From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #193 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, October 16 2003 Volume 02 : Number 193 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:00:50 -1000 From: Randall Larsen Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium > > ___ Randall ___ > | I don't recall Plato banishing artists and poets from the Republic. > ___ > Clark: > He is rather famous for it. You might want to check out book II of=20 > the Republic in particular. (Towards the end) > I will have to reply to this post when I have more time. I am right in the middle of grading "writing intensive" midterms in Supply Chain management --=20 an editor never had it so good! Clark is probably right about everthing. I am tired of defending Nibley let him come out and defend himself. I took a beating for quoting him on the Ancient Near East list a while back. Nibley's work is brilliant at times but he sometimes fails as a bibliographer and in a few other areas specialists are very meticulous about. I think Nibley is right about some things --the convential wisdom about the past is off a mile or two. We have to remember that the interpretation of Greek thought has come down to us filtered by neoplatonists and apostate christianity. I will have some more comments as soon as I do enough homework to respond intelligently to your on target comments. kind regards, Randall Larsen from Paradise University of Hawaii (I don't teach Theater and I am not a defrocked Patriarch). - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:10:04 EDT From: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: [AML] Harry Potter - --part1_c.1a376518.2cbeaf3c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to weigh in with my two cents on Harry, I agree with some of the=20 criticisms that people have noted here. I'd add that Rowling never met an ellipsis=20 she didn't like. The excessive use of adverbs bothers me when I'm reading,=20 and I agree that the last two books have been padded. =20 I also agree that she needs more stringent editing, and that this is=20 sometimes a problem when authors become famous. Yesterday I got a call from a famous=20 evangelical author's office -- he and I had talked months ago about the novel=20 that he's writing, his first. He has sold millions of copies of his=20 non-fiction books, but recognizes that fiction is a totally different craft, and=20 genuinely wants his work to be good. (And, wonder of wonders, he's actually=20 written it all himself, which is pretty rare for famous folks.) He wants to hire=20 outside editorial help with the final manuscript, because he knows that no=20 one in his publishing house will really take him to task with a red pen, and he=20 WANTS that. So I've helped put him in touch with a couple of freelance editors who specialize in Christian fiction, who will give the ms the detailed=20 criticism he wants. =20 He certainly doesn't have to do this, and most successful authors wouldn't. =20 Rowling, who seems genuinely humble but committed to a particular vision of=20 her work, says she WANTED the early books to be this long, but didn't have the=20 clout with a publisher to make it happen. Now that she's pretty much the=20 most successful author on the planet, she can execute her original idea. As much as I agree that the writing needs to be tightened, I adore these stories for the same reason that someone else has mentioned -- the portrait of a=20 world. She's a great storyteller, if not a super writer. One thing I'd=20 suggest is listening to the books on audio. For starters, the actor who does=20 them is amazing -- I think his name is Jim Dale? -- but more importantly, the=20 leisurely pacing of her books lends itself perfectly to oral storytelling. Even=20 the writing tics, like the excessive use of adverbs and adjectives, work better on audio, because many people really, really, really, really, really,=20 really abuse such words in actual conversation. Jana Riess - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:40:18 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] "Day of Defense" (Review) Eric, I'm a bit dismayed by your review. You seem to expect credibility,=20 good acting, believable plot and good writing. Very, very picky.... Seriously, this sounds like a dreadful film. I'll likely pass on this=20 one. But has anyone read the book? Did I miss the review here? At 04:36 PM 10/11/2003, you wrote: > >Eric Sn., why do you tease us? Please post your review of Day = of=3D20=20 > >Defense,=3D3D20 The Work and the Story, and The Book of Mormon Movie = on > >=3D >the > > >list for us! > > >OK, here you go. > > - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:56:50 -0500 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Hooray for "Holywood" (comp) From: "Jared Walters" How about "Mormonwood"? [Jared Walters] - --------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Hello, Letting off steam after another long day in the hospital (this post is meant to be playful rather than hurtful; pity that the electronic medium covers the well-intentioned smile)... Holywood and Mollywood both have problems, so I've brainstormed some alternative monikers for the nascent LDS cinema. how about "Mealy-wood" for the really atrocious ones (cf. Eric's pleasurable impaling of _Day of Defense_)? or "Polly-wood," a merger of Pollyana (universal equivalent of Molly) and Molly-wood? or "Moe-wood," as in 'hood English for More, short for Mormon, and pointing cryptically to our embarrassment of riches (or is that an embarrassment of embarrassment?)? Or "Sodding-wood" for the crossing of the seas scene in the BOM movie (Soggy-wood is the UK-friendly version, I suppose) "Really-wood" for the acting in BOM movie (topical tie-in to the building of the boats on the Arabian coast)? "Folly-wood" for the financial misadventures Jongiorgi has prophylactically audited with such circumspection? "Babel-wood" gets the Biblical connection, the "false idols" reference in our celebrity-based society, and in a bizarre way is a tipping of the hat to the diverse world in which we live, where film is the "langue universel" in the confusing babel of postmodern society. Perhaps a subcommittee of AML to hash out this issue? - --=20 Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com - --------------------------------------------- From: Randall Larsen AML Listmembers, The Bombay Film industry is called Bollywood by the Indians. Nobody here in the states gets it. The Indians (even the ones in Madras) are still quite happy with the term since it puts them (in their minds) in the same league as Spielberg and the studio gang. Bollywood makes as many or more films as Hollywood (they are very prolific) so perhaps its not pretentious to say Bollywood (if you like musicals). But, Mollywood? I think its a bit early to be comparing LDS made films to the Hollywood studio output. Maybe if you include all the great films made in Moab (Dixiewood) and in Utah in general (Uintawood) you _could_ say Mollywood. The implication is that Utah is overflowing with (good) films. Am I missing something --I haven't seen it yet---unless we are counting Soderberg's and Dutcher's films more than once. Are we adopting all of Robert Redford's output because he loves Utah's mountains? Come to think of it the films that show at the Sundance festival could be called "Parkwood." While we are calling wood wood, the X rated output of the film capital North Hollywood ought to be called "Firewood." But, lets drop that term since I don't believe in burning books or films unless its ordered by three men in authority. kind regards, Randall Larsen live from Narlywood Honolulu, HI (Paradise) - --------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Tyner" I think Mollywood was a take-off of a take-off. Films from India are lovingly called "Bollywood" =20 Although I have my own reasons for loving all things Molly, I would hate to be cast out of his presence or have Richard=20 withdraw his spirit from us. So Holywood it is. ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - --------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Zion Films: "Holywood" >=20 > Halestorm: "Mollywood" >=20 > Okay? Or is that still worthy of sponteneous vomit? Considering the quality of most of the LDS films so far, how about=20 "Lamewood"? - --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - --------------------------------------------- From: Chirs O - --- Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > > Well, Holywood ... sounds terribly terribly pretentious. That's the one thing that I questioned about the name. It implies that films about non-LDS religious experiences aren't "Holy". Non-members aren't going to take that well. Also, I thought the "Mo" in Mollywood was for Mormon, not Molly Mormon. When this thread first started I thought the idea was to have the name Hollywood (two Ls) instead of Mollywood, implying that the LDS films are (or should be) serious, commercial quality feature films. I had to do a double take to see what the real name was. I can see the desire to separate quality LDS films from ones that look like weekend camcorder projects, but in the end, the name will be chosen by journalists and the masses. To be honest I think they have already decided... Chris Oglethorpe - --------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com In a message dated 10/14/03 5:50:23 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 marianne_hales_harding@hotmail.com writes: > I, for one, think the term=3D20 > "Mollywood" is hilarious