Review: The Book of Mormon Movie (C-)

The problems with The Book of Mormon Movie start (but don’t end) with the title itself, which awkwardly tries to fit “Book” and “Movie” together.

(‘What else are you going to call a movie based on the Book of Mormon’, you ask?  Something like “Tales from the Book of Mormon: Volume 1″ would have worked…)

The Book of Mormon Movie is the first in a proposed series of seven or eight films to cover the entire Book of Mormon text, with this first volume covering 1st Nephi and the beginning of 2nd Nephi.  The Book of Mormon Movie is obviously a labor of love for writer/director Gary Rogers, who has stated it is his way of fulfilling President Ezra Taft Benson’s vision of “artists putting into film, drama, literature, music, and paintings great themes and characters from the Book of Mormon.” Rogers hopes the movie will provide a spiritual experience to all and bring people closer to Christ.

Does the movie work, though?   Not really…  Setting aside (in fairness) the low budget and production values, there are still problems with pacing, and finding a cohesive story that maintains the spiritual elements that are inherent in the book.   The Book of Mormon Movie, unfortunately, doesn’t add anything of value in its translation to the screen compared to the original text.  In some cases, it weakens it.

It is an interesting experiment, though — and brings up the question of how (if at all) to create an effective film based on scriptural text.  A fundamental problem is that the Book of Mormon is meant to be scripture first and a narrative record second.  By design, it’s not intended to have a coherent plot with a traditional introduction-setup-climax-resolution structure nor provide interesting people with character arcs.   Granted, 1st Nephi is comparatively one of the more ‘story-like’ parts of the Book of Mormon, but even then there are many gaps and unexplained details.   (We should recall that 1st and 2nd Nephi come from the ‘small plates’ of Nephi, that were meant to be a record of prophecy and doctrine first with any recorded details of their journey from Jerusalem being almost an afterthought.)

Adapting scriptural text inevitably leads to difficult decisions, both for Rogers and any other prospective scriptural filmmaker:  Do I stay faithful to the text even though the limitations of 1st Nephi as a ‘screenplay’ become very obvious, or do I take some liberties in terms of structure and organization in order to create a more cinematic experience, but likely offend the very people intended as the target audience.  Perhaps thinking LDS audiences would be the less forgiving type when it came to cinematic liberties Rogers has remained very faithful to the structure and events of the text, almost to a fault.  Unfortunately, the end result shows the ramifications of this decision: while avoiding ‘offending’ Church members, the movie suffers as a whole.

Dialogue is another difficulty:  Nephi’s record was short on conversations (since he wasn’t writing a screenplay, remember) so the majority of the movie’s dialogue had to be invented. The Book of Mormon Movie doesn’t seem to ever make up its mind whether it wants to use archaic scripture language (‘thee’, ‘thou’ and the like) or modern English (“How do I look?” “Like an idiot!”) and alternates between both continuously. The actors try their best, but some lines can’t help but sound cheesy — written on a primary child level with no subtlety or complexity.

While you can’t blame Gary Rogers for only having 1/100th of the budget of a Hollywood production, you also can’t escape the fact that the movie looks like it was shot on…well, 1/100th of a Hollywood budget.  The sets, costumes, and other production tricks (like the ‘tree of life’ vision, or the boat ride) are serviceable, but never remarkable.  (Careful viewers will notice Lehi’s tent contains many large baskets and urns which are conspicuously absent from their camels when they are travelling. Also, in a later scene, the party ‘swims’ ashore from their boat to the promised land and miraculously winds up on the beach without their clothes being wet…)

Although the movie doesn’t stray far from the actual Book of Mormon text as far as the major events, there is a lot of room for minor additions and changes to the scriptural text, a few of which deserve discussion:

Readers have complained for a while about the lack of female participation in Nephi’s record (which isn’t really his fault, remember — scripture first, story second). This is remedied somewhat in the BOMM with larger roles for the women accompanying Lehi’s expedition — Nephi’s wife and sisters, in particular. True, ‘larger roles’ often means receiving a name and just a line or two of dialogue but it’s still something.

[Side note: Much research has been done on the original (non-Biblical) names in the Book of Mormon -- including an analysis of their Egyptian and Hebrew roots. An interesting project would be to analyze the new names given to Nephi's sisters and Ismael's children (presumably thought up specifically for the film by the writers) and see if the filmmakers did a better or worse job 'making up' authentic-sounding names that conform to actual Hebrew or Egyptian roots than Joseph Smith supposedly did in the first place, considering the filmmakers had (1) lots more education than Joseph Smith, and (2) had all of Joseph's Book of Mormon names as a reference to pick 'similar sounding' ones...]

