Comments on: Apropos of Something

By: Justmeherenow

Justmeherenow — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:34:12 +0000

Well -- yes: Part of our initial schematic was that we were going to explore the American family in relationship to marriage, to religion, to culture. It wasn’t an agenda, so much as a response to the way that certain people in America felt they could define families that weren’t traditional. So we started there, and we definitely started before Prop. 8, and we definitely mapped out Season 3 before Prop 8, so that we were almost finished shooting before Prop 8 really became an issue. ----WILL SCHEFFER (Big Love's co-creator, March 30 LATimes)

By: MoJo

MoJo — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:38:31 +0000

That was interesting, especially considering that is a MINORITY view that the gay community seems to have toward polyamory.

By: J. Max Wilson

J. Max Wilson — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:27:27 +0000

This article about the gay couple that created Big Love provides some good background on the motivations and views of the creators: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/10/PKG3EQ4RTA1.DTL

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:21:39 +0000

2) That said, polygamy’s certainly not off topic within my own work (thus my initial interest in _Big Love_), especially since I’ve written a number of Church History plays. My most recent take on the topic is my upcoming play _The Fading Flower_ about Emma Smith and her children (especially David Hyrum Smith–the most interesting–, Joseph Smith III and Julia) and the conflict between the LDS and RLDS faiths. I think polygamy is a subject we as a people need to come to terms with, but not on HBO’s terms.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:17:34 +0000

1) My wife and I saw the first and half of the second seasons of Big Love on DVD. We tried to edit content some by have a trigger finger on the fast forward button– but eventually gave up on watching the series due to the content.
However, we actually really enjoyed the storylines and characters. One would have to watch the series to truly judge it (not something I necessarily recommend… nobody’s obligated to understand every little piece of culture or entertainment and sometimes it’s better to be left out of the loop). But it does have some layers of complexity and empathy for even some of the traditional LDS characters (while others are reductive and nothing more than hatchet jobs– there was a portrayal of LDS missionaries which was particularly stupid and uninformed).
However, the news about this episode with the temple has sworn me off of any interest I had in continuing with the series. Tom Hanks’ involvement with the series and his avowed ax to grind with the Church over Prop. 8 deflates any objectivity the series may have had. It’s intent was pretty clear to begin with, but after Prop. 8, I don’t expect it to be anything but a crusade against Mormons. Even if it turns out otherwise, airing the temple ceremonies is the fastest way to raise a Mormon’s anger… myself included.

By: Th.

Th. — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:18:35 +0000

Mine would only look like a polygamy story to a Mormon. Other people have that reset button called Till Death Do We Part.

By: MoJo

MoJo — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:35:58 +0000

Shawn, most of my stuff is pretty wild (in a what-genre-is-this-anyway?! sort of way).

By: S. P. Bailey

S. P. Bailey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:59:02 +0000

Wm.: Thanks. Laura: A correction to my original post: I wouldn't say that I am doing polygamy itself. At this point, for example, I don't see myself writing an actual polygamous family. I am interested in mainstream Mormons and the cognitive dissonance surrounding polygamy. Mojo: That sounds pretty wild. Good luck! Th.: Sorry to blow the surprise. But I am excited to read your story. My request to you: give us a preview right here in the comments! Justme: Sounds very stereotypey. Is that HBO's shtick? Sucking up to their audience by confirming their reductive, conventional-wisdom views of "others?"

By: Justmeherenow

Justmeherenow — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:02:41 +0000

Actually “Duped followers” aren’t necessarily Bad Guys. But the show does try to portray that such victims often cycle themselves into
their being bad guys. (Nonetheless, the stark judgements woven into how the compound polygamists in general are portrayed is a weakness of the show IMO)

By: Justmeherenow

Justmeherenow — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:32:19 +0000

‘Big Love’ portrays how a non-traditional yet sincere form of romance and marriage (in the case of religious polygamy) can be fully human and worthy of understanding if not respect from the members of the wider culture.

Four groups are portrayed.
- “The Misunderstood” (the series’ flawed heroes): a protagonist family of indie polygs (sorry; “family living in plural marriage as a religious principle”)
- “Quirky Run-of-the-mill Religious People”: various mainstream LDS
- “Bad Guys”: FLDS-type extremist leaders and duped followers
- “Peeps-who-provide-a-touchstone-of-(secular, of course)-NORMALCY”: some of the protagonist family’s kids, etc.

Yep, mainstream Mormonism gets the habitual Hollywood treatment accorded organized Western religion, through its being lampooned some. But this is nuthin like the treatment accorded the series’ true heavies, the organized Utah fundamentalists. Does any of allathis come off as “hamhanded” at times? Absolutely. Still, in my opinion, once the basic stock pieces of the show’s drama are accepted or taken into account(…which, in any case, reflect the default positions/assumptions of the general-American, secular mainstream), one can come to appreciate the series’ achievement of a pretty uncommon level of naturalism for a televised soap opera — and some pretty good acting!