and great. >=20 I now have to go clean the spontaneously-ejected vomit from my computer=20 keyboard. Afterwhich, I'll start looking for another genre to work in. Richard Dutcher - --------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" - --- Original Message --- From: "Marianne Hales Harding"=20 To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Hooray for "Holywood" >>For one thing: nobody outside the white American LDS population would=3D20 >>even=3D3D20 "get it." > >>"Holywood," fine. "Mollywood," I'm gone. > >Well, Holywood doesn't rhyme with Hollywood, thus killing the "joke" >(for me=3D20 >anyhow) AND it sounds terribly terribly pretentious. As far as anyone=3D20 >outside of the American LDS population "getting" Mollywood, well, since=3D20 >we're talking about a monicker used within that group then what does it=3D20 >matter if, say, the Japanese don't "get it"? I mean, people aren't >going to=3D20 >be putting this on their business cards. I, for one, think the term=3D20 >"Mollywood" is hilarious and great. It is a great tongue-in-the-cheek jab at exactly what=20 we DON'T want to be producing. I, too, like the=20 term. Using the term shows that, though serious about=20 creating great art, we don't take ourSELVES too=20 seriously. - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Donny Osmond Interview In "Salon" There's an interesting interview with Donny Osmond in Salon where, among other things, he discusses his goody-two-shoes image and his struggle with social anxiety disorder: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/10/14/donny ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:00:09 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] If you could have your wish... Thanks guys, for all the suggestions. After further searching, my friend discovered "Mamma Mia!" is still playing, and her being a dedicated ABBA fan and getting the tickets, that's where we're going! Sounds good to me. The trip's going to come off after all! Yippee! 2nd weekend in November. I've never been to NYC, so I'm pretty excited. Linda Adams - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:07:41 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie In a message dated 10/14/03 6:05:32 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 jana@enivri.com writes: > Another thought on TWATG: when Lund's first book was published=20 > everyone said it wouldn't sell because it had never been done before,=20 > and didn't fit any of the current market specs. Lund proved them=20 > wrong in a big way. Who says he might not do that again with the=20 > movie?? I'm not necessarily condoning the project, but I feel like=20 > giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least till the movie's made... I'm with Jana on this. Frankly, I don't really care all that much whether it=20 succeeds as a business enterprise. I'm not one of the investors. I'm just a=20 potential audience member. All I want is for it to be a wonderfully entertaining movie that will make me=20 feel that I didn't waste my seven dollars at the movie theater. In fact, I=20 want it to be so good that I'll see it twice and take my friends and family back=20 for a third viewing. I'm getting a little weary, actually, of our films being judged on their money-making potential instead of on their craftsmanship and artistry. Some of my favorite films never made a profit. In fact, the artists and the=20 businessmen behind the films surely knew they were taking a risk. I'm so very=20 glad they decided to take the risk. Our culture and our world has benefited more from the important, meaningful=20 films that made little to no profit, than from the unending stream of=20 "blockbusters." Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:19:03 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Two (of Three) Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Two (of Three) Part One of this three-part post was more an exercise in apologetics. Now I'd like to get down to the "Not Pretty Enough" part of my added title in this second installment on this topic. Dianna prefaces her comments by saying that she saw the Pride and Prejudice trailer and the total "cuteness" of the women in the film set her off on a ramble. I haven't seen Black's movie yet, one of my 3 or 4 remaining of the 17 or so in our burgeoning genre left to see. That and "DOD" (Day of Defense; which I understand might be better acronymized, to coin a phrase, as "DOG." Ouch! That was not very nice of me! I make myself party to what Eric says we should not do, judge a film's content before you see it! Sorry. DOD.) Anyway, Dianna says: > Here's what I think the biggest thing is. Just like PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER > MORMON FILM DIRECTED BY A MAN (save Unfolding, by