D. Michael Martindale wrote:
I don't think it's cut and dried that the scene was more powerful left out.
There's a fine balance between "leaving the audience to wonder" and "leaving
the audience unconvinced that the results of the missing scene were
believable and in character."
Going back a few years, here's what I wrote about "Final Fantasy" (overall I
gave it a thumbs up):
"Final Fantasy" is rated PG-13, I think to prevent small children from being
bored to death in between the action sequences. Rare that you can fault
anime for a lack of explicitness (compare "Ghost in the Shell"), but in
"Final Fantasy" it is necessary to conclude that protagonists kissing =
protagonists having sex. Something a tad more suggestive would have helped,
considering that it is absolutely critical to the plot.
Eugene Woodbury
www.eugenewoodbury.com <
http://www.eugenewoodbury.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: aml-list-bounces@???
[mailto:aml-list-bounces@???] On Behalf Of D. Michael
Martindale
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:31 PM
To: AML Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AML] Re: States of Grace: James Goldberg's response to the
movie
Alex Hall wrote:
>>We have zero responsibility for all the weird ways people
>>can react to art.
> First off, weird is relative. There's no absolute normality which
> "weird" can be held against.
If we stop talking about relative concepts, we're not going to have much
left to talk about. This argument is getting kinda stale: "Oh, that's
relative!" Yes, weird is relative, but not so relative that there isn't
a lot of common ground covered in its meaning from one person to the
next. That's why the word exists.
> But second, that's pure crap. If an artist creates something he is
> *aware* may needlessly provoke or harm his audience, he is
> *accountable* for what he *knows will cause a certain result*, at
> least for some in his audience.
Okay, but (as I seem to be saying a lot lately) what does that have to
do with what I said? If an artist says something that he's aware will
cause a certain reaction, then by definition it's a common reaction and
not a "weird" reaction.
So it's not pure crap at all. It's not any form of crap at all. It's
true. An author does not have a responsibility for trying to guess what
all the different reactions different people may have to his work. He
can't possibly be responsible for it because it's an impossible thing to do.
> I _hate_ the set of beliefs that set
> artists above their audience, and make them answerable to nothing,
> while the audience is answerable for everything. How unequal is that?
Very unequal, but (altogether now) what does that have to do with what I
said? Seriously, please explain how you got "the artist is answerable to
nothing" out of "the author is not responsible for every WEIRD reaction
a reader might have." Please point out to me ANY time, ANY place, ANY
message where I said an artist is answerable to nothing.
What's really going on here is that you don't agree with what I think an
artist is answerable for. So how about we debate THAT instead of putting
words in my mouth?
> I realize that I have implied that art can harm, and that some believe
> there is no art which can harm people. That belief also is pure crap.
I'm going to call you on this one. In what way is it pure crap? This
doesn't mean I agree that art can't harm anybody, calling the belief
"pure crap" doesn't do much to support your opinion. Those who do
believe it can make cogent arguments why they think it's true. Let's
hear reasons why you disagree.
My opinion is that, while I'm sure I can imagine certain kinds of art
that harm people, the amount of art that falls into that category is
much smaller than a lot of people try to claim.
> Now all that said, I was glad Dutcher *didn't even* handle the
> nonexistent scene in question; as it did not exist. Leaving the
> audience to wonder what the heck happened is a far more powerful
> technique.
I have no idea what you mean when you say the scene "did not exist." The
best I can figure, it's another pot shot at those who do think the scene
would have been worth seeing. Obviously the scene does exist in their minds.
I don't think it's cut and dried that the scene was more powerful left
out. There's a fine balance between "leaving the audience to wonder" and
"leaving the audience unconvinced that the results of the missing scene
were believable and in character."
I think it's a perfectly viable question to ask, "How did they go from
touching hands to having sex in 24 hours?"
--
D. Michael Martindale
dmichael@???
WORLDSMITHS IS BACK!
And better than ever, with a fully automated website.
Come join the online LDS writers group that helped produce such notable
LDS novels as "Brother Brigham" and "Kindred Spirits."
WorLDSmiths Online LDS Writers Group
http://worldsmiths.org
_______________________________________________
You can subscribe or unsubscribe at
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
AML-List a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature
<
http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html>
AML-List@???
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
