The Folk Prophet

When the cops show up, don't start shooting at them.

Interesting. What definition are you using for "hero"? Putting oneself in harm's way to help one's neighbors seems like a pretty good definition. And that is exactly what he seemed to be doing. So...yeah...I stand by my opinion.

I haven't read the thread, but here's my opinion: Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. He deserves a medal.

I saw the preview. I thought the music therein didn't particularly suit my tastes. But that's a one pass preview that didn't include much music. So I'll have an open mind.

I think a deeper consideration of what this means might be in order.

If anyone's interested (and has 15 minutes to spare), here's the demo recording of the prologue to my current project:

There's a saying that there are no stupid questions... 😬

Moroni 8:26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

I just watched the preview and I'm intrigued.

Why wasn't Martin Guerre better? It was, by far, the most anticipated musical for me ever. I was SO excited by it. And then... I mean...it was okay. I still love things about it. But overall, it just wasn't as good as Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil's previous two (Les Miz and Miss Saigon). Yes, they tweaked it and re-released it. But they didn't fix the actual problem. They added new songs that were great. Sure. But they ruined the wonderful orchestrations of the first version by cheaping out on the second version. Overall, I like the original version better, but the re-work included Live With Somebody You Love and Justice Will Be Done which were both wonderful. I can only imagine if they'd had better orchestrations. But.... Anyhow, the actual problem... the story. When I first looked up Martin Guerre when I heard that it was their next musical (because I'd never heard of Martin Guerre), I saw that the movie Sommersby was based on it. I loved that movie! So intense and emotional and powerful. Perfect musical material! For those of you who aren't in the know, Martin Guerre is the story of an imposter. It's based on a real individual. After the real Martin Guerre left his wife and son, someone showed up claiming to be him. He lived with Guerre's wife and son for three years, but then was eventually discovered. The real Martin Guerre retuned for the trial, etc. Here's the wikipedia on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Guerre *SPOILERS: The movie, however, left people in the dark over whether the man was an imposter or not (though it implied he was), and he died in order to save all the good work he'd done, the honor of his wife, etc. And that sacrifice was what made it powerful. The musical followed the truth a bit more, I guess, and you knew the man was an imposter the entire time. And it just wasn't that powerful. Man I wish they'd just done Sommersby set to great music. I mean, sure, call it Martin Guerre. But...there you go. Anyhow, still a loved show of mine. Particularly the original. I mean I only know it from the cast recordings, and because it wasn't popular enough there was never a complete recording, which is unfortunate. My wife actually got to see it in London when it was on originally. She speaks fondly of it. I'd still call Martin Guerre a good show, overall. I'd still say it's one I like a lot. There are some really great numbers in it too. That's as comparted to their fourth effort, The Pirate Queen, which just stunk up the universe. I really wish they'd write another one. They, apparently, having had the mega-huge success with Les Miz and huge success with Miss Saigon, and then faltering with Martin Guerre and taken a huge old face plant with The Pirate Queen, decided they'd done enough and have no new ambition. That's too bad. Rogers and Hammerstein had some less successful shows. They just kept on writing. I sure wish Schönberg and Boublil had done 10 or so instead of 4. But it seems not meant to be. Maybe they secretly have one last triumph up their sleeves. I doubt it. I mean their last work was 2007. Seems clear they quit.

We finished watching South Pacific again the other night. I gotta say, I was a bit put off by the weird filming colors and soft focus edges and stuff. I mean I think I always am, but for some reason I forget after a time and so it always surprises me when I go back and watch it again. I get, sort of, what they were going for. I just think it failed. Otherwise, I'm not a fan of the baritone/soprano leads. I much prefer the tenor/alto lead set up. Or, if you pull my arm, tenor/soprano. Baritone leads...no thanks. Let the baritones be the bad guys. Overall, though, I like South Pacific.

As a show I enjoy it. As a musical...the music's fine.

Do you mean Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory the movie, or is there a musical that I'm not familiar with? Apparently there's a 2013 musical that premiered on the West End. I'm not familiar with it.

That doesn't mean it's healthy, useful, or good.

No. Unless it's a father's blessing, or the bishops blessing is actually within his stewardship like setting someone apart. A generic blessing is not the bishops stewardship any more than anyone other priesthood holder's.