Vuissa), the woman=20 > is kind of a Barbie. Or, if she's not just drop dead gorgeous (with=20 > her darling little blond cork-screw curls), then she is just the=20 > cutest little thing you've ever seen. Blech! That's what I want to=20 > say. Okay. The part about attacking men, I will leave be for a moment. Here is where I suspect issues below the surface, perhaps, and overreacting to the essential nature of the selling of commercial film, generally. Also this may be an overreaction to P&P being cast with good looking girls, specifically, because despite your contention to the contrary (which I'll get to in a second) that's exactly how that story MUST be cast. As I said, this ties into my "Do The Math" post of the other day of the commercial necessities of film. Film is a commercial enterprise, and there are basic market forces which rule the successful dissemination of the product. We call them "Elements". They can be story elements, marketing elements, etc. Cast is a major "element" of a film. In fact, it is generally considered the most important element. Now, my observation (admittedly, as a man, and yes, in this case, as a producer) has been that your observation of LDS film is quite wrong, from a commercial sense. In fact, LDS filmmakers, as a rule, have, as of yet, NOT NEARLY MADE THEIR CASTS GOOD LOOKING ENOUGH! That is certainly an opinion which others can disagree with, but I stand by it, and will make my case with specific examples in Part 3 of this essay. From my (admittedly slanted) perspective, I can't tell you how shocking BAD some of the casting has been, from a commercial consideration, in the area of women in LDS film. And remember, I have an inside track: I talk to buyers, distributors, people who have to SELL these films, people who look at films as "products" and not "art," and some of them are screaming in dismay with respect to LDS female ing=E9nue casting elements that they have to sell. Okay? I'm ONLY talking about that. These girls may be wonderful people and decent actresses (actually the cases-in-point will not bear out the acting part), but from an aspect of "attractive element" they fail. Again, when I make my sleepy "art" films, my opinions may be different, but here we are talking about LDS film in general, and the use of women in those films. So far, taken as a whole, we stink. Not because the women are "too Barbie". But because they are NOT NEARLY ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH. And there is no excuse for it, because I happen to know dozens of immensely attractive and very talented actresses out there, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what is going in the heads of some LDS directors. Basically, I have the exact opposite opinion as Dianna with respect to the casting thus far in LDS film (with several key exceptions). Filmmaking is very much like building a house. It takes a tremendous amount of money, time and energy to build. You have to put together thousands up parts. And then, you have to sell it to people when you are done. Using that allegory: film has to look good. You can't sell a house that looks crappy. You can't sell one that isn't well made. Many times, just a coat of paint will sell a house. Certainly, any real estate person will tell you that a nice landscaping job will up the value of a property considerably. Where does this lead us in casting? Let me step to one side and go back for a second to deal a little with the veiled commentary on the fact that MEN are directing these films. First of all, let's examine for a moment women in advertising in general. Now, we all know that women's magazines, and the majority of advertising in general, are filled with very attractive women. Why? Is it because these media are produce by and for MEN? Far from it. Most women's magazines are helmed by women. The vast majority of women's magazines are read by women. So why are women's magazines filled with ads, by and for women, featuring beautiful women? Well, studies have been done (yes, actual, scientific studies) that show that the image of an attractive woman is just as effective for both men and women. This is not a sexual commentary. This does not suggest that all women are lesbians. What we discover is the women (and we are just talking general tendencies here, not specific examples) will tend to see a beautiful woman and say "Wow, what if I looked like that" projecting themselves into the fantasy, and thereby being "attracted" to the advertising. Men, on the other hand, tend to be threatened by a really good looking guy. Hunky guys sell things to women and gay men, but not so well to other men. Whereas attractive women are statistically able to sell things to BOTH women and men. It is an interesting twist on the gender reactions. I'm just talking