From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #195 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 195 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:32:43 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, or Not Pretty Enough, Part 1 ___ Marie ___ | ...it still bothers us that physical appearance is | inherently such a culturally institutionalized | requirement... ___ Be aware that while what counts as "attractive" is partially culturally=20 determined, the fact that physical appearance is important to men is=20 almost certainly largely biological in nature. So while I can understand frustration, the reason you see beautiful=20 women beside products and in film is because it is a quick and easy way=20 to get men to watch. Sex sells. It's a fact of life. ___ Marie ___ | ...we are taught that the spiritual aspects of | character are supposed to be way more important | than good looks, but part of our value as women | seems to be dependent on meeting narrow, often | wordly standards of physical appearance. ___ This is true to a degree, but then the opposite occurs as well. Men=20 are valued in terms of financial ability and, in the US, in terms of=20 how well they can entertain women. A guy may be the most spiritual and=20 nicest guy around but few women will pay him any mind if he is boring,=20 unattractive, and poor. Given that movies are about interesting people or events, our cultural=20 notions of what is interesting will determine what goes into=20 literature. As fair as it might be to have a frumpy woman and a boring=20 guy on screen for two hours, few would watch unless there was something=20 else significant going on. On the other hand I just saw the trailer=20 for _Calendar Girls_ which looks like an interesting critique of the=20 phenomena we are discussing. http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/calendar_girls/ It appears to be a takeoff of _The Full Monty_, only with women. I=20 don't know if it is any good. But if it is successful it will in part=20 because of that recognition of our cultural mores of attractiveness,=20 just as occurs with _The Full Monty_. i.e. the message will be drowned=20 out in the irony of why we find unattractive women posing as models=20 funny. ___ Marie ___ | If we look at these films as wish-fulfillment, | an expression of a perfect, larger-than-life | fantasy, it's harmless to use drop-dead gorgeous | women (and hunky men!) because that's just part | of the fantasy, (like the terrific apartment and | the designer clothes). It becomes harmful when | we start believing that real life is supposed to | emulate the fantasy on some level, thus | generating expectations (subliminal or | conscious) that real women ought to look like | that. ___ I'm about to become dangerously close to going into the doghouse. And=20 I recognize a bit hypocrisy in what I'm about to say since I've gotten=20 horribly out of shape the last year since I started dating my wife=20 seriously. (Yes, ironic I know) However... I think that this "wish fulfillment" often is very obtainable. Eating=20 right and going to the gym isn't that hard. Cutting out simple carbs,=20 lowering your calories and spending an hour to an hour and a half a day=20 at the gym not only is doable but should be done. Starting to dress=20 nicer and being a bit more charming isn't that hard. You can even do=20 it economically. It isn't that hard to make ones apartment look nicer=20 economically. It often isn't that hard to find a better paying job,=20 even in our economy. The problem is that it is very easy to "settle." And I critique myself=20 in that. I used to consider myself less than a GQ kind of guy and people=20 probably agreed with me. I was shy and quiet and, as readers here can=20 attest, my interests weren't really interesting to most people. Yet=20 just as I got the "official" boot from the singles ward I rather easily=20 reinvented myself and was going to trendy parties, dressed so people=20 thought that I was rich, and even dated a bunch of Hollywood styled=20 models. I was in excellent shape with a six-pack and even learned to be=20 outgoing, suave and sophisticated. (Or at least more so - I don't=20 claim to have completely conquered my naivete) It was, as much as anything, just as much for the "adventure" of it all=20 as anything. And probably in hindsight elements of it weren't the=20 wisest to have done. But I've often looked at TV or movies and=20 people's comments of how that is beyond what they can do and cringed. =20 There is nothing I've seen in film that follows the laws of physics=20 that I don't think is doable. I could go on about some of the=20 adventures I've had that were in other areas of life. I remember on my mission getting irritated by people who watched life=20 on TV. There is very little about life, especially for an American,=20 that isn't achievable. You can sit back and watch other people live=20 it. Or you can live it yourself. While I certainly can understand complaints about social ideals, at the=20 same time the idea that such ideals are unobtainable is simply wrong. =20 100% wrong. Now they may not be good to achieve. And, after hanging=20 out with some of the Hollywood crowd for a while, I can certainly say=20 that a lot of the ideals aren't good. But sometimes I think we want=20 ideals to descend to our level rather than raising ourselves up. If=20 there's one thing about our culture that bothers me it isn't that our=20 ideals are too hard to achieve. It is that few people try to extend=20 themselves beyond where they are. The ultimate "reality" of the gospel=20 is Eternal Progression. While there is no doubt Satan puts up lots of=20 counterfeits of what progression is, we shouldn't think that=20 progression isn't obtainable. Which is