The question itself seems flawed. Why don't friends, etc. have stewardship to give me blessings? [note: they do]

This is silly on a few levels. A. What does reading it "all the way" through have to do with the promise given? B. The Lord's promises are the Lord's promises and He will fulfill them. C. The promise is not "if you read it all the way through you'll have a spiritual experience". It is, that when we read these things if we: remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men ponder it in our hearts. ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ And if we do those things, He promises that He will manifest the truth of it unto us, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Period. He will manifest the truth of it unto us by the power of the Holy Ghost. If He does not it is because we haven't done our part. So what is our part? It's obedience. ALL blessings (including spiritual confirmation of truth) are predicated upon obedience to law. If we obey, we will have spiritual experiences. So in that regard, I think there's a level of merit (sort of) to the suggestion that we stop seeking spiritual experiences....sort of. But not really though. It's a matter of focus. For example, if your objective is to drive to the store, then to say you should stop worrying about driving to the store to drive to the store makes little sense. But if you're unable to drive to the store, then it's probably reasonable to ask why you cannot. Is the car out of gas? Is it otherwise broken? Do we know how to drive? Is a road built that goes to the store? Etc., etc. The spiritual experience is the means whereby we know God. It is imperative. We should seek it above all else. But..... that means looking at the how of it. What is the how of it? I'll restate: Obedience. So, yeah. Focus on obedience to that end, instead of merely that end. There's some validity in that idea. To just cast of spiritual experiences as unimportant is severely flawed though.

This was my sense.

Argumentatively true... I say "argumentatively" because I would argue that with modern CGI capabilities that there's little difference between what one could do with animation and live action. The formulas aren't fully translatable yet, but they should be. There's clearly a block in movie-folk's mind on the matter. An example of this can be seen in Sonic. The original preview had a "realistic" sonic to try and match the real life. When they got terrible feedback, they cartooned him up, and it worked, rather well I think. Yes, the expressions of the reindeer in Frozen might be problematic to translate...but otherwise, what about that movie couldn't be live action? And why couldn't it work just as well in every way if it was? Frozen II as well. Additionally...if you took Les Miz and didn't do the two things that ruined it (putting star power above singing prowess, and having them sing live on set when filming) then it could have been fantastic. There's nothing problematic about it otherwise, really. That was less about the movie folk not having the right formula as it was about them not understanding that that specific musical needs great singing above all else. Alternatively, Sweeney Todd worked wonders without great singers -- because Sondheim isn't a singers song writer, partially. Sweeney Todd captured the formula pretty well, I'd say. So did Into the Woods, actually. The live action-ness of these didn't do anything to hurt suspension of disbelief. Granted, these are sung-through musicals. And that, in my book, works a charm both live action and on stage to the acceptance of story through song. (Basically, it's opera.) I think Miss Saigon could absolutely kill as a Movie. Gritty, live action, Viet Nam era with full on singing throughout. They were planning on doing it. I'm not sure if they are any longer. Of course it might suffer the Sweeney Todd problem of ending up being R-rated, which is not a good thing for a musical any way you cut it. (It's annoying to me that every version of the Miss Saigon (in recording and staging) has gotten progressively raunchier. Anyhow, I think you left out Man of La Mancha and Scrooge from your working 70s movie musicals exceptions. Of course maybe those weren't big enough hits and that's what you mean by "working". If you mean working as in actually work even if they don't sell as well then they need to be included. (Scrooge has a few flaws, but overall, it works quite well, imo. But I may be biased by sentiment.) Edit: As I said earlier too, I'm hoping Stephen Spielberg's West Side Story version cracks the code.