advertising and marketing here, not intending to make some big commentary about the sexes. This is just straight, practical talk about selling stuff. Hot women sell stuff. End of story. Now, when you combine that attractiveness with a great actress and a great story and compelling emotions, etc., you have a winning combination. Again, I'm just talking SELLING here. So, let me go back to Dianna's comments again and then spin off in some other directions. She says: > Pride and Prejudice is not about a cute woman. It's about an=20 > intelligent, passionate, flesh and blood woman. Yes, she's supposed to be quite lovely (and not far from the ideal of her time), but she's so much more than attractive. Okay, STOP, STOP, STOP RIGHT THERE. This sounds a bit to me like a comment that wants its cake and wants to eat it, too. It's a bit self-contradictory. You want to say that she IS attractive and that she is NOT at the same time. Or, this might seem to imply that all of the internal ideals preclude an external beauty. Which they do not. In fact, they enhance it. Pride and Prejudice IS about cute women. You say it yourself: these girls represent the IDEAL OF THEIR TIMES. Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head. And that ideal includes, as you say, intelligence (actually, the ideal of that day was stupid women), passion, etc., yes -- AND BEAUTY. In fact, to be really truthful, in that day and age, I would say the ideal of women was gorgeous, dumb, silent, doting on men, etc. If anything. So Austin was creating characters that blew the mold wide open. Women who were so attractive and compelling they were attractive DESPITE the fact that they were also full of intelligence and spirit. But this is not a commentary on Austin or P&P. This is simply to say that Pride and Prejudice IS about cute women. It has to be. I don't know if Black has achieved this in his film, but it is ESSENTIAL that he make the attempt. And the attempt is multi-fold: a) to do justice to the book and b) to SELL THE FILM. He's not there to create a new ideal, or to infuriate LDS women who struggle with weight, or to compound the distortion of body image in the media. It is essential to the ROMANTIC and ENTERTAINING story he is telling. And again: cute has never meant a cancellation of the positive inner qualities. You say it yourself: > She's the kind of woman that most women can relate to and cheer for. =20 > She cares for people other than herself. Yes, she's full of weaknesses, but she's still a hero, not just a lucky little girl. She is an observer of life, and she scorns the role women have to play in her society (and not just her own role). YES, and all of this includes and DEMANDS that an attractive actress play her! (In my opinion). There are stories which tell a different story and demand other considerations in casting. Richard has a story which intrigues me so much I'm considering getting the rights from him to develop it further. It is provisionally entitled "Special" and it is a love story about two people who do not conform to the world's ideals of beauty. It's a wonderful story and could be an amazing film. But the cynic in all of us starving filmmakers has to ask, "Does anyone want to see a story about two ugly people?" That's a cynical way to put it. These people are NOT UGLY... they are just NOT PERFECT. Terrence McNally's "Frankie And Johnnie in the Clair de Lune" is just such a story. Kathy Bates and F. Murray Abraham inaugurated the roles on stage. Of course, when Hollywood got a hold of it, they cast Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino. Word is that Bates practically peed her pants with hilarity when she heard Pfeiffer was going to play her in the movie. So the story had to be changed from a woman struggling with weight and body issues (and therefore resistant to trusting in the possibility of finding true love), to a woman with a great body but inner demons and PSYCHOLOGICAL issues that make her BELIEVE she is unattractive (and therefore resistant to finding true love). Different story. Hollywood going for the look once again. So I HEAR you when you cry: "Can't we have a NORMALLY WELL-FED heroine once and a while?!" And the answer is... it's very, very hard. We (as filmmakers) can only do it once and a while and VERY CAREFULLY because it is so hard to sell. And we just HAVE to make our money back on films or our careers get very short or very difficult. It is much easier in ensemble pieces. There, you can spread the wealth. TV dramas have been very successful in recent years introducing fabulous actresses who are well-fed and maintaining high ratings. But the fact is that within the ensemble there are LOTS of attractive people. This tricks the audience into getting to KNOW the characters, and coming to love them