Continue reading »]]> The 50% divorce rate is a commonly quoted statistic…that’s not quite accurate.   It’s a predictive rather than descriptive stat — a guess as to how today’s marriages will turn out tomorrow.  Factors like age and education at the time of marriage and number of previous marriages also vary the divorce rate such that a single round number isn’t too useful in judging a relationship’s potential.

Even so, you don’t need statistics to know that “marriage” is in trouble (and not because of “teh gays”).  Marital failures are happening in every neighborhood of every city, and stretch across all races, religions, and social classes.  Couple that with a falling marriage rate and the trend for successful, long-term married couples can look bleak even if the specific numbers are up for debate.

Fireproof (official site, IMDB) is one attempt to challenge that trend.  It is the third film from Alex and Stephen Kendrick, both associate pastors at the Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia, who have embraced the language of cinema to share their Christian message.  Fireproof was released in conjunction with a book called The Love Dare (also written by the Kendricks) that features prominently in the plot.  The strong Christian content will probably scare away secular audiences, but for LDS viewers (who have shown they aren’t immune from the “divorce bug” either) the pro-marriage / pro-Christian theme is a good fit, without anything Evangelically-specific enough to distract from the message.   Mormon viewers who find Hollywood’s typical depiction of marriage depressing or cynical may find Fireproof a decent and inspiring alternative.

Caleb (“Growing Pains” alum and Christian movie icon Kirk Cameron) and Catherine (Erin Bethea) have been married for seven years with no kids.  Their marriage is in trouble.  He works 24-hour shifts as a firefighter, she works as a PR representative at a hospital.  Their schedules rarely line up, and when they do, the two of them argue constantly about money, shopping, and housework.   Caleb expresses his sexual frustrations by browsing online porn, Catherine expresses hers by flirting with a handsome doctor at work.  Both talk to friends about “respect” and how they’re not getting what they think they deserve from the other.   After a screaming match one night, Catherine says enough and plans for a divorce.  Caleb is fine with it, until his dad asks him to try something before throwing away the past seven years:  a forty-day plan called the “Love Dare” that provides goals for improving his relationship.

The “Love Dare” is the heart of the film, with Caleb attempting to win back the heart of his wife through daily challenges:  avoid saying negative things to his spouse for a day, find a way to serve his spouse the next, avoid “parasites” — habits or addictions that distract him from giving his spouse his full attention.   While Caleb starts out doing things “because the book said so” he soon learns the difference between going through the motions and doing something with real intent. The principles and suggestions of “The Love Dare” are important and non-controversial, and although the narrative arc of Fireproof has no surprises, Caleb provides a positive example of personal growth and repentance with an eye towards stabilizing a broken marriage.

Like many Christian films, subtlety isn’t Fireproof’s strong suit.  (Caleb announces the theme early on during firefighter training:  “You never leave your partner behind!”)  Fireproof is well-produced, though, and the professional actors keep the simple dialogue from being eye-rollingly preachy.  Caleb and Catherine are still archetypes rather than compelling characters, but Cameron and Bethea give them enough life for us to care about them staying together.

On the downside, Fireproof is WAY too long — a full two hours in length when at least 25 minutes of it are superfluous.  We get several lengthy sequences of Caleb saving people as a firefighter, which are competently staged but unnecessary to the plot.   One brief glimpse of firefighting work would have been sufficient to represent his character.  Catherine has conversations with a Christian co-worker who is set up (presumably) as her “spiritual advisor” but this character is dropped suddenly and never seen again.

Fireproof doesn’t shy away from its Christian foundation, even though the Kendricks could have easily packaged the message about marriage in a strictly non-religious film to attract a wider audience.  Should they have?  It’s admirable the Kendricks weren’t willing to hide their beliefs (be “ashamed of the testimony of our Lord” as in 2nd Timothy), but the disconnect between the marriage part and the Christian part raises the question of whether the Christian proselyzing is vital to the theme, or just another distraction like the firefighting sequences.

The film itself implies (and I’m confident the filmmakers believe) that Christian belief goes hand-in-hand with strengthening marriage, although I’m not sure Fireproof is able to connect the dots effectively.  Caleb’s dad uses the love (and sacrifice) of the Lord for us as a symbol for the love spouses ought to have for one another — an effective metaphor that nevertheless doesn’t require actual Christian belief or practice to appreciate.  As one would expect, Caleb converts (or re-commits, perhaps) to Christianity through the course of the film, but the discussion of why this is important (either for his marriage or his eternal salvation) is shallow, and doesn’t address any of the major questions non-believers will typically have for traditional Christianity.  While the Kendricks may hope for their film to serve as a missionary aid in addition to a marital aid, the truth is 99% of the people who watch Fireproof will already be Christian — people who will probably nod their heads at the parts that confirm what they already believe, without providing a persuasive message for those who don’t.

The way Caleb and Catherine’s marriage is “saved” is a little one-sided.   Only Caleb receives the 40-day Love Dare book and participates in its challenges, while Catherine never finds out about it until the end.  Doesn’t she need to practice avoiding negative comments and serving her spouse without expectation of reward as well?  Virtually no relationship problem is 100% the fault of one partner, and Caleb and Catherine’s marriage as portrayed in the film is not an exception.  While Caleb does need an attitude change, some of their problems are caused by poor communication and differing goals — things that Caleb can’t just solve by reading a book by himself.

In practice, the film treats Catherine as a passive target for Caleb’s compassionate service — like he’s simply watering a plant day after day, exercising faith and patience that it will grow over time.  Caleb’s efforts to change Catherine’s heart without actually communicating with her sends an incomplete message about what actually makes marriages work.  Righteous goals and desires, and being persistent in loving and serving one’s spouse even without immediate validation are important, but only the first steps towards reconciliation and a strong, healthy marriage.  At the end of the film, when Catherine “forgives” Caleb and they renew their vows, it implies that the lion’s share of fixing their marriage is already finished.    At no time do we see Caleb and Catherine actually talking with each other about why things are the way they are and what they BOTH are going to do together to form a solid relationship in the future.

As Leo Tolstoy wrote, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.  Amazon.com lists over 6,000 self-help books on the subject of marriage, with each containing its own formula for creating a happy, stable relationship.  Like The Love Dare (for which Fireproof forms an effective advertisement), all of them probably contain good, common-sense advice that will be applicable to certain couples and not to others.   Fireproof is a decent film and good object lesson which some couples will find enlightening and helpful, while others may find it misses the mark.  The Christian elements will probably make the film more divisive than it needed to be, given they are not convincingly tied to the theme.  However, for LDS audiences looking for a “pro-marriage” movie, Fireproof is a fine candidate.

My Grade:  B

Other Random Analysis and Comments:

(1)   It’s interesting to speculate what an LDS version of Fireproof would look like.  One obvious difference is that it would be odd for an LDS couple to be married for seven years without children.  While the principles of “The Love Dare” would remain the same, having children at home would provide an ‘X-factor’ to Caleb and Catherine’s relationship (especially the discussions of divorce) that would alter the film in significant ways.