I've seen that clip. I don't fully agree with Ashman on the point though. Even more-so with modern CGI capabilities. It does take a different approach to pull it off in live action though (see the live action Lion King as a primary example how to not pull it off...though I'm not sure the singing was the problem there...). And it is, perhaps, more challenging -- maybe... I think probably just "different" challenging. But really the part I disagree with is that suspension of disbelief that a fish can talk is the same suspension of disbelief that's required to accept people bursting into song or that the one correlates to the other (though I grant that the expectation of music in an animated film might be higher). Moreover, live action movie musicals were highly successful and there are many examples of them working very well before The Little Mermaid came along. I'm not saying I don't understand his preference to sign on to animation. And credit due. Ashman was the genius behind the Disney Renaissance. But really the problem of suspension of disbelief in a musical is a cultural thing. No one had a problem with it in the 40s, 50s, or 60s. By the 80s it was passé and kids weren't buying into it. That's a cultural result derived from various things. But it's not indicative of the medium itself being a problem as to suspension of disbelief. Ashman may or may not have been plugged into that idea. Really though (and this is my actual disagreement), accepting a musical as a form of entertainment is not about suspension of disbelief. That's a bit of a semantic argument because, of course, by literal definition one could make the argument it is. But it's different. It's not the same as, "You'll believe a man can fly!" No on believes someone would burst into song. It's not belief they're suspending, even in the moment, in the same way it is buying into a fish talking. Music is expressionistic. It's representative. It's not a cold, hard thing happening in the same way a fish talking is. You aren't buying into a reality that people sing to each other in this world. You're letting the singing represent something else. (I know...semantics. Argumentative. But I think there's a reality to what I'm saying.......I think....that would serve those who create musical movies if they understood it. Ashman, for example, was adamant that the music started underneath the dialogue so the talking flowed into the song naturally. And that's fine as one approach. And it works well. But there are many fine examples of people breaking into song otherwise in movie musicals that have worked. And I don't think that's key to Under the Sea having worked. If Sebastian had said, "Ariel, listen to me. The human world is a mess. Life under the sea is better than anything they got up there..." and then the orchestra had kicked into the Caribbean rhythms as he took his place in front of a band and started singing would it REALLY have hurt the show much? I'm not saying it isn't better as is...but I'm contending maybe it's not as key to the song working as he implied....) That being said....I do get his point as a box one could work in to make life easier. I just think there's some definite outside the box thinking that is fully legitimate as well. Maybe. In other words, people whose primary critique of musicals is, "This is stupid. People would never break into singing and choreographed dance in real life" are missing the point by a long shot. If the musical creator is trying to sell that angle, they already failed. Thoughts?

I think that it depends on a multitude of factors and that there is no yes/no answer. I believe some are better as movies. West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof are two examples. The stage versions lose something, in my opinion. Man of La Mancha is an interesting example that loses something in both forms. The stage loses the realism of the real inn and the gritty reality of real life. The film loses the creativity of the play within a play. The movie does that too...sort of. It's a play within a movie....but the play then is shown as reality....but it doesn't have the same, "that's clever" sort of feel, etc... Really though, it depends on so many factors. Some things work better as a stage play. Dance numbers are one example of that (usually). Dance numbers on stage usually work. Those same numbers in a movie can sometimes kill the show. But even when they don't, they still don't work as well as live. Live orchestra also has something about it that just can't really be recreated with a recording. You feel the timpani hits and the loud brass melts your face. Live orchestra is something to hear! Recordings don't translate -- ever. Even a small orchestra playing live can punch in ways that movie music can't. Alternatively, small orchestras can also stink, and a movie allows for a bigger orchestra and perfected takes. So...... It really just depends. Mostly though, I think skill is skill. The right director/producer/talent/etc. will sell a movie. The same is true of a stage play. People who understand the property and build it right for the medium in which it's being presented will create art. Most musical movie failures are failures of the creators, not the property.

So, I've been kind of wondering how Steven Spielberg planned on improving West Side Story. In some ways, the original movie is put together very well. There's some obvious flaws, and I think fixing those is likely...but in some ways I wondered if it would just be "different" instead of better. But one way this trailer indicates he may have improved on it is in the "movie score" part of the movie. Like backing the dialogue scenes with big orchestral emotional stuff like in the trailer. That could really up the ante with the emotional punch. I also think the original missed the boat on the ending with the acting (or director's direction on acting) choices, and that will probably be more punchy too. And I expect the rumble to be more intense. And I know that Steven Spielberg will improve the overall cinematography and lighting and what have you, which in the original was hit and miss...sometimes great, and sometimes terrible (like the monochromatic lighting during the song Maria which just looks terrible.) Either way, I expect this to be a shining example of how to do musical films now-a-days correctly. I hope that's true, that it's a hit making tons of money, and it inspires other great musical movies to be made.

I watched the trailer for Diana: The Musical coming to Netflix. I hate it already.

I'm not familiar with it. I'm not a fan of Green Day. In that grunge rock world I'd go with The Offspring instead.