as people, and not even noticing who looks like what. Episodic drama is much more able to do this than feature film, but feature with ensembles still can to some degree. But back to LDS film. > Now, I would LOVE to see a modern adaptation of that book which=20 > focuses on those > issues, particularly addressing some of the misconceptions about women > in LDS society. From the trailer, however, it looks like there's a=20 > very slim chance that this movie is going to do anything like that. =20 > I'm so curious about it, and yet I'm so angry that it looks so=20 > teeny-bopper. Again, don't know the film and can't defend it. But it seems that Black is doing an LDS version of what "Clueless" did for "Emma". He is specifically targeting a younger audience. That is his demographic. A niche within a niche. He's doing an LDS "Clueless" - NOT an LDS "Sense and Sensibility". And therefore he has made the right choices. This particular film may not be your cup of proverbial tea, but the filmmaker should not be accused of conforming to male-propagated stereotypes, when he is, in fact, simply being a smart marketer. > Stepping away from this particular film, though, I really want to=20 > address this. Maybe I'm just annoyed because these movies are being=20 > made by Mormons that my husband and I are often acquainted with, and=20 > maybe I'm just jealous that these lucky ladies get to be in movies. I > don't know. I watch Alias, though, and I don't feel like turning=20 > anorexic each time I watch an episode. I feel empowered, and yet I=20 > will never, in my wildest, craziest dreams, be able to look anything=20 > like gorgeous Jennifer Garner or have her kind of success. I really=20 > think it's just because all of the Mormon women I've seen in Mormon=20 > movies (save Unfolding) are either so cute, so ugly, so weird looking, > or so Barbie. Where are the rest of us, the real ones with meat on=20 > our bones and normal, more common features, and brains in our head. =20 > Here's the punch line, most Mormon women are normal women. Most of my > female friends are both attractive and decently fed at the same time. But the real question is not the one you ask, in my opinion. What you are asking is "Where are the STORIES about real Mormon women?" The films which have been out there so far have not been about that, per se, especially all the ones with romantic theme elements, and have therefore been OBLIGATED to cast attractive women in the roles. An obligation which they have not even remotely been universally successful in doing. You are correct: if someone were to do a "The Way We're Wired" casting issues might be different (but even then I'm not sure). Dutcher's "Special" defiantly. The "Barbie" issue IS that story. But if the film is a general romance, the love interest in question HAS to be delicious. This is more than just my opinion. Look at the overwhelming consensus in the disparate reviews for "Charly". Everybody talked about Heather Beers's being cast as the saving grace of the film that was otherwise softly received. Can you imagine if they had cast someone "attractively challenged"? The film would have been vilified and unsaleable. In Part 3 of this essay, I'd like to do a case-by-case look at several LDS films and see where this aspect has succeeded or failed. And I hope you don't think I'm just a male pig. I mean, I probably AM a male pig. But I'm also a marketing realist. And when it comes to attractive casting, I have to say: we need to do even better. Part 3 in a day or two. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:52:06 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Three Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Three Part One and Two of this three-part post tried to make the case that casting attractive people in film was essential and more than just an exercise in apologetics for male directors. I also made the contention that with respect to LDS film in particular, our casting has been "Not Pretty Enough." Now I'd like to look at specific films and offer my opinion of which succeeded and failed in this respect. Two of the most problematic films in the infancy of our genre with respect to casting issue (and, interestingly, two which also struggled the most financially) are "Out of Step" and "Handcart". Both of these films are romances. OOS is a contemporary romance, in fact, it is a love triangle story. "Handcart" is a pioneer epic at first glance, but no; actually it is a love story about a man who falls so hopelessly in love with a Mormon girl passing through Iowa City that he is driven to abandon everything he thinks he believes in, including a tremendous bias against Mormons to join her on the transcontinental crossing. Love stories both. I'm sorry, but unless you are doing "Special" or "Frankie & Johnnie", you had better make your romances ROMANTIC. And that means, the audience has to vicariously desire to place themselves into the shoes of the film's stars. They have to love these people, too, and be able to believe that the characters would love each other. In both cases, the female ing=E9nues of these films, the love interests, are not nearly attractive enough. Now, this is no insult to the two actresses. I'm sure they are great people. And they are certainly THIN (which might make those of us who struggle with weight hate them no matter what). But I have to be a very hard, realistic, put-your-producer hat on judge here, and tell you: being thin and blond is not enough to qualify as a sparklingly attractive actress. And neither of the actresses in these two films have the necessary spark to qualify. In fact, over the course of two hours, both of these dear sisters become patentedly unappealing. Further compounding this sad fact is that the key art shots selected by the marketing staff on both of these pictures could not have been worse. Particularly bad are the art choices for "Handcart" where photos of Aurbach are chosen for publicity shots that EMPHASIZE her WORST features and make her look terrible! It's not her fault: she just couldn't get a break from these filmmakers! Rogers did the same thing with Jacque Gray in TBOMM, turning an attractive woman (see her in "God's Army") in to a fixed-eyed, glassy-staring blank figure of decidedly moderate appeal. It's the difference between a good photo of yourself and a bad one. We ALL have pictures of ourselves we don't want anyone to see, and some that are pretty good. Well for heaven's sake: if you are making a film poster SELLING a film: don't you think you'd want to make everyone in it look as good as possible?! (Don't even get me started on that shot of Noah Danby biting his lip in all the BOMM posters! Oh my gosh! They take their one hunk of a guy, and make him look like a blithering moron on the billboard! How stupid is that?!) So, my contention is that commercially, the casting was lethal to OOS and H. Both films had other problems, too, tons of them, not the least of which was no marketing budget and a lot of bad luck. But I maintain that the "Barbie" aspect does not apply to them. They failed to get sufficiently attractive cast, and that contributed to their financial failure. It know it did: I've talked to some of the distributors who've had feedback from buyers and they all say the same thing. Now, to change the pace from being grim about casting, let's turn to a great success: the casting of "Charly." Heather Beers was universally lauded in her portrayal of Charly. It happens that she's a pretty good actress. But this is not the full story, because, quite frankly, with that awkward dialogue in the opening scenes, she's pretty unsure of herself and one note, and anyone would be hard pressed to portray that radically condensed and plausibility-straining conversion. So it's not a pitch perfect performance, and it's certainly not a pitch perfect film. But she is so ATTRACTIVE (and that INCLUDES: intelligence, wit, charm, caring, etc.), that the film works. She sucks you in. You can't help but like her: men and women alike. And look at all the key art for that film: all the posters WORK. They are appealing, attractive, make you want to see the film because they accent the best aspects about the cast. This, too, is a love story, and a believable one. I don't know if I buy that Charly would fall for Sam, but holy cow: I don't know any Sam in the world who wouldn't fall for Charly. So it works. This is not just my bias speaking. I've known Heather for a lot of years. I dated her sister briefly and was pretty infatuated. (In fact, a 500+ page first-draft manuscript of an epistolary novel based on that experience -- and including in the background references to some elements based on Heather's real-life love story with her husband -- is sitting on my desk awaiting serious pruning -- which I haven't gotten around to - as I write this.) I attended Heather and Steve's wedding reception in Southern Cali many years ago, and I've run into her from time to time over the years. So I'm a big fan of her extended family. But my bias is mirrored by audience reaction everywhere. It's an objective observation when I say that this casting works. And it's not just because the director was a MAN! Ironically, Christian Viussa, whom Dianna applauds in her initial post for casting "real" women in his shorts, has cast Heather Beers as the lead in his feature, "Eat, Drink & Get Married"! SMART MAN! And also essential. As in my example in Part 1 about my little "art" short: in one case he was ABLE to cast a "real" woman; but in his feature (which is a romantic comedy and DEMANDS that