(2)   Fireproof’s treatment of pornography shows some subtle differences with the typical LDS approach.   Catherine appears to know all about Caleb’s browsing habits (implying he either looks at it in front of her, or he’s unfamiliar with how browser histories work — basically, he’s dumb or he’s dumb). but this is treated in Fireproof as just one symptom of a larger problem, and one additional thing on the list for Caleb to change.   It’s important but not IMPORTANT!   LDS rhetoric typically treats pornography as the cause of marital problems and divorce, not a symptom, and that there’s no such thing as a minor or casual porn habit, only “addiction”.  (Unfortunately, this frequently becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy…)  Fireproof doesn’t excuse pornography in any way (Catherine has some meaningful dialogue about how “humiliated” it makes her feel), but it does keep things in a proper perspective, showing that the real problem is not what Caleb’s doing on the computer, but what he’s doing when he’s not.

(3)  From the You-Probably-Didn’t-Care-But-Just-In-Case department:  Kirk Cameron reports in order to remain “faithful” to his wife, the scene in which he appears to kiss his co-star was actually his wife filmed in silhouette.

Continue reading »]]> It was the late 90′s.  Ray Lines was constantly getting approached by friends to edit the nudity out of their VHS copies of Titanic.

Where other editors were literally using scissors and tape, Lines had experience in broadcasting and knew how to use modern technology to do more effective film editing.  He could see the demand for “sanitized” copies of films like Titanic and The Matrix and the business opportunity it presented.   Together with Allen Erb, Ray Lines founded Clean Flicks, a company devoted to editing and selling Hollywood movies with the profanity, sex, and violence removed.  Edited movies turned into big business in Utah Valley (85% LDS) with Clean Flicks franchises — and competitors — popping up almost overnight.  But what happens when Hollywood gets word and tries to put an end to the edited movie craze?

The story of Clean Flicks and their legal battles with Hollywood over the “right” to edit offensive material out of movies is the subject of Cleanflix, (official site, IMDB) a documentary by Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi.  Originally completed in 2009, Cleanflix remained in distribution limbo until now, where it is currently available through Amazon Instant Viewing and other outlets.

Cleanflix provides interviews with key players, and details of the edited movie business that will be interesting even to those LDS who lived in Utah Valley during the Clean Flicks saga and know the outcome of the story.  And for those unfamiliar with the “culture wars” between Hollywood and the edited movie barons, the documentary provides a compelling narrative with twists and turns, as well as some unique insights into the LDS culture that spawned the legal battles in the first place.

Editing movies for content has always been subject to debate.  In Cleanflix, Ray Lines and others outline the ethical premise behind editing movies:

• Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to avoid “R-rated” material in movies.
• Most “offensive” material in movies is not consequential to the plot or the theme.
• Edited movies are not “censorship”:  they are clearly labeled as edited and are alternatives to (not replacements for) the originals, which are always available for those who want them.  They are developed and sold to a clientele who fully understand that they’re watching an edited film (with all the artistic and continuity compromises that represents) and are fine with it.
• The 1-to-1 principle — that Clean Flicks will be buying an original VHS or DVD for each edited copy they sell to a consumer — means movie studios won’t be losing money.  In theory, they will be earning money, as edited films find audiences that were never going to spend money to buy or rent the original.

In practice, things weren’t quite so ideal.  We learn that some films were judged to be “beyond editing” (Pretty Woman / Brokeback Mountain).  Financial margins and competitive pressures caused some local dealers to abandon the 1-to-1 principle by making multiple copies of a film for distribution.  (There’s a word for this, of course: piracy)   Some “customers” would rent edited films from one outlet and then copy them to sell or rent out at their own store.

Cleanflix also presents the directors’ side:  that an edited film is a derivative work that still has the director’s name on it, even when it no longer represents their artistic vision.  Like software products which are allowed to dictate how they are installed or resold, customers don’t “own” a movie by buying a DVD in the same sense that they own a pair of shoes and can do whatever they want with them.  (As someone who once got in trouble for showing a rented DVD in a “public place” in violation of copyright, I can testify the laws regarding digital entertainment and what consumers can actually do with the things they buy are fairly strict.)

As outlined in a previous article, I’m not a supporter of edited films, both for reasons of artistic purity and the fact that buying an unedited DVD for someone to edit doesn’t encourage Hollywood to produce cleaner material in the first place (in fact, it does the opposite).   It’s a way for Saints to try to be “in the R-rated world” without being “of the R-rated world” when the distinctions are minimal.  Regardless of your personal opinion, however, the Cleanflix filmmakers do a good job of letting each side speak for itself and defend their own position.  Watching Cleanflix probably won’t change anyone’s mind on the matter, but each side of the debate will probably feel the film treats their position fairly.

Some of the LDS supporters of edited films in Cleanflix refer to the struggle in black-and-white terms (“It’s a matter of good versus evil” says one), although in practice the edited film industry exposed a lot of moral gray area.  How do some edited film store owners justify editing movies out of moral and ethical concerns, but then pirating the movies either from Hollywood, or from other stores?  On the other hand, how can the DGA complain about artistic integrity when they already happily consent to edited versions being created for airlines and TV, still with the same directors’ names attached?  And if those edited versions already exist, why NOT release them and let those who want the edited version give you their money for it?

Subsequent legal judgments against edited movie sellers provided another ethical dilemma:  Latter-Day Saints are obligated to obey local laws, but do judges’ rulings count as “the law” pending appeal?   Is editing gratuitous profanity, sex, and violence a “higher principle” that should motivate store owners (and customers) to keep up the fight rather than submitting to legal authorities?   (Some business owners thought yes, others no.)  Later, after a legal loophole is discovered that may potentially allow the editing to continue, stores owners have to ask:  is the “principle” worth the financial risk to keep going, knowing they may be shut down (again) at any time?

In addition to recounting the legal battles, CleanFlix analyzes the LDS culture that spawned the edited movie craze in the first place.  President Ezra Taft Benson’s famous conference talk in 1986 encouraging Saints not to watch R-rated movies is quoted, as well as a number of BYU students who talk about the principle of clean entertainment.  While edited films tended to cut out anything related to profanity, sex, or violence, the filmmakers notice the tendency of LDS to emphasize the profanity and sex aspect far more than violence.  (“It’s good to have the swearing, profanity, and sex out of the movie — something that we can enjoy as a family.” says one LDS dad.  Did you forget something there?)   One local (non-LDS) college professor raises the question of whether LDS over-emphasis on avoiding sex and nudity might cause rather than eliminate sexual issues in LDS members?

(Note:  the Clean Flicks dealer whose later arrest for pornography and soliciting underage girls for sexual favors that made national headlines and is chronicled in detail by the film is not actually LDS — the documentary is not really clear here — so this question about how LDS attitudes towards sex and nudity in entertainment affects LDS sexuality is purely a hypothetical one.)

The larger cultural question remains:  why do LDS audiences feel compelled to edit movies, instead of simply choosing to watch only the “decent” films and ignoring the rest?   Is it a psychological need to feel like they’re keeping gospel standards, but at the same time not feeling left out of modern US culture (including popular movies)?   Are LDS audiences compelled to pretend the real world is PG-rated, and thus shape all forms of entertainment to conform to that fantasy?   If the real world is frequently “R-rated” and movies accurately reflect that reality, does pushing everything into a “PG-rated” box help or hurt LDS efforts to be in the world but not of the world?    (Note this interesting story of “editing” a work of art to conform to modern LDS standards.)

