Sunday, July 04, 2010

On the movie 8 (better, see Facing East)

Better than the movie, I would recommend Facing East as this report discusses.

However, because it is topical ...

You would never know from 8 that many famous Mormons — Harry Reid, Steve Young, Bill Marriott — spoke out against Prop 8 publicly. There’s no hint that many faithful Mormons created activist groups and websites against Prop 8.

For more, visit this review:

http://www.patheos.com/community/mormonportal/2010/06/28/

Add these all together and you have a package designed not just to NOT attract faithful Mormons, but deliberately offend them. Even the Mormons who can (and should) consider the secondary theme of the film about charity and Christ-like behavior towards gays aren’t going to watch 8: The Mormon Proposition because they’ll hear about it being merely an anti-Mormon polemic.

And for the most part, they’d be right. Unfortunately, it seems the filmmakers of 8 think “tolerance” is something only other people need to do.


and his conclusion:


It’s really too bad that the important messages here are going to be lost. If I was asked by another Church member if they should see 8, I would say, honestly: “20 minutes of it should be required viewing for all Church members…and the other 60 minutes are an intellectually dishonest framing of a serious issue that is probably a waste of your time to watch.” You can decide for yourself how many members would end up seeking out the documentary based on that “recommendation”.

For comparison:

THE advertisement warns of speculative financial bubbles. It mocks a group of gullible Frenchmen seduced into a silly, 18th-century investment scheme, noting that the modern shareholder, armed with superior information, can avoid the pitfalls of the past. “How different the position of the investor today!” the ad enthuses.

Mary F. Calvert for The New York Times

It ran in The Saturday Evening Post on Sept. 14, 1929. A month later, the stock market crashed.

“Everyone wants to think they’re smarter than the poor souls in developing countries, and smarter than their predecessors,” says Carmen M. Reinhart, an economist at the University of Maryland. “They’re wrong. And we can prove it.”

This time is different

9 comments:

智超智超 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stephen said...

Note to Chinese Spammers -- read the TOS. Posting spam here is an agreement to transfer your domain names. Under the TOS, a post here is an agreement to allow notice to you in the comments for the purpose of initiating arbitration before the forum of my choice.

Accept this as notice.

Jettboy said...

May I ask what you mean by your comment Stephen? I'm curious and don't understand.

Stephen said...

Jettboy, the various deleted posts in the past month are all from Chinese Porn spam.

I'm not amused.

The TOS for this blog includes an agreement to arbitration, set fees for spam and an agreement to allow domain transfers to pay off arbitration awards for spam.

Nick Literski said...

Stephen, it looks like you're condemning a film you haven't seen, based on another blogger's comments. Did you happen to read the comments on that other blog? Not all of that blogger's observations are accurate, but it appears that you've accepted them at face value. That doesn't seem typical for you.

Stephen said...

Nick, I thought that I got to the bottom line, which was "“20 minutes of it should be required viewing for all Church members" fairly well.

Guess I didn't, obviously.

Stephen said...

I also thought that the fact that the film is provoking a reaction from members that cause them to miss the valuable parts is also pretty obvious.

I'm sure you would agree that is happening. ;)

Nick Literski said...

Stephen, the "20 minutes" comment is only the "bottom line" for the original blogger you've copied from. That blogger makes several mistakes in his review, such as his accusation that "zero" active/faithful LDS appeared in the movie, and that there was "no mention" of LDS members who opposed Prop 8. That blogger also conveniently fails to mention some rather shocking parts of the film, such as the interview with Utah senator Chris Buttars, whose comments were beyond the pale even for most supporters of Prop 8. Further, that blogger largely criticizes the film for not being the film he wanted the producers to make--some sort of Monson-approved film which in no way criticizes LDS involvement/tactics in Prop 8, while somehow "proving" to the satisfaction of LDS opponents of marriage equality that their views thereon are mistaken. Ultimately, Stephen, this blogger is simply crying persecution and insisting that his anti-marriage-equality viewpoint is unquestionably correct. In fact, he's largely doing the same things he accused the filmmakers of doing.

Is this film perfect? Absolutely not, and as my comment on that blog indicated, I think the blogger was correct in some of his thoughts. Still, this doesn't justify his misrepresentations of the film.

BTW, Steve Young did not speak out against Prop 8, but his wife did. Soon after, Steve Young distanced himself from his wife's statements and refused to make his stand on the initiative known.

Likewise, Bill Marriott did not speak out against Prop 8. Rather, Marriott claimed that he keeps his business practices separate from his faith (good thing, given all the pay-per-view porn his chain provides), and that his family corporation did not donate. Then, just last month, he prominently attended an awards party (chaired by two LDS apostles) to honor Robert P. George for his "defense of religious freedom" as Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, i.e., the primary group working with LDS leaders (some say a front group for LDS leaders) to promote Prop 8 and other anti-gay legislation.

Stephen said...

Chris Buttars, whose comments were beyond the pale even for Texas ....

The comments on the post that I link to are rather useful to fill things out, though.

I also liked the stake that attended the Carol Lynn Pearson play with the area authority there in support as well.

What did you think of that, btw?

On the other hand, thanks for the additional information.