he assemble an attractive, funny, appealing cast with quirky supporting players and handsome/beautiful leads) it was essential that he cast someone like Heather. (Christian talked to my sister, Mireille, about the role - which also would have been a tremendous choice, for the same reasons, my obvious bias in that case, notwithstanding -- but Meems won't work off of her SAG card, so it couldn't happen.) Okay. "The Other Side of Heaven" only needs a passing mention. Obviously they knew they had to cast an attractive cast in both the love-interest leads, and they did. I don't think they used Anne Hathaway to nearly enough effect, but their heads were leaning in the right direction as filmmakers. Of course. It could not be otherwise. I have already hinted at "The Book of Mormon Movie." These guys managed to make every single person in the picture look bad at one time or another, most glaringly so in their POSTERS! Outrageous. Jacque, who looks gorgeous in "God's Army" is made to look like a startled plum in the picture. And then, in the one time when they really had an EXCUSE to give us some gorgeous flesh (the "wicked dancing scene" on the ship), they are so restrained that the scene offers not only zero attraction, but is utterly laughable. Is this because of our FEAR of sexuality, attraction and things of the flesh in general, as a religion? Probably. I'm not saying let's have worldly levels of sensuality in LDS film, of course not. But let's not live in a total fantasy-land either! HECK, even DISNEY floods their animated films with beauty and sensuality. And they are all rated G. And Mormon's LOVE them. I remember when I saw "The Little Mermaid" in Orem years ago. The audience was in LOVE with Ariel... who is little more then a girl in a bikini who's as superficial as the day is long, loves a hunk she knows nothing about by sight only, who makes terrible choices, and gets out of trouble by dubiously moral turns of events. Pretty ironic. But put an attractive girl in LDS live action and be unabashed about it? Never! I have a problem with that double standard. Now, finally, look at Richard's casting. You certainly can't accuse Richard Dutcher of not casting "real" women in his films. They are ALL 'real'. The are also ALL attractive. Carrie Morgan ("Peg") is as unusual a choice as can be, a bold casting choice. She is also tremendous, sassy, funny, attractive and REAL. She's great to look at, but she's also REAL. And she, much like Heather, got tons of praise in the reviews. The casting worked. She had an appeal that added and did not distract from the role. Tayva Patch is probably the most attractive mother of fully grown kids around. (Like how I tried to delicately side-step the age issue?!) I'd do a love scene with her no problem. That, too, was a great and bold choice on Richard's part. And it totally works. It adds just a hint of romantic possibilities that flavors the whole film like a gentle spice in a yummy stew. And too bad you guys can't see "Girl Crazy": FILLED with beautiful women... at least 20 of them. I helped cast them all... and they include my wife. So, again, I'm biased. But this is a guy who understands CASTING. (Except with himself, of course. As we all know, Tom Selleck should play all of Richard's roles. Yeah, right.) At any rate, he understands casting WOMEN. Fair enough? "Single's Ward" casting already got enough bashing on that violent thread way back when, so I will forego. "RM" and "Home Teachers" I haven't seen; "Best Two Years" has no women; "Work and the Story" and "Saints and Soldiers" use the SAME women and neither has enough to talk much about. That's not really fair, of course: I thought Jennifer Hoskins was both attractive and funny, but she's not in TWATS film nearly enough to make her presence as known as it should have been. But at least Nate had the gut impulse to leaven his bread with a woman, and that impulse must be lauded, even if the results were shaky. Who've I forgotten? Anyway, I think I've probably gone on quite enough. Attractive casting is an essential element to creating sellable films. If you are doing a romance, it's essential. The numbers both in box office and in critical response all bear out my case. Appeal in the casting of women's roles boosts a film's overall success. It's a hard-to-swallow fact. I'm NOT talking about women's issues, cultural insecurities, male chauvinism, sexism, LDS mores, or anything other than cold, objective marketing realities. And they're not that different, whether we're talking about Hollywood or Mo- - -- oops. Almost made Richard vomit -- "HOLYWOOD"! Nothing attracts a serpent like paradise; but nothing attracts an audience like a good-looking cast, either. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #193 ******************************