In practice, the LDS cultural analysis is a little shallow given the brief amount of time the documentary devotes to it, and some of the Church elements feel like unnecessary tangents from the edited film topic.   (Richard Dutcher of God’s Army / States of Grace fame shows up in this section to give his usual diatribe about how LDS audiences are stupid, uneducated, dense, cowardly, and unworthy of his presence among them as a filmmaker.  Okay, Richard, we get it.  Go make movies for other people, then…)

It’s important to note that edited films aren’t going away.  Some edited movie stores are still open today, defying the courts.  Different editing technologies like ClearPlay that are immune from legal complications are still a viable alternative.  Will further technological developments present other editing options that won’t fall under existing copyright law?  If so, then perhaps Hollywood will be forced to revisit the edited movie problem once again.  Regardless of your opinion on edited movies, Cleanflix does a good job of mixing an entertaining story with compelling ethical questions for discussion.

[NOTE:  Cleanflix appears to have been released "unrated", but contains several comparative clips showing how the edited versions of R-rated movies differ from the unedited versions, making Cleanflix itself essentially R-rated.  I wonder what the Clean Flicks' "edited version" of Cleanflix would look like...]

Continue reading »]]> Children of Joseph is a 35-minute DVD produced by the Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith Historical Society.  It was created in 2011 by many of the same team from Emma Smith: My Story, and is available through Netflix and Amazon, as well as for purchase through the Historical Society’s website.

When Joseph Smith Jr. was killed in 1844, he left behind five children and his first wife Emma who was pregnant with the sixth.  In the difficult times following The Prophet’s death, Brigham Young led a large group of Saints to the West, although Emma and the children stayed behind in Nauvoo, Illinois.  Over the next 150 years, relatively few of Joseph Smith’s posterity became involved with the Utah branch of Mormonism, although today over a hundred of his descendants (many of whom were previously unaware that they were related to Joseph Smith before being contacted by LDS missionaries or family history researchers) have become members.

Let’s be clear:  Children of Joseph is NOT a “documentary” in the true sense of the word.  You will learn surprisingly little about Joseph Smith’s children from this DVD, other than their names and how old they were when their father died.  Biographical details about their adult lives are skipped over, and the leadership debates and personal conflicts that divided the Saints following Joseph’s death are talked about only in vague expressions without detail.  Viewers curious about what happened to Joseph Smith’s children or post-martyrdom events in the Church will learn more in five minutes perusing Wikipedia than from the historians in this DVD.

Rather, Children of Joseph acts as more of a brief tribute to Joseph and Emma Smith themselves, and a feel-good piece for Utah Mormons to learn about missionary efforts among their posterity today.  (Perhaps secondarily it also acts as a subtle advertisement for the JS&EHS Historical Society itself.)

Utah LDS have a notoriously fickle relationship with Church history — alternately embracing or rejecting historical truths depending on whether the details are flattering or embarrassing to modern LDS sensibilities.  To its credit, the JS&EHS Historical Society was upfront in mentioning plural marriage in Emma Smith: My Story (albeit briefly) and does again here.  Although to date there are no known descendants of Joseph Smith from a wife other than Emma, the DVD is direct in admitting the possibility still exists and any such posterity should be “heirs” to Joseph’s legacy and embraced within the larger gospel family the same as everyone else.

The fathered children question is one instance where LDS historians can be upfront about “sensitive” issues in Church history because the facts are relatively benign:  modern DNA testing has not turned up even one child sired by Joseph through another wife, even disproving some candidates that early historians were convinced were Joseph’s.   Possible candidates without the ability to be tested (including one woman whose mother told her on her death bed she was Joseph’s child) still exist so historians will probably never know for sure.  For now, however, the make-up of Joseph Smith’s posterity is fairly uncontroversial.

(You may ask:  given the admitted existence of plural marriages in the first place, does it really matter whether Joseph had any additional children by other wives?  It is significant only in the sense that critics of Joseph Smith often attempt to explain away early polygamy as “Joseph just wanted to have lots of sex with many different women” — an easy oversimplification which allows Church skeptics to dismiss Joseph Smith as a simple pervert without any further need for analysis or critical thinking.  Evidence that he fathered nine children with Emma and none (so far) with the other 30+ women he supposedly married just to have sex with frequently — some of whom testified there was no sexual relationship at all — raises obvious questions about that “theory”.  No, this won’t solve the “polygamy problem” for anyone skeptical of plural marriage in general, but it at least suggests that Joseph Smith’s vision and motive for plural marriage was more complex than sexual lust.)

Addressing polygamy somewhat directly doesn’t mean Children of Joseph gets away unscathed from “whitewashing” LDS history, however.  As much as modern Utah Mormons like to believe the transition of Church leadership from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young was clear and seamless, there were six splinter groups with their own claims to LDS leadership after Joseph’s death, one of which was the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (now called the Community of Christ) headed by Joseph Smith’s son.  Children of Joseph dismisses any significance of the RLDS sect, especially among Joseph’s posterity, mentioning only that some of Joseph’s children “participated” in the reorganization movement.

(Note: Joseph Smith III was the Prophet/President of the RLDS Church for 54 years.  His brother David Hyrum served with him in the RLDS First Presidency for 23 of those years.  Their other brother Alexander was an RLDS apostle and Presiding Patriarch.  Direct descendants of Joseph Smith led the RLDS Church for over 100 years. I think that goes beyond “participating” in the reorganization movement.)

Much of the chaos in the Mormon leadership vacuum at the time is discussed in vague, non-specific terms by the DVD historians, who mention “misunderstandings” and “assumptions” without any specific examples.  Any hope of an objective view of historical events ends early on by some highly biased editorializing.  Several talking heads comment about how Emma remaining in Nauvoo “may have cost [her and her children] the fullness of the gospel”.  (The RLDS then and now would disagree.)  One of Joseph Smith’s great-grandsons is portrayed as “the first descendant of Joseph Smith to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood”.  (The RLDS who can also trace their Melchizedek Priesthood directly to Joseph Smith would disagree again…)  One LDS member insists that gaining a testimony of Joseph Smith as prophet is important, but “for the descendants of Joseph Smith, they need to gain a testimony of Brigham Young.”  (The RLDS shake their heads once again…)

Given the target audience, the Utah-LDS bias is expected, but for a so-called “Historical Society” to blithely ignore a significant part of Mormon history, especially in a “documentary” specifically about Joseph Smith’s descendants, borders on intellectual dishonesty.  Today’s LDS leaders insist (correctly) that Mormons should be included in the “Christian” tent, but also insist (with no hint of irony) that no other church is allowed in the “Mormon” tent, even those who believe in Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God and the Book of Mormon/Doctrine & Covenants as scripture.  (There are over 300 churches that meet that definition today.)  Is it that difficult to accept other branches of Mormonism as our spiritual siblings, all striving to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ in our own way?  (After all, that’s what we desire from other Christians, right?)