why I'm hitting the gym an hour and a half a day, just put up=20 some pull up bars and a heavy bag for boxing. And I take my dog=20 jogging each day. Hopefully I'll be able to give my wife the=20 body I had at least a year ago, if not three years ago. Clark Goble =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:43:52 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] Nibley (was Movie Moratorium) =20 ___ Randall ___ | Clark is probably right about everthing. I am tired of defending=20 | Nibley let him come out and defend himself. I took a beating for=20 | quoting him on the Ancient Near East list a while back. ___ This is partially the fault of the popularity of the FARMS books. I=20 think some commentary should have been included with each book. I=20 don't mind there being flaws in the man's work - especially his=20 non-scholarly work - but the way it was marketed tended to treat it all=20 as equal. The fact is that a lot of what was put in the Collected Works of Hugh=20 Nibley was never intended for publication. A lot of it includes off=20 the cuff comments made at lectures or firesides. It's hardly fair to=20 judge the guy for that. Likewise the majority of his writings are more=20 akin to personal essays. Personal essays by a very intelligent person,=20 yes. But just personal opinion and not scholarship. And, like so many=20 essay writers, he gets wrong a lot of things he encounters only=20 superficially. Likewise he came from an era when the "big picture" type of analysis=20 was very important. So we have people like Eliadi (who apparently=20 thought very highly of Nibley), Campbell and others writing on myth and=20 ritual. But, like those figures, as interesting as he was in the big=20 picture we find that in the small picture there often was a lot of=20 misreading, taking out of context, and the like. Of course that leads=20 us to wonder how seriously we ought to take him in the big picture. I like the way one FARMS reviewer put it while remaining critical of=20 Nibley's work on the Jaredites. Nibley is a trail blazer. What ends=20 up becoming roads and highways may not end up being that related to the=20 trails Nibley blazed. Some of the trails may turn out to be dead ends.=20 But before the road builders can come, the trail blazers must proceed. We should look at Nibley *not* as the final word, but as the first=20 word. I think that when we do this we will learn to appreciate him a great=20 deal but also be very cautious with his work. (Most of which is 30 -=20 40 years old anyway - which is positively ancient in terms of a lot of=20 scholarship) Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:02:27 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] "Day of Defense" (Review) >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Original Message From Jeff Needle = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Seriously, this sounds like a dreadful film. I'll likely pass on=20 >this=3D20 one. But has anyone read the book? Did I miss the review=20 >here? The review of this book never came through mainly because it was published=20 many moons ago. I'm pretty sure I read this book on my mission. (Or at least=20 read an imitator - though it was called "The Day of Defense.") It was=20 essentially a sheaf of photocopies stapled together with a yellow cardstock=20 cover that had (brace yourselves) a drawing of weighing scales and a couple of=20 books. I had a lot of fun reading it. Mainly because it really appealed to my fantasy=20 of ripping some idiot preacher to shreds. I wanted to be one of those=20 missionaries who had the whole flippin' cannon up his sleeve. It was great to=20 see them being wise beyond their years and kicking some major pastor=20 hindquarters. I'd say it's like a romance novel for missionaries. I may still=20 have it among my missionary effects somewhere. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:23:33 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Negative Themes and Artistic Value I agree about Shakespeare in Love. That's the one film that actually, really does say it's okay to cheat on your wife, if you're sufficiently smitten by Trooo Luuuvv. Reason number 153 to hate the film. Kill Bill I haven't seen yet. I'd argue with Pleasantville. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:43:35 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] glorifying violence The Gladiator, I consider one of the great religious films of all time. I can make a strong case for it being, like Private Ryan, one of the great anti-violence violent films. =3D20 But here's the thing. I teach theatre history, or did, and we always deal with the Roman Games, and my students are genuinely and properly horrified at the spectacle of death for entertainment purposes. And then I saw Gladiator. And in one scene, our hero, Maximus, organizes a bunch of gladiators, leads them as the great military commander he is, to defeat Roman soldiers in combat. It's a tremendously violent scene. But you know, I got it. I watched that scene, and I thought, 'For the first time in my life, I get it. I can see how people could have found this entertaining. It's an immensely interesting game. I watch and enjoy football, and what I like about football is the strategy of it, as well as the extraordinary athleticism. Well, gladiatorial combat had all that, with the stakes raised. I get why they dug it.' And that was horrifying to me. I felt complicit, frankly. I came to understand what I am capable of. I understood that I too would have enjoyed the Games. Not a happy realization. And I argue with all my heart that for the film to bring me to that realization was a moral and valuable thing for that film to have done. That for me at least, and probably for other audience members, the film led me to a profoundly important and disturbing self-realization. And what I need is redemption. Which the film also acknowledged, and portrayed--the possibility of grace and redemption. I think it's a truly great film, and a profoundly moral film. As is Private Ryan, for much the same reasons. And, as is Jackie Chan. Because what Jackie does pull us out of any moral framework and allow us to enjoy sheer artistry for its own sake. I mean, the stories of most of Jackie's films are ludicrous. And also irrelevant. The films may not be virtuous. But they're completely lovely. And praiseworthy. So we get to seek after those things as well. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:54:12 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Harry Potter It's interesting that lots of people have done this, suggested that Harry's better when read aloud. I'm sure that one of the reasons that I'm sitting her scratching my head over the criticisms y'all are making is that my relationship with the books is as one who reads them aloud. I never read 'em on my own. I read 'em to my kids, and neighbor kids, and do all the voices. I think they're much too short. I think they could be five hundred words longer, and still be tight and concise. I love the details. Why? Because what a lot of y'all are calling 'padding' is, I think, humor. The books are really tremendously funny, and we laugh out loud at them all the time. Harry's whining doesn't bother me in the slightest--he's funny when he whines. The books are really uncuttable, because what you'd lose would be details of that wonderful Hogwarts world (which is a marvelously funny world) and minor characters, like, say, Fred and George. The one sin for which Chris Columbus will fry forever is what he did with Fred and George in the movies. He cut Fred and George! How dare he! He went story story story, and the story did get told, sort of. And what got left out? Everything important and good and valuable. Now, I have never listened to a book on tape in my life, and I never will, and I totally don't get why some of y'all do. I mean, car radios are for music, right? Having some actor drone on and on would drive me nuts, because it's so . . . dang . . . . slow. And you miss the visceral pleasure of reading, of seeing words in print. But Harry's books may work best in that format. They're great books to read aloud. And that's why you need the adverbs; they're inflection directions. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:58:51 -0600 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: ReRE: [AML] Women in LDS Film, or Not Pretty Enough, Part 1 Not just about women, but a comment generally: The extras in the street scenes in the B of M movie were all well-fed, even corpulent. Lehi remained one big chunky fella throughout his life, even when he was sick and dying. Considering how the culture at the time was certainly quite impoverished for lots of folks, I think this was a BIG faux pas. :) Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:55:51 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory/Art on The Wall I had to think if there's a picture of any of the brethren in our home, and there is, in my daughter's room. She, of her own accord, put up a picture of the First Presidency above her bookcase. On either side are original watercolors, one of a young girl feeding an apple to a unicorn, and the other of a young woman standing on a crescent moon gazing out on the cosmos. The frame she put the First Prez pic in was customized to have a celestial theme. It's one where they are standing together and it has an air of informality to it with President Hinckley smiling in his easygoing, wry way. To me, it invokes the feeling of family. Of men she looks up to, and in Pres. Hinckley's case, considers to be like a sort of grandfatherly figure in her life. I have no problem with it, it doesn't feel idol-like to me, just a personal expression of a growing and spiritually developing individual. And that's the way I tend to view it, treat them as someone you respect, perhaps feel a personal connection to, but no need to overdo it, pictures on the wall does not a person of goodness and holiness make. But I don't feel a need to avoid having pictures either. Sometimes we want to be different, just like everyone else. :) With perhaps a more worshipful attitude, I tend to view pictures of Jesus the same way. My daughter has one that again, seems to be a personal expression, one of the Savior crowning a kneeling young woman outside what I suppose is the Holy City. We have a total of two others hanging in the house. A small one in the living room where he is exiting the tomb with a look of triumph and gratitude gazing towards heaven. The other in our computer room/library, a Friberg entitled, "The Living Christ". A very european-looking Jesus with a manly physique. It has a very personal meaning for my husband from his mission days. I like the other elements in the print, large, burly men doing things like kissing his feet, people in an attitude of adoration and humble submission. And probably my favorite element is a young boy offering his pet bunny rabbit as a gift. I like having them to look at, but realize they aren't necessary for my eternal salvation. And it's easy to get caught up in appearances and feeling more righteous and being certain that you have brought the spirit into your home with the sort of decor. To me, it's an ancillary sort of thing, like a prayer shawl. Or feeling righteous because you smashed a bunch of offensive CDs. It's what you are already doing in your life and how you treat your family and others that is what is most important. The decor should only add. We lose our focus sometimes that way. If there was anything I can say I gleaned from "The Other Side of Heaven", it was a scene where they have their outdoor bamboo-made lean-to makeshift chapel where they had one small portrait of Jesus and another of Pres McKay. And yet, as Elder Groberg wished everyone to know, these were a people that had nothing, yet had everything. I brought that up during a Sunday School lesson on art contributing to the spirit in the home, and the teacher thanked me wryly for basically trashing his lesson. Happy to oblige. ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Stepping up to the plate Stephen Carter wrote: "Irreantum is actually my favorite magazine=3D20 right now." - -- and -- "There have really been some fantastic interviews in there as well. I mean,=3D20 really interesting people. Great writing too. Better, I would say, that most=3D20 of what you will find in Dialogue and Sunstone, = mostly because the people who=3D20 write for Irreantum are writers, instead of scholars (though some are both)." - --- I completely agree. And I always feel bad when an issue of Irreantum goes by on the list unremarked. So in the spirit of repentance, I offer the following on the Spring 2003 issue. First: A shout out to Jana Riess. The humor, insider understanding and optimism tempered by realistic expectations you brought to your interview was fabulous. If I ever see a black velvet painting of Joseph Smith again, I'll buy it and send it to you (re: the painting -- it's a long story but involves a former bishop and a group of priests [LDS priests of course], Tijuana, a stolen van, a grandmother in Santa Monica, an advance screening of T2, a gay couple, and Annie Hall). I'm excited about the Buffy book (and secretly love that Spike is called William the Bloody). And finally, for those who aren't Irreantum subscribers, here's a tease quote from Riess's interview: "As the membership matures, we will see the emergence of more independent Mormon voices. I am not talking of ones that are critical of the church; I am talking of voices that connect the Mormon experience -- which has been all too insular -- to the wider world."=20 May those words be prophetic. Second: Props to John Alba Cutler for his essay on Latino influences in LDS literature. One thing that Irreantum has lacked is essays that respond to, interpret, and engage with works of LDS fiction and film (I thought the John Charles Duffy/Scott Parkin dialogue-in-essay-form on Brigham City was fantastic -- something that really enriched the field). I realize that the scholarly essays are somewhat reserved for the AML conference, but Alba Cutler's work was rather accessible and raised some very interesting questions. I also liked that he tries to engage some contemporary critics/theorists (bell hooks, Levinas) and appropriate their ideas for use in a Mormon setting -- we need more Mormon spins of modernist and postmodernist theorists, I think. It still reads like what it is -- a portion of a thesis -- but I appreciated the perspectives on Latino characters in such works as _Angel of the Danube_ and _Salvador_. Finally, I think we'll see some great stuff come out if artists and critics explore his question "what does it mean to be a Lamanite?" For instance, does it mean something vastly different for Latinos than it does for Pacific Islanders? =20 Third: Mad props to Katherine Woodbury for her story "Thin, Scarlet Line." I've never really been able to get into Biblical-based fiction, and so I groaned as I began the story and read the names Rahab and Caleb and Joshua. I began to think, yes, this is well-written (and it is -- the prose is spare but not sparing, polished but not falsely-faceted), but it's not doing much for me. Ah, but then when the supernatural (so-to-speak, perhaps uber-natural would be a better term) figure arrived, things got better, and I found that in the end the story worked for me (or in me), and I thought about it at times afterwards. And the part near the end where the watchmen talks about God and fairness. Now that makes it Mormon for me. And makes it truth. Good stuff. Well worth the subscription price alone. So we got all the above, not to mention a quite funny essay by Melody Warnick, Andrew Hall's invaluable year in review, a sneak peak at Douglas Alder's novel, and probably the best slate of reviews (in terms of quantity and quality and clever titles and such) ever to appear in an issue of Irreantum, and more. Not bad. Anyway, now it's on to the Romance issue. ~~William Morris =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:32:55 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] glorifying violence On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:51:55 -0400 Sam Brown writes: > I'm with Jongiorgi. We trip over ourselves to be prude about > infidelity (though "fornication" that isn't unfaithful is considered > overall to be a positive thing), while we glorify violence > Examples: > gladiator: either it's a big hoax or it's another miserable > glorification of violence. the premise? watching people kill=20 > each other is bad =20 > Saving Private Ryan? I don't want to offend people who have been > maimed or killed in war, but I had to turn the film off, not=20 > because the effects were too realistic, but bc it was a pointless=20 > indulgence in violence without redeeming character. Let me quote the song that is playing at this moment on the radio: "In your eyes." I find this very interesting. Once again, it must be pointed out I feel that there is simply no way any one of us can credibly make blanket statements about so subjective a subject as artistic merits. You chose two films that are very dear to me for reasons that I probably couldn't convince you are valid ... even for me. You see, for me, Gladiator is about a man who wants to be with his family more than