emotions and Sentimentalism What is sentimentality? Here is an extract from Milan Kundera's great novel "Immortality:" (and remember, Kundera is being ironic, the very antithesis of sentimentality.) =20 " 'Homo sentimentalis' cannot be defined as a man with feelings (for we all have feelings), but as a man who has raised feelings to a category of value. As soon as feelings are seen as a value, everyone wants to feel; and because we all like to pride ourselves on our values, we have a tendency to show off our feelings. The transformation of feelings into a value had already occurred in Europe some time around the twelfth century: the troubadours who sang with such great passion to their beloved, the unattainable princess, seemed so admirable and beautiful to all who heard them that everyone wished to follow their example by falling prey to some wild upheaval of the heart No one revealed 'homo sentimentalis' as lucidly as Cervantes. Don Quixote decides to love a certain lady named Dulcinea, in spite of the fact he hardly knows her (the comes as no surprise, because we know that when it's a question of 'wahre Liebe', true love, the beloved hardly matters.) In chapter twenty-five of Book One, he leaves with Sancho for the remote mountains, where he wishes to demonstrate to him the greatness of his passion. But how to show someone else that your soul is on fire? Especially to someone as dull and naive as Sancho? And so when they find themselves on a mountain path, Don Quixote strips off all his clothes except for his shirt, and to demonstrate to his servant the immensity of his passion he proceeds to turn somersaults. Each time he is upside down, his shirt slides down to his shoulders and Sancho gets a glimpse of his sex. The sight of the knight's small, virginal member is so comically sad, so heartrending, that Sancho, in spite of his callous heart, cannot bear to look at it any longer, mounts Rosinante, and gallops off. (Kundera then refers to some of the characters in 'Immortality'.) When Father died, Agnes had to arrange the funeral ceremony. She wanted the ceremony to be free of any speeches and to consist only of the Adagio from Mahler's Tenth Symphony, one of her father's favorite pieces of music. But this music is extremely sad, and Agnes was afraid that she might not be able to hold back her tears during the ceremony. It seemed unbearable to her to cry in front of everyone; she therefore put the Adagio on the record player and listened to it. Once, twice, three times. The music reminded her of Father and she wept. But after the Adagio had resounded through the room eight, nine times, the power of the music faded; and after she had heard the record thirteen times, she found it no more moving than if she had been listening to the Paraguayan national anthem. Thanks to this training, she managed to stay dry-eyed through the funeral. It is a part of the definition of feeling that it is born in us without our will, often against our will. As soon as we want to feel (decide to feel, just as Don Quixote decided to love Dulcinea), feeling is no longer feeling but an imitation of feeling, a show of feeling. This is commonly called hysteria. That's why 'homo sentimentalis' (a person who has raised feelings to a value) is in reality identical to 'homo hystericus." This is not to say that a person who imitates feeling does not feel. An actor playing the role of old King Lear stands on the stage and faces the audience full of the real sadness of betrayal, but this sadness evaporates the moment the performance is over. That is why 'homo sentimentalis' shames us with his great feelings only to amaze us a moment later with his inexplicable indifference." =20 (See also Kundera's famous definition of "kitsch" in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being": "'Kitsch is the total denial of s--t." He says the whole Communist, totalitarian project was based on the denial of unpleasant realities, on the coerced display of stock emotion.) R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:21:02 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Women in LDS Film, or Not Pretty Enough, Part 1 Women in LDS Film, or "Not Pretty Enough": Part One Dianna Graham reopened this topic the other day with a very personal, heart-on-her-sleeve kind of post, and I had a lot of thoughts about it. But I'm worried that I might put my foot in my mouth. Marie Knowlton piped in and agreed with Dianna "about the prevalence of 'Barbies' in LDS Film. This is a dicey subject, and one that any intelligent male will keep his nose out of! But I've never been accused of harboring an overlarge quantity of grey-matter between the ears. And I feel obligated, since I've been talking a lot about business and marketing in conversations lately to pipe in on this