The Historical Society is obviously sincere about wanting to bridge gaps between the descendants of Joseph Smith and the descendants of Brigham Young, but it won’t help if LDS Mormons insist that the RLDS brand of Mormonism experienced by a large portion of Joseph Smith’s posterity somehow doesn’t count — that it’s a religious legacy so insignificant that even addressing the church by name and treating it as a legitimate branch of Mormonism is not worth the trouble.  If Children of Joseph wants to encourage people to have a “testimony of Brigham Young”, there’s certainly nothing here that would convince a modern day RLDS/COC member (whether related to Joseph Smith or not) that following Brigham Young brought anyone “the fullness of the gospel” compared to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and the teachings of Joseph Smith they already had.

Good PR in Utah for the Joseph & Emma Historical Society, I guess, but bad history.

My Grade (as a PR piece aimed at Utah Mormons):  B

My Grade (as a historical documentary): D

Continue reading »]]> This Friday (April 6th) Redemption — written and directed by Tom Russell — will appear in select theaters. (The movie’s official site and Facebook page have more information)

Redemption is based on a true story involving a convicted criminal sent into exile and a lawman who is conflicted about how to treat him.  How do you respect someone’s humanity while respecting the demands of justice at the same time?

Redemption originally screened at the LDS Film Festival in January — here’s my original write-up where I gave it a B at the time. (It’s a borderline B+, all things considering;  some of the weird tangents and choppy editing rubbed me the wrong way, along with sound issues that probably weren’t the fault of the film.)

I’m moderately surprised the film got a PG rating, and apparently without any cuts.  I thought the (admittedly limited) violence and general tone were more in line with a PG-13 film.  Regardless, Redemption is an excellent film that’s worthy of support (even though I’d still consider leaving the young kids at home).

Below is the official trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mg2vFxK6Q

Continue reading »]]> Written and directed by Garrett Batty (director of a handful of Mormon Messages video shorts), Scout Camp is a low-key and mostly realistic valentine to Scouting, released direct to video in 2009.  Scout Camp has obviously been created by filmmakers who are fond of their own Scouting experience.  While it is not as in-your-face as The Last Eagle Scout, Scout Camp will likely appeal to the same audience:  current and former Scouts who will smile and reminisce about their own positive Scouting memories.

Scout Camp stars High School Musical’s Shawn Carter as York Hayes, a Senior Patrol Leader for Scout Troop 909 (the “Fire Dragons”) who is heading off to the week-long scout camp with his troop.  York’s troop consists largely of younger scouts having their first scout camp experience, and York plans on showing them the ropes (practical advice, mixed with some scary/gross stories and practical jokes as part of the experience.)  Other than Shawn Carter, the most recognizable face is Kirby Heyborne from Midway to Heaven / The RM who unfortunately doesn’t have much to do here.

Scout Camp has a bit of an identity crisis.  It is not really a comedy:  the scouts’ antics are slightly exaggerated, but there are no “wacky hijinx” or real comedic situations at the camp.  It’s not really a drama either, without any true dramatic incidents or tension.  For most of the film, we’re not even sure what the “plot” is, if even the film has one.  (The troop that holds the record for most merit badges obtained during the four day camp is mentioned, seemingly a setup for an attempt by the Fire Dragons to break that record, but that’s a red herring.)

Later, when the “Spirit Stick” of the camp gets stolen and the Fire Dragons start looking for it, the film has a little bit of narrative momentum, but the film loses interest in resolving even that plot point by the end.  (You won’t see what happened to the stick, in fact, unless you keep watching after the end credits.)  The troop learns a minor lesson about what’s important, but the Fire Dragons spend most of the movie at odds with the other troops (by their own doing) instead of focusing on having fun and maintaining good relationships with the other Scouts — something that seems to be the REAL lesson about what’s important here, which the troop (and the movie) misses.

Scout Camp keeps Scouting in perspective.  The film does not try to present Scouting as The Most Important Thing A Young Man Can Do, but rather just an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors and have some positive male-bonding experiences.   Some of the “darker sides” of Scouting (if you will) are addressed in the film:  the practical jokes and macho-posturing (borderline bullying) that often result when young men of a particular age and personality are put in the remote wilderness, especially in positions of power.  The film also has some insightful observations on the problem of varying standards when obtaining merit badges and other awards (“Last year, he just carved on a block of wood for, like, three minutes and got his Woodcarving merit badge.”  ”What did he carve?”  ”A smaller block of wood.”)

In the end, Scout Camp serves as a reasonably realistic depiction of scouting experiences at camp (both good and bad) and will appeal to current and former scouts.  However, the lack of interesting drama or comedy will likely bore non-Scouters.

Final Grade:  C

Down and Derby

Down and Derby, by comparison, has no such identity crisis:  it knows it wants to be a madcap over-the-top comedy from the first scene.   Down and Derby — written and directed by Eric Hendershot and released to video in 2005 — centers around the annual Pinewood Derby race, one of the key events throughout the Scouting world.  Ostensibly an opportunity for young Scouts to build their own car with their fathers’ guidance, the Pinewood Derby frequently becomes an opportunity for the fathers to take over and build their own car, driven (pun intended) by sheer competitiveness or an attempt to relive their own childhoods.

Down and Derby takes this to the extreme featuring four neighbors who have lived next to each other since childhood and conveniently all have sons the same age.  When Pinewood Derby time comes around, they devote themselves to winning (“for the kids’ sake”, of course) no matter the cost.

Ace Montana is the Winner of the neighborhood, coming out ahead of every competition and life pursuit since he was a kid.  Phil Davis is the literal and figurative Number #2, losing to Ace in everything as long as he can remember.  (Ace’s son is beating Phil’s son in basketball, of course, as Down and Derby opens…although the movie never bothers to explain why their kids would be going to different schools if they live right next to each other.)  When the Pinewood Derby race is announced, Ace, Phil and their two other neighbors Blaine and “Big Jimmy” go all-out to 1-up the others in creating a winning car.

The Pinewood Derby is serious business for a lot of families.  While the “Pinewood Derby Bible” in the movie is fake, many websites offer guides and blueprints to help Scouts (and *ahem* their fathers) get a leg up on the competition.  (You can even buy completed cars online.  Naturally this defeats the entire purpose of the program, but anyway…)  Down and Derby is clearly a satire of something that’s an easy target, although it’s not realistic or subtle.  This is the type of movie where Phil, the main character (a) stops going to work entirely to work on his car, (b) builds not one but TWO practice tracks in his house to test his car designs, and (c) builds those tracks not in his garage or basement but in his BEDROOM, much to the chagrin of his long-suffering wife, who puts up with it far longer than she would in real life.

I like the fact the movie selects a tone and sticks with it, although Down and Derby often mistakes manic energy and over-acting for “comedy”.  Good satire needs closer ties to reality to be effective, and the contrived and over-the-top situations hurt both the satire and the humor.

(Audiences will probably groan rather than laugh when the film asks us to believe (a) two high-level Japanese executives would actually visit Phil at home to see his marketing ideas, and (b) accept his made-up-on-the-spot pitch about tying Pinewood Derby cars to a major marketing campaign.  One of the executives is played by the late, great Pat Morita, who has exactly one word of dialogue — which of course doesn’t stop the filmmakers from featuring him prominently on the DVD cover because, hey, it’s Mr. Miyagi!)