anything. He is forced by circumstances beyond his control to adopt a kill-or-be-killed way of life ... twice. I found the film to be quite uplifting. I too can't speak for the director, so I can't actually refute your claims that: (s)he either is mocking our obsession with violence by=20 supplying us the same fare that the coliseum audiences consumed, or (s)he is insightlessly (I know it's not a word, but it should be) participating in the trend. but I have read and heard the director speak for himself and I believe from what I've read and heard that you're right; no matter how hard you try you really can't speak for the director. Same with "Saving Private Ryan." You can't really believe that what the film did to you is universal, can you? Again, I was quite moved. Moved to feelings of compassion that I have rarely felt. Is that invalid? I wrote a play several years ago about the horrors of sexual abuse that my sister suffered at the hands of our grandfather. And yet, it wasn't until a couple months ago that I felt any real compassion for my sister when I took to heart one of the scenes from the play: REBECCA Dad, what happened to me? Do you understand what happened to me? BISHOP I think so. REBECCA But do you understand what it has done to me? What it has meant to me? BISHOP Not yet-- REBECCA Never, Dad! You will never know--you will never understand. BISHOP How do you know that? REBECCA In order for you to understand you'll have to see things from where I'm at. You'll have to hate your father the way I hate him. How are you going to manage that? How are you going to develop that kind of hate? BISHOP I don't-- REBECCA You'd have to know what he did. You'd have to've experienced it yourself, or you'd have to know what he did to me. You'd have to let me tell you what he did, let me describe every sickening detail. Do you want to hear that, Dad? Well, I did just that. I actually tried to imagine her ordeal. It nearly broke me. But it also changed some very wrong thinking I have been holding onto for a long time. At the very least it has made me less judgemental. After Eric Samuelsen debuted his short play, Kiss, at a Mormon Arts Retreat this last Spring, a woman in attendence felt the need to inform my wife and me (my wife performed in the piece) that she could never respect Eric. He had sealed the tomb for her. He had victimized my wife (funny, my wife didn't feel victimized) and had lost all hope for gaining favor in this woman's eyes. Her tirade was viscious and painful to listen to. Her ultimate claim was that Eric "said things directly in that play that assumed attitudes in me that i didn't have, and then proceeded to lecture me about them." To me it seems pretty egocentric for Anyone to assume that any artist is talking only to Anyone. Isn't it possible that there is an audience out there that doesn't think and feel exactly as I do? Shouldn't somebody try to reach them? J. Scott Bronson "People do not love better by reaching for perfection, they approach perfection by loving better." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:03:31 -0600 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Two (of Three) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:53:00 -0700 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I'm still processing most of this and trying to hear both sides, and I found your "Do The Math" post to be brilliant. But I had to pipe up and say we've had at least one "real woman" Mormon character in a Mormon film that I can't believe hasn't been mentioned, especially from Jongiorgi. His love interest in Brigham City, Peg. She seemed very real to me. A woman in a small town who probably doesn't have a lot of economic opportunity, but does her job well. A thirty-something single wanting the Mormon ideal of husband and family and being happy that she has found it. But I never sensed any desperation from this character that her life was meaningless without that. I also enjoyed the character showing some sexuality in getting to play dress-up for the undercover work at the bar. She reminded me of a lot of women I know and like. (Not that I've seen them in slinky outfits, they just have gutsy attitudes). Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA Well behaved women rarely make history. [Ed note: Jongiorgi does mention Peg in part three of his epic essay] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:22:29 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Stock Emotions and Sentimentalism Most often sentimentalism is defined in a negative way, since sentimentality has to do with feelings not reason or thought. I find as I get older the line between sentimentality and spirituality has become more difficult to discern in my own responses and in my observation of the responses of others. Whatever the source, my feelings are real to me. Do we have the right to judge whether others reactions are spiritual or merely sentimental. I think not. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:13:20 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Work & Glory Movie or I agree with Margaret. My mother always said "familiarity breeds contempt." Additionally I apply this to wall hangings. I don't have pictures of the general authorities and I don't have pictures of the temples in my home (I love the general authorities and the temples). I also love beautiful paintings and they make me feel spiritual, but when I see the the same art work (Kincaid and Greg Olson) in 90% of the homes of members I know, it becomes kitsch for me. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:06:28 -0700 From: "Clay Whipkey" Subject: Re: [AML] Johnny Cash >From: "R.W. Rasband" >I challenge you to think of a single LDS musician who comes close to >Cash in his range and depth. Once again it is the timidity of most >Mormon artists and audiences that keep them from similar >accomplishments. Come on, you can't find many musicians period who come close to Cash in that regard. My point would be that it doesn't mean there aren't musicians out there who are LDS who aren't writing stuff with depth and range. Maybe they aren't supported by the big Deseret Book machine, but they exist. How about the band from Duluth called Low. They recently finished a tour with Radiohead, who is probably the most artisticly respected band out there right now. Radiohead's Thom Yorke listed Low as one of his favorite bands. If you'd like to read their lyrics, http://www.chairkickers.com/low/songs.html cheers, Clay [Whipkey] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:09:11 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] RE: Women in LDS Film, or Not Pretty Enough, Parts 1&2 I am definitely not going to wait around for part 3 of Jon's post before responding. Now that it is after midnight, I've just had a lovely time watching "Defending Your Life," and my husband and child are asleep, my mind is clearer and I can finally finish this post that I've been attempting to write for over two days. First, thank you all for joining in the discussion. I've enjoyed all of the feedback from everyone. Also, thank you, Jon for having the courage to boldly argue against my extremely emotional, not well thought out comments. The truth is, while I feel strongly about discussing this topic in some depth, it is also quite exhausting (which I'm sure you've noticed). I've also had very little time without distraction or other more pressing matters to really write something that makes sense and does justice to all of the intelligent thoughts floating around in my head. I'm a terribly slow reader, and I'm even slower at writing. Plus, since this is a public forum, I'd like to stop making an ass of myself long enough to proofread and rewrite and at least try to show that I can produce a rational thought. (By the way, I mean "ass" in the biblical sense). :) I also want to say that I think you're great too, Jon. I appreciated your respectful remarks in part 1, and I'm grateful to all of my friends on this list for accepting me as I am, heart-on-my-sleeve and everything. Furthermore, even when I have strenuously disagreed with some of you from time to time, things posted on the list have never really offended me. Now, if someone came on and said, "Dianna, you are an idiot and I'd rather you keep your mouth shut for a change" I'd probably be a little confused and hurt. By the way, Jon, please say 'hi' to your two beautiful actress sisters for me. They might not remember me (my maiden name is Errico) as it's been awhile, and we didn't exactly move in the same circles. The red-headed Broadway star and I were in _The Three Sisters_ together in '95 at BYU, though, and the other gorgeous one was a favorite actress of mine and was also very kind to me. I wish them well in everything. Okay, let's get rational. I love movies, and I love pretty people in movies. When I used the terms "cutesy," "barbie," or even "unbelievably gorgeous," I am not panning beautiful women altogether. The bulk of my frustration is the lack of variety in beauty in LDS features, if you can really call it that. Really, what I've just seen so far, Heather Beers excluded, were just some pretty or adorable ladies. Most have been pretty in the same way, though. If they haven't had similar features, such as tiny frames or blond curls, they've had tiny frames and dark hair. Now Heather B. is gorgeous, but she's Barbie down to a "T" (minus the unrealistically healthy bosom). There is something unreal or boring about most of them in appearance, even Heather B., and their acting has not been strong enough to make them more attractive to me (which can happen). As I mentioned in my first post, I don't mind gorgeousness in actresses. I get platonic crushes all of the time on actresses. While my favorite films feature a different kind of beauty (e.g. "Enchanted April" with Polly Walker and Miranda Richardson), I'm also a sucker for Nora Ephron films, and her world is very pretty and stylish (and she has this huge crush on Meg Ryan). I even like films with Julia Roberts. I like films to take me out of the world as much as I like them to address my world, and I'm happy for my ingenue to be attractive, even thin and gorgeous, and even blond. She has to have some brilliance, though. I'd like some more flavors, and, yes, more beauty, for goodness sake. We can lie to ourselves and pretend that the ideal is rail thin and cutesy blond with curls, but we know that's a lie. The ideal beautiful women can come in a million different hairstyles, colors, and even body types, and she can sell in all of those flavors. Americans, and even Mormon women, need variety. I'd like to see some brunettes and red heads, some taller women or even mega-short women, some stronger profiles, meatier or more muscular figures, wider jaws, and more short hair. Of the LDS features I've seen, a good number of the romantic leads are very thin, at least a few have curly blond hair, and they have all had this very wholesome look about them. I want to see some character, some color (and not just different hair color). Does anyone understand why women like Sandra Bullock, Julianne Moore, Emma Thompson, Kate Blanchett, and Frances O'Connor are godsends to women over 22? Sure, we love Reese Witherspoon, Kate Hudson, and Gwyneth Paltrow, but we also love Kate Winslet and Minnie Driver. Yes, they are all beautiful and in good condition, but some are a little easier for the average woman to relate to. The truth is, I think Hollywood, though still being much more about glamour than anything, is doing all right when I