subject. Firstly, while I will stray and talk about women in film in general, I really want to address what I feel is an over-quick assessment of women in LDS FILM, specifically, which is a different animal all together. Not only is talking about LDS film in particular somewhat different from talking about film as a whole, or female images in current trends in film, we have only a very small sample size of films in the LDS niche to talk about. Only 17 films in three years, which some will can rightly call an explosion, but it's not all that many to make overreaching conclusions from as far as observing social trends. Plus, I guarantee you that nobody on this list has seen ALL of these films, so in truth, we are really making broad conclusions based on very few case studies. That makes it extremely hard to make judgment calls. Given that fact, my observations may be as wrong as I accuse other's of being. But my point of view is from the direction of a film analyst, and that is all. I want to say at the outset to Dianna directly that I really respect you sticking your neck out and saying it like you feel and talking about an important topic that is also one which causes a lot of anxiety (i.e., personal looks, weight, the media's skewing of body consciousness, etc.). But this is also a subject which also touches on serious business when it comes to the use of that media, and one which I think it is very important to make certain observations about. I want to say I think Dianna is great (even though we've never met). I'm sure I'll love you when we do meet. And if I say anything here that makes you mad, you're more than free to take it out on me when we do me, or right here in cyberspace and keep the List entertaining! I mean no harm with these comments, and think that they are important. In a way, this post ties in directly with my recent "Do the Math" post. There are certain things we MUST face if we are to have commercial success. And commercial success is to some extent absolutely essential if we want our niche of LDS arts to continue to evolve. Financial success and creative freedom are, unfortunately, closely tied. On one hand, it is a double standard, or a Catch-22. We have to pander to economic factors and yet increase the artistic nature of the work. But my contention is that these two conditions need not be mutually exclusive. The fact remains that great work will find its audience given the proper marketing package. And that's what I'd like to talk about a little more today. The PACKAGING of work (which much be great). So it may seem that I am espousing a completely superficial topic, or saying that superficiality is essential, and therefore seem to be agreeing with Alan's recent provocative rants about the superficiality of film. There is no doubt that film is a glossy package. Great film must ultimately transcend that. But to transcend that does not mean that an unattractive cast be used in film, but that an attractive cast of consummate excellence performs their parts perfectly in a great story. And "attractive" need not necessarily mean "Barbie" as Dianna and Marie have defined it. But it must mean "appealing" and that aspect includes personality, attitude, presentation and, yes, I have to say it, physical appearance. The aspect of the good-looking package cannot be ignored. The book within the cover must be good; but the cover must be judged appealing as well. I am also encouraged in my going ahead and writing this post by the fact that Dianna boldly calls for a response at the end of her post. So I AM responding. Besides, this is an open letter, and I hope it will contribute to general discussion here and not be taken as a personal thing against Dianna or Marie at all, cuz it isn't. Okay, with that said, I have to wonder, Dianna, if your reactions and observations about Women in LDS Film are not colored just a little bit by some personal insecurity. You seem to admit as much within your post, and then ask if others agree with you, and of course others do. This is both brave and commendable. But I fear your observations, while not entirely incorrect, may be slightly skewed by personal disappointment in some of the physical realities of life, and not fully taking in the big picture. This is no reflection on yourself at all, it is very natural and predictable. Unlike most people, you are a thinker and a writer and not afraid to "put something out there" in a public forum in order to explore your own emotions and thoughts and feelings. And that makes you a spectacular person, and makes this an exciting forum for growth, contemplation and creativity. I think if we step back and genuinely examine the use of Women in LDS film, keeping our eyes very open and taking in and considering market forces and economic realities, some interesting