For the most part, the movie’s version of Nephi is just like the scriptural Nephi — bold, righteous, and dependable. However, the movie Nephi also has a certain…untapped rage within him which is unique to this version.  From the text — which is Nephi’s own record, we should remember — Nephi’s excellence in being an example of diligence and faithfulness in his calling is matched by his being fairly dull and uninteresting as a person — the “Pete Sampras” of the prophets, if you will. (It’s hard to identify with someone whose biggest mistake was breaking his bow, and that was by accident…)

The Book of Mormon Movie tweaks things just a bit by depicting some of the latent frustration Nephi undoubtedly felt as he tries to do the Lord’s will, but his brothers keep trying to kill him. The movie Nephi raises his voice more often and expresses more emotion than you might gather from the actual scriptural record (where he seems to be nothing but calm and patient in his afflictions).  I submit this is a defensible and effective decision: these pent-up emotions don’t detract from Nephi’s righteousness, but do give him a more human side.  In all Nephi, is one area in which The Book of Mormon Movie is successful in adapting the scriptural record to a visual medium.

There are other small areas where the filmmakers have also ‘reinterpreted’ the text in subtle ways.  Some textual changes arguably create a different impression of the event than may be warranted based on my reading of the source text.  Let’s look at some of these:

(1) 1 Nephi 4 — Nephi slays Laban:  Clearly this is one of the key events of this section of the Book of Mormon and a key event in the movie.  The text emphasizes that the primary purpose of Nephi being constrained to kill Laban is that his family obtaining the brass plates and sustaining belief was more important than one person’s life.   The Book of Mormon text, however, specifically mentions Nephi wearing Laban’s clothes *after* Laban is killed, with the implication being Laban needed to die for Nephi to take his clothes to obtain the plates.

The movie turns this around, though:   Nephi has *already* taken and worn Laban’s clothes when he feels the Spirit prompting him to kill Laban in the movie — a small, but subtle distinction that, I submit, weakens the assertion that Laban’s death was “necessary” for Nephi getting the plates.  After all, Nephi was already wearing Laban’s clothes, and Laban was drunk and incapacitated, in no position to oppose him or alert others.  The opportunity to grab the plates in the same manner was fully open to him right then.  Why was it still necessary for Nephi to kill Laban, then?

This has always been a problematic passage to absorb in the original text — as with other “Law of Moses” era violence within the Israelites in the Old Testament — but the movie’s framing of the event seems to make it *more* problematic and difficult to understand rather than less, by clearly removing one of Nephi’s primary justifications for the killing in the first place.  If I were a non-member seeing this film, it wouldn’t be clear at all why Laban had to die.

(2) After Nephi’s brothers have attempted to kill him (again), Nephi uses the Lord’s earthquake power to ‘shake them up’.  Here, the Book of Mormon text seems to indicate that there was a span of a few days between the first attempt on Nephi’s life and the ‘shocking’.   The text does not say whether the ‘shocking’ was in response to another attempt on his life or just a carry-over effect from the first attempt.

As framed in the movie, Laman and company were not trying to kill Nephi again at the time, but in fact were just peacefully minding their own business when Nephi (and the Lord) apparently made a ‘preemptive strike’ on them.  This interpretation has some justification in the source text due to the apparent time separation, but visually it still comes across wrong on screen.  Modern law will generally justify violence in direct self-defense; however waiting three days after the attack to inflict violence upon your attackers would not generally be accepted as “self-defense” in any modern court.  It’s possible the book is merely omitting contextual details that may explain the circumstances (such as a subsequent attempt on Nephi’s life), but the filmmakers have provided no reason at all for the use of miraculous power in this instance when Nephi’s life was not directly in danger.  Even the argument that the Lord foresaw future events and the use of force was justified as a deterrent against future violence is immediately undercut later in the movie when Laman and Lemuel still inflict violence upon Nephi anyway.

Interpreting the ‘shocking’ coming as a result of another (unwritten) attempt on Nephi’s life may be just an assumption, but I think this is a case where the filmmakers needed to go a step further in re-interpretation, as visually in the context of the movie, this scene comes across as out-of-place and vindictive (not to mention ultimately pointless).

With any dramatization of a written work, there will always be the crowd that says, ‘The book was better, just read that’.  And in this case, that’s probably as true with the Book of Mormon as with any book-to-movie translation.  The Book of Mormon Movie doesn’t really add anything to the 1st Nephi experience.  Presenting things in a visual matter doesn’t clarify the meaning and power of the scriptural text at all — in many cases, the way they are presented visually makes them harder to understand.  I don’t know that I’d ever recommend either members or non-members using the movie to understand the Book of Mormon text, and if not, what would the target audience be?  For any such non-members, I would say just go read the book instead.  And for members…well, read the book again.