comes to their leading ladies. It's doing great when it comes to supporting ladies. At least they give us a little variety. By the way, you know who else we like? Nia Vardalos. Made a little bit of money in an international success just awhile back. Wasn't a perfect film, but it was fun, and women (and a lot of men) really liked that film. Remember that kind of cheap movie "Dirty Dancing" starring Jennifer Grey back in the 80's? Loooooooooved it as a teenager (since you mentioned demographics in part 2), and it made a little bit of money, didn't it? Part of the reason was that more average looking women/girls looked at Jennifer Grey and imagined that they too could be closer to normal and get a hot man like Patrick Swayze. The biggest question I meant to ask is "why do LDS films' commercial descriptions of women disturb me as much as they do, and yet Hollywood and television goddesses often enchant me?" Well, for one thing, most LDS features are male dominant, and it's made the few women in the cast count big time. When those women turned out to not only be generic looking "barbies", "cutesies", or "Mollies" but mediocre actresses at the same time, it's been a little disappointing. Then other directors have had women in their films with bigger roles, and their choices have seemed a little too safe for me. It's been Ensign/LDS Media Woman or someone like Heather Beers, who has no right being that thin after having a couple of kids. But seriously, she's gorgeous and talented, yet she didn't blow me away with "Charlie" (even though I cried. But I cry every time I see "Deep Impact." Need I say more?). When I found out that she was playing the romantic lead in "Eat, Drink, & Get Married", I was a little surprised that Christian would pick her. He has unique, sharp taste in women in his films. His leading girl in "Unfolding" was beautiful and different, with dark eyes, full lips, and short dark hair. Gee, someone like that would have been refreshing. But, he played it safe. I know, I know, it was a small Colorado hick town, and I'm sure Heather was just fine. Still, I want some more physical variety, and since I've not been wowed by any of the actresses in LDS features (exception: I really liked Wendy in "Brigham City") I see no need for the same actresses to play leads more than once. This is not just about looks, though, and we know it. Writing is playing a huge part in this, but I don't have the energy to even go there right now. Who gets the Ensign? Any women getting sick of the typical photos posted in conference issues on random pages? My best friend commented that when she opened her last conference Ensign, there was a picture somewhere in the middle of a wholesome looking, thin, pretty woman with curly blond hair sitting and reading her scriptures. Wow, big surprise (besides the whole "praying on street corners" thing being annoying). I think I've seen that image a few times before. When church sponsored media isn't going out of it's way to prove what a great mix of color and culture we have (a very reasonable goal, I think), they tend to choose a certain type of pretty in their American women. If she's not kind of a waif, she's kind of a generic, wholesome cookie baker (not eater, just baker). The hair is usually pretty long, and if it's short its never too short or messy, etc. It's just seems canned, and regardless of the different hair colors, etc., it kind of looks the same. I had similar feelings when I was in Young Ambassadors. Okay, I'm being self-conscious, but there was this kind of subtext in Jon's messages that seemed to say, "Just because you're not pretty doesn't mean that actresses in film shouldn't be." You may not have meant that at all, but it's impossible for me to not be a little defensive and say this. I'm not ugly. I still have about 30 pounds to lose that I gained with Sophie, so I'd be terrified to step in front of a camera anytime soon. (I'm even nervous about auditioning for a community show I want to be in next year). Pre-marriage, though, I was always tall, lanky, and slightly big-boned (I mean actually big boned, not "big boned" as a euphemism for "a little heavy"). I was also never cute. That would have been the last word for me. I'm a little similar to, though obviously not as pretty as, actresses like Merryl Streep, Emma Thompson, or Katherine Hepburn. (Now, I sound really complementary of myself). Well, if you know Young Ambassadors, then you know that a tall, very fair skinned, Victorian looking woman doesn't exactly fit the look, not if most of the remaining females are a little more All-American looking. Well, the one and only year I was in the group, it was impossible to not notice how the director really tended to favor the more canned version of the Mormon women. All of the other women in our cast were good friends of mine, and I thought they were pretty. They were pretty all-American looking too, some gorgeous, some just pretty Molly. They got called on for prayers a lot more than I did, and though I was as good as singer as any in the group, I didn't get a solo in the fireside though a couple of women had more than one. It almost seemed like he was punishing me for something, and I kept wondering what exactly I had done wrong. That year was the 20th anniversary, and they video recorded this fireside at the Assembly Hall on Temple Square with a bunch of YA Alumni. A month or so later, we watched the fireside and were offered early purchase of the video to show to our parents. If my parents had seen it they'd have been angry. Every single man and woman in our cast of YA's was featured, either during his or her solo (which I didn't have) or just during different songs...except for me. Like a little schoolgirl, I kept looking for my mug after seeing my peers featured