Down and Derby sags in the middle as the thin plot struggles to fill the time before the expected Pinewood Derby competition.  This middle section is taken up by some random subplots, including some bathroom and almost-but-not-quite-risque situations that are out of place and not nearly as funny as the film thinks they are.  When the inevitable race rolls around, the final winner — even by the film’s patently unrealistic standards –is completely beyond believability, given the circumstances and competition.

(And I’m thinking Down and Derby misses its own primary lesson as well.  When one of the neighbors abandons his own personal quest for glory and enters the car his son made by himself…and then comes in last, it’s presented as a failure, rather than emphasizing that the father-son experience was ostensibly the point of the Pinewood Derby in the first place, and that he and his son should be the real “winners”.  In the end the only father-son pair presented as having a positive experience is the pair who actually ‘won’ the tournament.  So…letting your son build his own car is important, but only if you still actually win?)

Down and Derby, like Scout Camp, will probably appeal to families who have experienced Scouting (and the Pinewood Derby competitions) themselves.  The lack of realism and over-the-top situations will likely limit the audience beyond that.

Final Grade:  C+ 

Continue reading »]]> Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons — a documentary created by Margaret Young and Darius Gray will be broadcast on the Documentary Channel this Tuesday, February 20th.   Nobody Knows chronicles some of the stories of early black Latter-Day Saints (including Elijah Abel, the first black priesthood holder, ordained in 1836) and addresses some of the hard issues raised by the black LDS priesthood ban instituted in Brigham Young’s time until rescinded in 1978.

Nobody Knows (official site, my review) is highly recommended for anyone who is interested in learning more about a little-known but significant area of LDS history, and hearing the testimonies of many faithful black LDS today.

Less significant, but still noteworthy:  Unicorn City, a local film about gamer geeks creating a role-playing utopia out in the wilderness will have a small, local release in Utah theaters this Friday, February 24th.    My favorite film out of the LDS Film Festival this year, Unicorn City isn’t deep by any means, but is a lot of fun and  accessible even for those who don’t know what LARP or MMORPG means.  It’s well-written and well-produced — worth checking out even if you’re skeptical about the quality of recent local films.

Continue reading »]]>

[Viewed January 27th, 2012 at the LDS Film Festival.  Screened version was described by the director as "95% complete".]

Kels Goodman is a maverick filmmaker in any sense of the word. As writer (with Danna Tanner), director, producer, editor, and the sole financial sponsor, Goodman has been working on this “weekend warrior” project for most of the last decade, and The Last Eagle Scout is the culmination of a LOT of time, energy, and money.

Good for him.  Getting any film made is a tremendous undertaking, and the fact that he’s persisted through years of financial difficulties and production delays shows genuine courage and spirit — something that other LDS filmmakers can emulate.

We can almost forgive the rough edges in The Last Eagle Scout (and there are a lot of them) because of that maverick spirit.  Even beyond the raw production values (and occasionally laughable special effects) The Last Eagle Scout is deliberately designed to be provocative and politically incorrect.  The film will challenge viewers to accept Goodman’s ideology in the same fashion it challenges viewers to look past the low budget, and for many viewers forgiving the latter will be easier than the former.   How you ultimately respond to The Last Eagle Scout will depend on how you feel about Scouting in the first place.

Cliff Elliot (Nick Whitaker) is one of the few remaining Boy Scouts in the US, and is hurriedly working for his Eagle.  After a tragic accident (?) at scout camp, the government decrees the Boy Scouts of America must shut its doors forever, which leaves Cliff with a strict deadline for finishing his Eagle requirements and fulfilling his promise to his dad.

Not content with that basic premise, Goodman then kicks it up a notch by throwing in dark conspiracies at high levels of government, oppressive police squads enforcing political correctness, and a roaming terrorist who plants bombs in public restrooms.  After Cliff gets in trouble with the PC police for posting an American flag on public property, he goes on the run with his sister (Jaci Twiss from Rescued), using “The Last Eagle Scout” as his superhero / vigilante identity — standing up for Scouting when everything seems bleak.

We’re already over-the-top, but Goodman takes it over-the-top-of-the-top with random subplots about Cliff’s mom’s new boyfriend, a black and Indian sales team which seems to serve no purpose other than an elaborate red herring, and something involving Cliff’s favorite singer who is a supporter of the corrupt Congressman and for whom I could not explain the role he plays in the plot if I tried.  You’ll either admire Goodman’s audacity and insane spirit, or you’ll hate the random plotting and convoluted story.  Very little middle ground, I’d imagine.

As anticipated, Scouting forms a fundamental part of The Last Eagle Scout, and your opinion on the value of Scouting for young men today will influence your opinion on the film (or even if you view The Last Eagle Scout in the first place).  At the screening, Goodman was up front about his view that Scouting is “one of the last, great institutions for young men”.    Having that philosophy be the core of the film is fine.  The problem is: Goodman’s film requires the audience to have accepted his ideology about Scouting from the beginning, instead of actively defending it.  The film “presumes” rather than “persuades”.   Like last year’s 8:  The Mormon Proposition documentary, The Last Eagle Scout ”preaches to the choir” — it reinforces the beliefs of those who walked into the theater with them, but will convince no one who didn’t.   In fact, if you don’t share Goodman’s high opinion of Scouting, elements of the film could be interpreted as a satire of Scouting itself (rather than the satire of liberal opinions on Scouting the filmmaker obviously intended.)

Let’s look at some of the details:

The film is set in 2012, although the setting clearly represents an alternative universe of sorts — one where “liberal” trends have taken hold throughout society and where “patriotic” organizations like the Boy Scouts are shunned and attacked.  Cliff and family contend with a variety of PC authority figures throughout the film, who go to great lengths to over-regulate everything, and worry constantly about “avoiding offense”.

Some of Goodman’s satirical targets hit their mark:

• After Cliff’s sister breaks up with her boyfriend, he sues her in court for “emotional distress”…and wins.
• Characters have a debate over what neutral name to call “Christmas”, or “Xmas”, or “the holidays”, or whatever in order to avoid offending or excluding anyone.
• Schools and other public places have segregated “alternative food” zones (like smoking areas) for junk food eaters.
• Massive over-regulation mandates things like wearing safety helmets for protection when showering.  (‘Won’t someone think of the children?’)

Definitely some clever ideas here.  However, other satirical targets miss the mark entirely.

The entire plot of the film is based on the Scouting program taking fire for “patriotism” — wearing American flags on their uniforms, and displaying flags in public locations.  (Is THAT why the Boy Scouts have attracted controversy in recent years?  I hadn’t noticed.  Note that the “g-word” that rhymes with “hay” does not appear in the film.)

This is a “straw man”.  Goodman has created an exaggerated alternate universe for satire purposes that doesn’t actually satirize what real-life Scouting opponents are saying.  You can’t do that, not without undercutting the credibility of one’s own position.  Creating fake arguments against Scouting to play defense against implies Scouting defenders don’t have any adequate responses to the real arguments.

Later, we are shown that a tragedy in Cliff’s family occurred when the PC police don’t allow a forest fire to be extinguished with lake water for environmental reasons.  (Note that this has no correlation with any known position or demand from any left-wing environmental advocacy group.  Nice to see you again, Mr. “Straw Man”.)