Final Grade: C-

Analysis and Other Comments (possible spoilers):

(1) The Book of Mormon Movie got a PG-13 rating when it was released in theaters, apparently because of Nephi beheading Laban even though (a) it doesn’t show anything, and (b) Star Wars movies have heads and limbs getting hacked off by light-sabers all the time and they still get PGs. The DVD we rented said PG, though, so I don’t know if the filmmakers appealed the original rating or made some edits before release on DVD that gave it a different rating. (I seem to remember reading there was some blood in the Nephi/Laban scene, but I didn’t notice any in the DVD version). In any case, you won’t find anything in the movie objectionable…unless you happen to find the Book of Mormon text itself objectionable.

Originally, the rating issue would have probably have caused some controversy among Church members, since there are quite a few who don’t watch PG-13 movies, and it would have been interesting to see whether they made an exception for this one. However, within a month of The Book of Mormon Movie‘s release, The Passion of the Christ came out and, of course, any ‘controversy’ about Church members seeing a light PG-13 movie based on scripture became laughable…

(2) Several prophets throughout Church history have expressed wishes that the stories in the Book of Mormon be made into movies. The Book of Mormon Movie doesn’t really work — but (in an effort to provide some constructive criticism) let’s discuss what would it take to make a good movie based on the Book of Mormon.

It’s not a given that better production values and a bigger budget would have resulted in a better movie (although better acting and dialogue, and a faster pace would have helped).   As noted above, I think there is something inherently flawed in attempting to dramatize, chapter by chapter, large sections of scripture literally, simply because the purpose and structure of scripture isn’t a natural fit into the narrative flow of a movie.  A screenwriter must of necessity use ‘creative license’ in creating a movie based on scripture, because there will always be many gaps in the scripture record which for the sake of movie continuity must be filled in with original (read: made up) material.  It is the content of this ‘new’ material that makes the difference between a church reference video you break out to watch sections of in a Sunday School class (like the BOMM is now) and an actual movie.  I believe in order to be effective, filmmakers must have a certain boldness to ‘reinterpret’ scripture (or the meanings that they believe those scriptures hold) and base the movie narrative on that interpretation, even at the risk of offending purists.

One suggestion: Approach the material from a different, more creative, angle from the beginning.  BOMM tries to cover so much of the Book of Mormon text material extremely faithfully that there’s no room for any kind of ‘unique angle’.  Church members who have read the Book of Mormon will probably be bored, since what’s on the screen is pretty much the same as the 1st Nephi they’ve always read. The ‘additional material’ in BOMM is limited to little things here and there (a little bit more ‘romance’ between Nephi and Ishmael’s daughter, for example) but there’s no room to develop it because they have so many things from the text to get in before the movie’s end.

What would be a ‘different angle’ to use?  Why not do the same thing that’s done with Shakespeare plays — set an originally ancient text in modern times?

You could create a movie about a modern day family who decides to leave the big city (say, Los Angeles) and move to the ‘wilderness’ (say, a small town in Montana) and the struggles that followed between the rebellious kids who didn’t want to move, and a younger son who believes in the goals his father is trying to accomplish.

While you couldn’t include parallels to everything in 1st Nephi (beheading someone might be a little difficult to get away with…) but the primary story would be similar to what we read in the scriptures. The scriptures are supposed to be ‘likened unto ourselves’ anyway, so why not take a scriptural story and see how the exact same principles (faith, obedience, love) can apply to a modern-day family?

Another idea that I think would be interesting is to portray the exact same events in the Book of Mormon but from someone else’s perspective…say, for example, Laman. The current text has everything from Nephi’s perspective (obviously, since he wrote it) but I think Laman is a more complex character than you might surmise from just the text. Why not make Laman the main character of the movie since he’s a direct participant in just about all the events of 1st Nephi just as much as Nephi himself is. Make Laman the focus and explore more into what makes him tick.

BOMM takes a step in this direction in an opening scene (not from the Book of Mormon text) where Laman and Lemuel step in and defend Nephi from some other guys who want to hurt him. Laman’s sense of family responsibility (note that although he complains about things, he still ends up doing whatever his father tells him to) makes him more of a complex character that traditionally given to him by modern Church members.  It’s not as simple as pushing him into the ‘evil’ category. (Well, okay…he does try to murder Nephi an awful lot)  The filmmakers in this case would have to create more dialogue and scenes that were Laman-centered, but the results could be inspirational as well as enlightening as to what kind of person Laman was and to what extent Church members today have ‘Laman-and-Lemuel’ attitudes.

Neither of these ideas are guarantees of a good movie of course, but I think they’d have potential. The BOMM needed something to carry it above the level of a Church video you see in Sunday School. Something a little more imaginative and daring… Otherwise, exactly why would you watch the movie if it doesn’t add anything above just reading the scriptural record again?

(3) Cheating! The film cheats in the scene where Nephi uses ‘the voice of Laban’ to talk to Zoram, it’s the voice of the actor that plays Laban (Michael Flynn) — not Nephi’s.  I don’t know if that was seriously meant to imply a divine miracle — the Lord changing Nephi’s voice in order to complete his mission — but is still kind of a filmmaking cheat.