again and again. Then I thought I saw my profile for a second...and then they quickly cut from me to someone else in the group. Ouch! The director wasn't responsible for this. The cameraman was. Jon, is my perception of these films colored by my own insecurities? I'm afraid so, and though being a performer has put me on the course for some painful rejection like this incident, I'll betcha I'm not the only insecure woman in the church who is interested in seeing Mormon movies. I also know for a fact that a lot of women are ultra-aware of how canned and commercialized women in LDS media tend to be. It doesn't mean that we don't want beautiful women in LDS features. It means that we want wonderful, beautiful actresses who represent a better cross-section of female LDS society. Put more beautiful women with more talent and who don't all look the same in your movies, and you'll make more of us feel beautiful. We will love you and patronize your films more. We won't be saying in our heads anymore, "I guess she was fine." Instead we'll actually see your heroines as heroines. I have just a few more comments. I mentioned _The Way We're Wired_. I don't think Eric wrote one single woman in that play who isn't supposed to be physically beautiful in one way or another. When the film is eventually made, some characters will be more attractive than others, and none of them will look much alike. Eric's play, which is chock full of wonderful female characters, is not making any statement about LDS singles over 30 not being attractive or anything. When a woman stands up, though, and says, "I deserve, dammit, someone who can look at my body, you know, this body, and say right from the heart, absolute honesty, 'you turn me on. Your body is beautiful to me" she needs to be played by a different kind of beauty than Heather Beers. Can such a film be marketable? You bet it can. The church is full of women (and men) who would go limp at that scene (I practically did every night I watched it), and they will come and drag their significant others with them to see it, possibly again and again. Now, let me respond to this from part 2, Jon: >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 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=20 >comme=3D nt that wants its cake and wants to eat it, too. >It's a bit self-contradictory. You want to say that she IS attractive=20 >an=3D d that she is NOT at the same time. Or, this might >seem to imply that all of the internal ideals preclude an external=20 >beaut=3D y. 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. That's not what I meant. Lydia and Kitty are the intellectual ideal of their time, sort of. Jane is the physical ideal of her time. I repeat, "Yes, she (Elizabeth) is supposed to be quite lovely (and not far from the ideal of her time), but she's so much more than attractive." I was talking about Elizabeth and the ideal beauty of her time, not including intelligence. I was even being generous to Elizabeth since at best she is initially described as "not half so handsome as Jane", "tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me" and "very pretty and...very agreeable." She was definitely not quite the ideal beauty of her time. She should definitely be attractive, though. Still, it takes Darcy several looks and months to recognize that, feature by feature (physical and intellectual), she is "one of the handsomest women of (his) acquaintance." Even when adapting this to an LDS 21st century movie targeted at a young female audience, it is not about a "cute" or "gorgeous" woman (I am referring specifically to Elizabeth), at least not in a conventional way. I was about to give my dream Hollywood cast of this movie, but I'm not familiar with young female actresses enough these days. My favorites have all grown up. In the 80's, though, Elizabeth Bennet would have been played by someone like Molly Ringwald, Jamie Gertz, or, in the 90's, Winona Ryder. Kelly Preston would have played Jane in the 80's. Heck, if you upped the age a bit, you could just clip Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones from "America's Sweethearts" and have Julia playing Elizabeth. Do you get my point at all? I know that I didn't express myself well in my first post. I was not saying that Elizabeth shouldn't be physically attractive. Casting her as a gorgeous cutie pie, though, is going to alienate most girls and women who actually like the book. I guess that would be inevitable anyway, but you could still say something nice to the teenage girls who are going to flock to it, something like, "You don't have to be the ideal model to win a handsome, honorable guy." And please don't tell me that wouldn't sell, because it would. If "The Princess Diaries" can be hugely successful (largely because Anne Hathaway is a more normal looking girl), then "Pride and Prejudice" with someone not blond and adorable could really sell to LDS teenagers and maybe even some LDS twenty and thirty-somethings. Was my reaction premature? To this film (P&P), definitely. To the LDS film genre as a whole? Well, I'll read part 3 of your post. I don't think it's a day too soon, though, for an LDS woman to speak out to LDS filmmakers and say, "Hi, remember me? I'd like to be part of your target audience too." In fine, you said, "Hot women sell stuff. End of story." I say that beautiful women (and men) sell stuff, and the beautiful and plain and homely women in LDS society are longing to see some better actresses who are more beautiful in more ways and who are worthy of being called heroines. If Hollywood can do it, for goodness sake, you guys sure as he** can do it. Love, Dianna Graham P.S. I'm looking forward to part 3, Jon. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #195 ******************************