And so on.  Government-mandated “green” cars are shown to be unreliable and break down easily.  (Are electric or hybrid cars more likely to break down than “gas-guzzlers”?)  Basically, if you get a laugh at a sign that says “Global Warming:  It is the Law!”, then you’re probably the right audience for this film.  (And if you’re the type who asks, “What does that even MEAN?”, then you probably aren’t…)

While there is no direct church content in The Last Eagle Scout, the LDS connection with Scouting (and the LDS target audience) creates an odd subtext under some of the other satirical elements.

• A sign reads “Bodily Management:  Knowing What’s Best For You!” (Which church makes a big deal about how many earrings a girl wears, again?)
• One co-worker of Cliff’s sister gets mocked for constantly saying, “Stay inside the lines!”  (Didn’t we just study the iron rod and strait and narrow path from Lehi’s vision this last month?  Are we supposed to ‘stay inside the lines’ for safety as a spiritual principle or not?)
• Cliff and his brother get called to the principal’s office after being bullied at school for wearing scout uniforms.  Cliff says, “We get attacked and somehow it’s now OUR fault?”  (Gay kids bullied at school ask the same question…)
• Free speech is portrayed as superior to the PC crowd in The Last Eagle Scout who go out of their way to find words and social policies that won’t offend anyone.  (Are LDS not typically one of the more easily offended demographics today — whether through profane language, depictions of premarital sex on TV, jokes about polygamy, women wearing “immodest” clothes, etc?  Is typical LDS rhetoric more on the “lighten up, man!” side of free speech, or the propriety of being “offended” at anything going against LDS standards, big or small?  Who is Goodman satirizing here?)

I appreciate Goodman’s desire to be a little ‘in-your-face’, instead of playing it safe for a wider audience like other filmmakers.  However, this film’s satire is tied so tightly to one particular viewpoint, that viewers almost have no choice in the matter:  if you do not accept Goodman’s basic ideology, you won’t accept his film.  It deliberately keeps you at a distance and you’ll be less inclined to forgive the rough edges around the production or the all-over-the-place writing and plotting.  And you’ll scratch your head (if not feel genuine annoyance) at the constant mocking of “liberal” positions that bear little relationship to what “liberals” actually believe.

Ironically, if you’re not already on Goodman’s side of the aisle, the film itself does not defend the Scouting program very well, almost making the anti-Scouting side’s case for them:

• Cliff’s “service project” for his Eagle (selling and putting up US flags in other people’s yards) doesn’t actually provide any “service” to people in need.
• Other Scouting activities seen in the film — canoeing, hiking, wood-carving — look like fun but are not demonstrably character-building or vital for young men if the point is to show the importance of the Scouting program in young men’s lives.
• When Cliff stares up at an empty flagpole and says, “It PAINS me so much to see it empty like that”, or when his Scout-leader-in-exile tells him with a straight face, “Now you see how IMPORTANT it is to get your Eagle!”, it’s almost a satire of Scouting itself, mocking the self-importance some hard-line Scouters put on their own program.

Goodman’s heart may be in the right place, but the film as constructed doesn’t do a good job of demonstrating Scouting’s value to the world, especially set in an alternate universe full of obvious straw men.

The fact is:  the current marriage between Scouting and the LDS Church in the US colors any debate of Goodman’s thesis.  Is it possible to ask whether Scouting is truly valuable for young men (versus unnecessary at best, or dangerous at worst) when many LDS assume this “marriage” is direct evidence Scouting is a divine program ordained by revelation, and that questioning Scouting’s role and value in developing young men is tantamount to apostasy?

The fact is: over half of LDS Church membership live in areas where there is no Scouting program.  And even in Utah, there are wards (the BYU Chinese Ward, for example, where I was in the Young Men’s Presidency) that do not participate in Scouting either.  Strangely, our young men still grew up, served missions, and became honorable adults even without that Scouting foundation.

The fact is: there is already a program in the Church that teaches young men to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent — it’s the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the scriptures.  Take away the common elements from the “values” of Scouting that aren’t already covered by basic gospel principles and we’re left with…camping and knot-tying?  (I will note that there are a few amusing scenes where Cliff’s knowledge of knot-tying helps him escape from bad guys.)

In the meantime, the current LDS association with Scouting acts as a lightning-rod for complaints about fund-raising and inequitable division of resources between programs for young men and young women — headaches that the Church doesn’t need.  Obviously, as long as the most senior member of BSA’s National Executive Board is Mormon (someone you may have heard of:  Thomas S. Monson), Scouting will continue to be tied to the LDS experience in the US, for better or worse.  The Last Eagle Scout could potentially be a catalyst for a serious discussion about the value of Scouting (or lack thereof), and whether this “marriage” should continue, but Goodman has stacked the deck a little too far in one direction to be a compelling part of that discussion.

It’s not really fair to tie judgment on The Last Eagle Scout to a judgment on Scouting itself, but the film almost doesn’t give you a choice.    If my ambivalence to the role of Scouting among the 21st century Church invalidates any such “review” of the film, then so be it.  A lot of the patrons at the LDS Film Festival screening certainly had a good time, and you might too.   (Although I suspect very nearly 100% of them walked into the theater already agreeing with Kels Goodman on the value of Scouting, so is that significant?)    If you’ve read this far into the article, I suspect you already know by now whether The Last Eagle Scout is for you, anyway.

Your Grade:  Anywhere from B+ to D (depending on your opinion of Scouting)

My Grade:  C

Continue reading »]]> Notes from Day 4 of the 2012 LDS Film Festival:

Unicorn City

Written / Directed by:  Adrian & Brian Lefler

Described as “Monty Python & The Holy Grail” meets “Napoleon Dynamite”, Unicorn City is a film made by gamer geeks for gamer geeks.  However, even if the terms LARP, D&D, WOW, or MMORPG don’t mean anything to you, don’t let that scare you away — Unicorn City is creative, funny, and accessible to all, and easily my favorite film of the LDS Film Festival.

Voss is an unemployed gamer who lives with his brother in a basement apartment.  His only reason for getting up in the morning is his regular role-playing sessions where he can be his barbarian alter-ego and leave his dreary, real existence behind.   When an interviewer for a potential dream job in the game industry tells him they want to see “leadership experience”, Voss quits his game group, gathers his friends together and forms “Unicorn City” a live-action gaming camp in the wilderness to take the role-playing experience to the next level.

Unicorn City is sharply written with a lot of insider insights that gamers will love (or hate, perhaps, if it hits too close to home).  Non-gamers may not get some of the subtle jokes or references, but will find the antics of Voss’s group and the glimpse into the geek world of serious gamers just as fascinating.  Voss as a character is kind of a blank slate, but it’s the supporting roles — especially Voss’s best friend Marsha and his gaming “rival” Shadow Hawk — who really shine, with excellent comedic performances.  (Jaclyn Hales as Marsha will almost certainly be the break-out star of this film. Watch out for her in the future…)  The creativity in the costumes and role-playing escapades in their wilderness camp is also worthy of praise (the “centaur” in particular is a stroke of genius).

The film is also well-produced considering the low budget, with good pacing and a coherent narrative.  There isn’t any deep message or meaning here, other than perhaps how gamers are attracted to virtual worlds where they have complete control over their character and destiny partly as psychological replacements for the real world where they don’t.