things come up. You will notice I said "use" which sounds rather like I'm playing chess with inanimate pieces of crockery. In a sense, this is correct. When we as artists (who seek to sell our work in the marketplace) assemble or develop a package including all of the elements and aspects of our work, individual elements are, at the planning stage, things which can be manipulated, considered, idealized, planned for, etc., just like chess pieces. How will I assemble Product Q? Who is it for? What are the elements that appeal to them? What are the elements that turn them away? Etc. And each of these questions leads to specific answers. Then there are also the questions of: What does the story demand that Character A be like? How must Character A and C, Z & X interface, both with each other, and in relative scale to the audience? All of these questions must be considered BEFORE production, and they must be answered very specifically, and they DO affect HOW (i.e. WHO) you cast in a film. To digress for a moment and talk about the casting of a man, take the recent example of Noah Danby as Nephi. Obviously, Noah was cast for his hunk factor. You can talk about his acting all you want, the obvious truth that is screaming off the screen is that Gary Rogers' personal vision of the Book of Mormon never got past Arnold Frieberg. Hey, I love those paintings myself, but the problem is internal consistency. In Arnold Frieberg, ALL the men are consummate studs. Even the old guys! Check out Mormon on his death bed holding his arm out over the dead of his people. What a stud! Man! If I had arms like that at 70. Who am I kidding. I'd like to have arms like that at 40. But the problem with casting Noah, is that Rogers cast NOBODY else of the same ilk. So suddenly, the casting doesn't work. Suddenly, Nephi is the only boy in the Lehite family that has any genetic propensity towards muscle. Okay, not everyone in a family does have a propensity towards muscle. My buddy Shawn Landon is a total stud on the caliber of Danby, and he had two brothers who are bean poles. But there is a reason why: Shawn is a body builder and works out. So in 600 BC Jerusalem, nobody hit the gym. You got strong by working. And by casting one guy as a hunk and everybody else as beanpoles back then, suggests that Nephi was always lifting heavy objects and the others were laying around. But there is not evidence of that in the script or in the film. It could have been a choice, but should have been established. Laban says, "Hey Nephi, you're the youngest: YOU load the camels!" Or something. ANYTHING! Also, for someone who is so hunky, he is CONSTANTLY GETTING BEAT UP BY GUYS HALF HIS SIZE! It's truly ridiculous. I say, cast Nephi as a stud: cast them all as studs. Essential internal consistency. Families have to look like families. Lovers have to be physically compatible. Ing=E9nues have to be attractive. Simple rules of casting! All right, back to women more specifically. Which is dangerous, because female bodies are an especially "emotional" topic, which I respect, and don't want to step on any toes. Especially since the media does so genuinely distort our collective self-image. I have two daughters myself, and I am very conscious of the signals that get sent, particularly in the portrayal of women. I've read "Reviving Ophelia," I have three sisters, I often teach and work with teenagers. None of these issues are lost on me. But I am also a struggling producer/director. I've taught hundreds of young actors, of all shapes and sizes, and I've had to deal with my own struggles with image, rejection, etc. I've been on all sides of the fence, as an actor, as a casting director, etc. My whole family is involved in performance. Of my sisters, two of them are actresses in New York. One is gorgeous and thin; one is gorgeous and heavy. My gorgeous heavy sister was not heavy in college, but has had a few tough years here lately and put some significant weight. She's actively working to get off; but it's a struggle, and not a topic I take lightly. I myself but on an astounding amount of weight during some hellacious years a short while back, and am intimately conversant with the emotions involved in such a struggle. So I really, really do see all sides of this issue. I want to make that clear, because I am going to argue against Dianna and Marie's point in several cases, as you shall see. But since this post is becoming so long, I will split it up into two sections. What I'm saying is, I don't want you to think I'm just some biased guy. Obviously I AM a biased guy, but I will try to qualify my bias within as much objectivity as possible. As one final plug in my defense before my attack in Part II of this essay (I'm just kidding - there is no personal attack forthcoming!), can I say that I LOVE "real" faces, "real" humanity? I do, I really do. In fact, I shot a short film a couple of months ago, which is still languishing in post production. The film was intended as a non-commercial, artsy-fartsy, let's-make-a-movie kind of piece. So I had no real aspirations for it. It's talky, dialogue driven, slow, uses a lot of amateur actors. You get the picture: in other words, commercial considerations were very low. I didn't HAVE to fit any molds. So I was allowed to break certain rules, and I did so with abandon. (I will talk about those "rules" in Part 2, but I think they are obvious, if you know I'm talking about MARKETING.) But in my defense, in this little film, because I COULD, I indulged in the observation of faces -- REAL faces. And bodies -- REAL bodies. In every role I cast, I tried to get an interesting face. Even if that person wasn't a great actor (and many of them are not), they all had wonderful faces. And there is not really a beautiful face in the bunch. Well, I have one little clerk girl who is beautiful, but not in the really classic sense. In fact, even she is a realistic 8 to 10 pounds over what Hollywood would want. Very pretty, but as real and as non-anorexic as pretty and young can be. But everybody else in the film is hands-down NOT pretty. I think that is WONDERFUL. I include myself in this mix. I play the lead. And in the film, I am 20 to 30 pounds overweight. I won my initial battle with obesity, finally getting down to my pre-mission weight (after years of struggle) for my role in the film Someone Was Watching. But then, I put back on 20 pounds (which is actually probably about right for my frame; my Someone weight was too thin). That is my normal weight, probably where I am most comfortable. But for Headstone I put on 20 to 30 more above THAT. (I'm still working that weight off as we speak.) Also, I had a full beard for the project and very long hair. (I actually took a headshot at that time just to chronicle it, and it's the one D. Michael is using on the AML Writer's Conference website.) So I was mister scruffy -- and far from pretty. There is a particular, and very short, scene in the film where I have my shirt off. It was intentional, and written to provide a tiny shock, to see how physically this guy is AT a certain place. I did it to myself on purpose, because that is the purpose of the film. But when I see the footage, it is so discomforting and embarrassing to me as a director I have not decided whether or not I will actually keep the scene in the final cut of the film. I feel almost obligated to do so, given the nature of the project. But, hey, that is ME up there. GULP. But the point of the film is REAL people. Human situation. Even my other actor sister (the gorgeous and thin one) is cast in the role of a woman who is supposed to be terribly ill -- and we make her look terrible. My point is that I think ALL of these people are beautiful. All of these overweight, scarred, shaved-head, bearded people... are REAL. And therefore wonderful. In fact, there is one woman in one shot, just an extra, in a 15-second shot, that I had to BEG to be in the picture. She is overweight, the wife of one of my producer guys. And I was doing a scene where I wanted some family around a grave. Well, I grabbed a pregnant friend and threw her in. And I had a great guy playing my dad. But I wanted someone else. So I grabbed Debbie. "No!" she said. "I'm fat! I look terrible!" and on and on. Well, if you know Debbie, she is a wonderful person, with an amazing singing voice, and you don't think of her as fat at all. But SHE thinks of herself as that, and on film, it's true, she's no centerfold model. "But that's my POINT!" I begged her. "I want REAL beauty here. REAL people." Etc. Finally she agreed to be in the shot. As I say: 15 seconds. But it was just one more attempt to populate the film with faces that represent humanity. The only exception to this tale of whoa are the faces of two children who in the film, who, it is impossible to deny, are angelic. Well, they are MY kids, so how could it be otherwise! All of this long-winded digression is to say that I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and I AGREE... here comes the catch... as much as I can. But there are times when I cannot agree, as a commercial filmmaker, and that's what I'm going to talk about in my response in Part 2. See ya'll on this thread tomorrow or the next day. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:47:03 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Stock Emotions and Sentimentalism - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Langford" To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: [AML] Stock Emotions and Sentimentalism > ...but I do cry when I listen to some sappy songs and when I read=20 > parts of books, like the place in _The High King_ when Fflewddur Fflam > breaks his harp to provide wood so his friends won't freeze to death,=20 > or the end of _The Lord of the Rings_. Actually, it's kind of=20 > embarrassing, because I get more worked up when I'm reading books=20 > aloud to my children than they do. Yeah, you know, I'm just getting to be more of a softie as I get older. I don't even think I'd call it sentimentality. Call it alzheimers. Just kidding. But no, I think in some ways I am more plugged into the weight of life and the intensity of human experience. It is not nostalgia. It is layer upon layer of the dutritus of life. Experience. Heavy and deep. It makes you more emu, to use the French. Literally emotional, but tied into emulsify, emulate, immaculate, imagine. Melt you into someone elses shoes. As a young actor, I could not cry as easily as I can now. I did not have so much life experience to draw on. This hit me the other day as I poked my head into the art museum on BYU campus. Some artists were setting up some new instalations which are now open. One of them had set up scales, old beat-up scales, and placed found objects upon them. Plates, cups, folded table-cloths. Underneath she had little cards which read things like: "In 1856, handcart pioneers were allowed only 17 pounds of personal goods." Van Deiman's Land: 4.5 pounds. Ellis Island: 22 pounds. Etc. Then you look up and realize that each of the scales showed you exactly what 17 pounds, 4.5 pounds, 22 pounds REALLY WAS. Five plates and a cup. One woolen dress. Six folded table cloths. And I started blubbering standing there in front of those scales. Oh my gosh, but I'm starting to blubber right now writing this! Is that sentimentality? Or is that just myself coming to the place in my life where I suddenly get it? The hugeness of human experience. The tiny smallness of five plates and one ceramic cup. Everything that people have lost and given up. Sacrifice. Conquest. A face. A tiny hand. What's not to be moved by? Or am I just sentimental? Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:08:50 -1000 From: Randall Larsen Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Clark Goble wrote: Actually I believe the problem with Socrates was the people didn't feel he was listening to the muses. Remember that the charge against him was leading youth into atheism. (Or words to that effect) He went about undercutting the religion of the time. > Randall Larsen According to Nibley, "at the end of his life Socrates explained that he had taken the course he had...'because, as I said, the way was shown me by God through oracles and dreams and by whatever other means divine providence directs the actions of men." (Plato Apology 33C quoted in Nibley the Ancient State, p. 329). In another place Plato has Socrates say, " ..Now my concern is how I may present my soul to the judge in its healthiest condition." (Gorgias 523-26)." According to Nibley this wasn't sarcasm. Nibley notes "the irony ... professors of philosophy brush aside Socrates' own solemn profession of faith as sarcasm...so that they can maintain the he was put to death by reactionary religionists instead of enlightened professors."(ibid, p330). Clark One can't help but wonder of the "state" of this muse/daemon. Some argue that Socrates was being satirical, or at least engaged in "negative theology." i.e. I don't know what the muse is, but I'm trying to follow it. And others see it in more neoPlatonic terms as the source of some abstract quality. Randall The muse was a daemon or a spirit in our sense of the word. According to Nibley, "Heraclitus says: 'A man should listen to the spirits [daimones, the same word used by Socrates] as a child to an Adult' (_On the Universe_, 97) 'our individual minds are pretty dull, but through the ages there exists an unmistakeable consensus of humanity about things, an ethos which is not the product of reason but of revelation.' (ibid, 121)." Clark: That seems a bit of a diversion, until one asks the obvious question to a Mormon what is a muse? I think you are trying to argue for some sort of inspiration. But I see a problem in that the "muse" most artists listen to might be creative, but it is often hard to tie it to the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost. In such as case what is the muse? Is it the artist's creativity? Exactly what is this thing that one ought to be true to? Randall: It could be that the muse is the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost descending and not tarrying with them. Since this is greek religion taken over from the Egyptians, the belief was that the muse is a female spirit. ___ Randall ___ On the subject of Muses, I recommend we take another look at Nibley's great article in his book the Ancient State: Three Shrines Sophic, Mantic, and Sophistic. > | > | What part does the Mantic play in ART? > ___ Clark: > Of course Nibley appears to be largely a platonist of some sort. Agreed, he speaks of Plato with reverence pointing out that Plato and other partakers of the Orphic mysteries, believed in the creation, the fall, and man's "ultimate destiny and goal, expressed in the Pythygorean and Orphic traditions of transmigration of souls." Transmigration is at least a form of life after death. This Platonic idea doesn't quite fit our 20th Century orthodox LDS views of the ressurection but it at least shows that Plato accepted the idea of the permanence of the spirit. Clark: Perhaps a different question might be, why adopt the rhetoric and conceptual schemes of late antiquity when they clearly are apostate? Randall: Perhaps the Greek views are apostate by CES standards but in my honest opinion Plato, Nibley, and Brigham Young could speak on the same bill. Brigham would undoubtably follow Paul in declaring "the unknown God" of whom Plato ignorantly speaks. Nibley points out in his article that before 600B.C. the Greeks (and the Egyptians) at least had some conception of the idea of oracles--revelation. The also saw the gods as existing side by side with man. Clark: ... BTW - if we invoke Plato, how do you respond to his views on artists and poets? In the Republic Plato has Socrates say, "For just as poets feel complacency about their own poems and fathers about their own sons, so men who have made money take this money seriously as their own creation and they also value it for its uses as other people do. So they are hard to talk to since they are unwilling to commend anything except wealth." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=3DPerseus%3Atext%3A1999.01= . 0168&query=3Dsection%3D%2316&layout=3D&loc=3D330b How do you respond to _The Republic_? I don't recall Plato banishing artists and poets from the Republic. He certainly respected the work of Musicians. Some of the numbers of various populations in the Republic relate to tunings of the Lyre. See Ernest McClains _The Pythygorean Plato_. The idea of sacred tunings and sacred geometry is an idea that our people subscribed to in the nineteenth century. For example, the sealing room for the dead in the Salt Lake temple shows a greek Lyre moulding above the rear door [see the photo in LDS Temples]. > ___ Randall ___ > | In earlier ages more credit was given to > | inspiration and a shared ethos. The chinese for > | example reveled in an idea that was "copied many > | times." > ___ Clark: > Once again interesting since one reason Plato had such a bad view=20 > of=3D20 artists/poets was that they were copies of copies. But Plato has his character Cephalus quote the Poet Pindar: "that he has done a sweet hope ever attends and a goodly to be nurse of his old age, as Pindar too says." Further he has > Socrates taking a rather negative view of acting I think, when he=3D20 = > critiques the ability of people to read the speeches of the=20 > Sophists=3D20 without understanding them. i.e. that secondary=20 > productions are=3D20 inferior because they lack that life that = original=20 > works have. But reading speeches is not the same as Acting. In acting one can wear the mask of a deathless god or recall the fear that men feel when they know they will die. > > There is also that idea in Greek thought that art is letting a=20 > thing=3D20 show itself. Thus in a very real sense, creativity in the=20 > modern=3D20 sense, was frowned upon. i.e. the artist as creator. =20 > Rather what was=3D20 valued was that which was eternal and thus=20 > unoriginal. Not a copy mind=3D20 you - but the thing itself. > The ideal can never really be seen except in its approximations. This is the meaning of the riddle of the Oracle of Delphi, "Who can square the Circle?" The square represents the earth, the physical world whereas the Circle represents Heaven --the ideal-- the product of a transcental number that can only be imperfectly represented here. [Incidentally Orson Pratt showing architectural influence from the Greeks designed a room in the Salt Lake temple that illustrates the squaring of the Circle.] Clark: > It doesn't take much reading of ancient literature to see that how=20 > they=3D20 viewed art and literature was very different from what we = do. > It=3D20 wasn't the issue of *copying* but rather than there was one = true > thing=3D20 behind reality that was let to shine forth. Copying = implies=20 > a focus on=3D20 the representation rather than the thing itself. =20 > Repetition in the=3D20 ancient world was something else entirely. Agreed. It two play the same note where is Harmony? kind regards, Randall Larsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #188 ******************************