Unicorn City is a fun film regardless of your favorite hobby, and an insightful glimpse into a unique subgroup of humanity.

My Grade:  A-

Boy With Blue

Written by: Matthew Greene / Directed by: David Liddell Thorpe

Boy With Blue is an “experimental” drama shot in a 24-hour period, featuring a total of four characters who spend 99% of the movie in one room of a small apartment.  I don’t know if Boy With Blue was written originally as a stage play, but it is obviously very “play-like” in its structure.

Alex and Jackie Orton are a 40-something married couple who have lost their only son to a drunk-driving accident.  Still in the grieving process three years later, they are visited one afternoon by their son’s ex-girlfriend Raeanne.  Her presence reopens old wounds but also provides greater insight into their son and themselves.   (Their son Tristan is the fourth character in the film, sharing conversations previous to his death in ‘flashback’ form)

Boy With Blue is well-written and acted, and recommended for those who like stage-play-style films (four characters spending the entire movie talking to each other without any “action”).  The subject matter isn’t terribly original — recent films like Rabbit Hole with Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart, or The Greatest with Carey Mulligan and Pierce Brosnan cover approximately the same plotline and emotional territory — but this is still a worthy entry into the “parents grieving for a lost child” genre.

There is a slight religious slant to the material:  Jackie is an active believer, Alex shoulders some doubts (he says he “prays in questions”), although it isn’t a major theme.   The characters drink coffee, but could be interpreted as LDS in other aspects.  When Raeanne mentions she’s meeting with her “pastor” regularly to clean up her life, Jackie is surprised (“Pastor?!”) — which could be interpreted as Raeanne previously being LDS (like the two of them) and has now switched churches, providing a whole new subtext to their conversation.  Per my natural prejudice, I would have liked more discussion of the characters’ religious beliefs, especially as it applied to Tristan’s death, but it’s not vital to the film.

It should be obvious from the above description whether you’re in the target audience for this film or not.  It’s kind of dumb to say, “If this is the type of film you like, then you’ll like this film!”, but that’s the case here.  Boy With Blue is not ground-breaking in any way, but a meaningful film nonetheless.

My Grade:  B+

Elizabeth’s Gift

Directed by: Rob Diamond / Written by: Rob Diamond, Kristina Rising, Troy Hinckley

Elizabeth is the four-year-old daughter of Steve and Laura and the center of their existence.  They are devastated when she dies of a rare heart condition, and seek here and there for something to bring peace and solace to their lives.  When Laura sees Elizabeth’s spirit in a vision on the street one day, she is led to a runaway girl named Mary Jane.  Laura takes that as a sign that this new girl is destined to be a part of their lives and convinces her reluctant husband to bring her into the family.  However, there are darker elements surrounding Steve and Laura’s new daughter — a missing mother and a foreboding arms dealer who seems determined to get his hands on her though any means necessary.  Will everyone live happily ever after?

Combining an emotional family drama about a lost child and grieving parents, with a thriller involving gangs and vicious arms dealers is an interesting mix and it’s not entirely a good fit tonally.  (Although, as noted above, there are lots of entries already in the “parents grieving a lost child” genre, and the filmmakers probably felt like they needed something original to add to the mix.)  Director Rob Diamond (Once Upon a Summer) seems better suited to the family drama elements than the “thriller” elements — this isn’t a gritty drama about gangs or living on the street, and there isn’t really a sense that anyone is ever in great danger during the film.  Still, good performances and decent writing make Elizabeth’s Gift a good experience.  The “supernatural” elements are handled matter-of-factly as part of the film’s premise which you either accept or you don’t.  (They are certainly integrated better into the plot than Diamond’s previous movie.)

Nothing ground-breaking here either, but solid film that will appeal to LDS audiences.

My Grade:  B

Continue reading »]]> Notes from Day 3 of the 2012 LDS Film Festival:

The Last Eagle Scout

Written/Directed by: Kels Goodman

The Last Eagle Scout is the pet project for director Kels Goodman, who wrote (with Danna Tanner), produced, edited, and financed (with his dad) this film over the last eight years.  Set in an “alternate reality” US in 2012, Cliff Elliot (Nick Whitaker) is one of the few remaining Boy Scouts in the US, and is hurriedly working for his Eagle.  After a tragic accident (?) at scout camp, the government decrees the Boy Scouts of America must shut its doors forever, which leaves Cliff with a strict deadline to get his Eagle requirements finished and keep his promise to his dad before time runs out.

Not content with that basic premise, Goodman then kicks it up a notch by throwing in dark conspiracies at high levels of government, oppressive police squads enforcing political correctness, and an unknown terrorist who plants bombs in public restrooms.  After Cliff gets in trouble with the PC police for posting an American flag on public property, he finds himself on the run with his sister (Jaci Twiss from Rescued), using “The Last Eagle Scout” as his superhero / vigilante identity — standing up for Scouting when everything seems bleak.

The Last Eagle Scout is all over the place in terms of plot, characters, and political satire, and it’s all VERY hit-and-miss.  I’m pretty sure this will be the most divisive film coming out of the festival:  audiences will either consider Kels Goodman an insane genius speaking truth to power in an overly PC society…or a right-wing wacko who creates “straw men” about liberal philosophies and then mocks them in support of an outdated Scouting program.  Those in the middle may oscillate between those two opinions from scene to scene.  How you react to the film will largely depend on how you feel about the importance of Scouting (and right-wing ideology) in the first place.

(Full review forthcoming…there’s way too much going on here to cover in a brief blurb)

My Grade:  ???

The Measure of a Man

Written / Directed by:  Elizabeth Bailey Waite

The Measure of a Man is a dramatized biography of George P. Bailey, written and directed by his daughter Elizabeth (Lizzy).  His story starts during the Great Depression when he travels alone to California at the age of 15 to find success and happiness.  He marries his girlfriend Emogene when he is 19 and she is 14 (!) and they have nine kids together.  While never rich, they find happiness and contentment in day-to-day family life with their large posterity.

Elizabeth’s script doesn’t make the mistake of showing George as a saint; he was a disciplinarian who had strict ideas about how kids should behave (and enforced them with “the belt” and other measures that probably wouldn’t pass the parenting test today).  His kids love him, but often rebel against his rules in a passive-aggressive manner (pretending to be busy doing something “constructive” whenever he arrives home, for example).

George also has a strict view of gender roles, which causes conflict when the family has six boys and three girls and the chores aren’t divided evenly.  Emogene phrases her feelings (very carefully worded):  “We need more girls and fewer boys in the family” for tasks such as laundry and ironing, to which George responds ”BOYS DON’T IRON!”  (I was reminded of the “BE A MAN:  IRON YOUR OWN SHIRT” General Conference talk from a few years back…)

The Measure of a Man doesn’t have a “plot” per se, just a random assortment of dramatized memories from Lizzy’s childhood.  And there isn’t any real drama — even when one of the kids gets run over by a car, it’s handled fairly peacefully.  Some of the anecdotes are amusing, but there’s still an underlying sense that the film doesn’t have anything profound to say about life or parenting.  We’re glad to see that George is a decent guy who loves his wife and his kids…however, is it significant or compelling enough to capture in a film?    It’s admirable that Elizabeth doesn’t whitewash the family record even in a film specifically devoted to the memory of her dad, but if George was just a decent guy who was a good father in some ways and not-so-good in others – basically the same as 90% of the other fathers out there – what’s the attraction for non-Bailey family members to learn about his life?  Is there a compelling message for those not in the Bailey family tree?

I’m not sure there is.  The Measure of a Man is pleasant and well-produced, but the lack of meaningful subtext hurt the film in my eyes.  I’m glad fathers like George exist, who take their responsibilities seriously and raise good-natured, well-adjusted kids.  But if it hadn’t been direct descendants of George driving the production of this film, would any studio have looked at it and said, “Wow, there’s a great story here!  We’ve got to get this into theaters…”?  I’m not sure George’s story has anything more compelling than any one of a hundred other family patriarchs we could find in recent US history.

My Grade:  B-

Two Brothers

Directed by:  Rick Stevenson

Two Brothers is part of a large-scale documentary project called 5000 Days, following groups of kids of all countries and social classes over a fifteen-year period.  This particular film follows two Mormon boys from Utah, Sam and Luke Nelson, from the time they are 10 and 8 respectively, to 20 and 22 today.  The director (coincidentally their uncle, but who interestingly is not LDS) follows the boys through high school and their missions (to Chile and Cambodia respectively).  Sam and Luke are normal kids, and part of the success of the documentary is just showing the “normal-ness” of their existence, including the day-to-day struggles common with everyone else their age.

Sam deals with feelings of inadequacy, loneliness and depression in high school even when he’s popular and winning the election for Student Body President.  Later, as a missionary in Chile, he shares his struggles with the language and the food, but also his learning to love the people around him, especially after a devastating earthquake throws the lives of the locals into turmoil.

Luke has a goal to play football for BYU, and his family even transfers to a highly-ranked Catholic high school on the East Coast to provide a better showcase for his football ability.  He’s crushed when BYU doesn’t recruit him and he has to fight amongst 50 other hopefuls as a walk-on for the BYU football program.

The documentary isn’t ground-breaking, especially to LDS audiences who are already familiar with the unique elements of a Mormon lifestyle.  Still, the film is never boring, simply because we like Sam and Luke and can enjoy their successes (and empathize with their struggles) in each step of their lives.  The documentary could certainly serve as a good starting point for non-members to understand the LDS experience, but for LDS viewers it also provides a useful case study about how that LDS experience (especially the mission experience) affects LDS youth today.

My Grade:  B

Continue reading »]]> Brief reports from Day 2 of the 2012 LDS Film Festival

The Letter Writer

Written / Directed by:  Christian Vuissa

The Letter Writer is both an old and new film for writer / director Christian Vuissa (The Errand of Angels, One Good Man).  In 2006, he created a short 12-minute film about an old man who writes letters to inspire others, and in 2011 has expanded it to a full-length feature, using the same actors.

Vuissa has been accused by some (…okay, me) of oversimplifying complex material to create highly idealistic movies that are just a tad detached from reality.  However, since The Letter Writer is fundamentally such a simple story to begin with, it plays more to Vuissa’s strengths.  As a result, The Letter Writer is arguably his best and most effective film.  (Your mileage may vary, naturally.)

Maggy is a young teen who lives with her divorced mother, and whose only interests are singing in her rock band and hanging out with her guitarist boyfriend. One day she receives a letter from an unknown writer who seems to know her personally (“I’ve been meaning to write to you for a long time. Ever since you were young I knew you were destined to accomplish great things.”)  Thinking it’s a distant relative, she tracks down the letter writer and finds a nursing home patient named Stanley who has never met her before.  As a hobby, Stanley randomly writes letters with inspiring phrases in the hope of providing a comfort and blessing to someone who needs it.  They strike up a friendship, and as other areas of Maggy’s life start to fall apart, she starts to follow Stanley’s example in finding her own talent to bless others.

The Letter Writer bears many structural resemblances to Christmas Angel: a young girl becoming the “apprentice” to an older man who help random people around them.  Instead of sharing cash and food, however, Stanley shares uplifting thoughts and messages through letters and small cards.  (The film seems to take place in an earlier era — “Forever” stamps notwithstanding — without cellphones, Internet, or modern social media.)

As a premise, writing random notes to people you’ve never met raises some questions:  Doesn’t it cheapen the message to have a note that sounds personal, but written by a stranger with no actual knowledge of your life circumstances?  (Maggy thinks so; she says finding out her “personal” note came from someone who doesn’t know her made the message meaningless.)  Stanley sort of shrugs at the suggestion his positive platitudes may not be that useful.   The question of the ultimate utility of Stanley’s hobby might have been a flaw of the film, except that The Letter Writer isn’t really about letter writing.  Maggy discovers early on that she isn’t capable of maintaining Stanley’s habit…but finds she doesn’t have to.  She has her own talents and opportunities to serve, and takes instead Stanley’s philosophy and outlook on life for herself rather than his hobby.

The Letter Writer is simple and sweet, even with a few melodramatic elements.  (Is there a bald kid next door undergoing chemotherapy whom Maggy gets to visit and inspire in the hospital?  Of course there is!  Is there a tearful conversation with her mom where Maggy shares how much she loves her?  Of course there is!)   Maggy’s unsubtle conversion from singing rock songs to church hymns and easy-listening folk music is a little eye-rolling. (“I haven’t been using my voice for GOOD, and helping people,” she says, after she’s been replaced in her rock band. Because, of course, no one has ever been inspired, edified, or comforted by rock music, aka the music of the DEVIL…)

Regardless, The Letter Writer is simple, heart-warming and non-offensive — a typical Christian Vuissa film, in other words.

My Grade:  B

Stand Strong

Written / Directed by: Amy Kenney

Writer/Director Amy Kenney (and her husband Shawn, who produces) were chronicled earlier by KSL in relation to Christian vs. LDS Films.  The Kenneys seek to create films that appeal to all religious demographics, and Stand Strong is their attempt to create a timely message about financial and lifestyle management using “God’s laws”.

Matt and Tara Webster are a upper-middle-class couple living in Utah Valley with three kids.  Everything is going great professionally and socially with a nice house, upscale friends, and lots of “toys”, until one day things start to fall apart.  Their adjustable-rate mortgage adjusts and they can’t afford the house payments.  Their “toys” are repossessed.  The economy is tight so there are layoffs at work.  Broke and humiliated, Matt and family end up living in his brother’s basement while they attempt to put their life back together.  His brother encourages them to shape their lives after True Principles: being thrifty and wise with money, as well as living the Lord’s gospel plan for families as defined in the Bible.

Stand Strong is successful in being generically Christian, even though the characters are still pretty obviously LDS.  (Food storage, LDS “prayer-speak”, and reading scriptures from the LDS quad — complete with the standard footnotes — are a giveaway, even though only Bible verses are quoted in the film.)  Stand Strong has a meaningful message about how “the most important things in life aren’t things” and has its heart in the right place.

However, Stand Strong is a film that’s VERY preachy — written like a Sunday School object lesson without subtlety or nuance, rather than a character-driven drama.  The family members in Stand Strong are archetypes rather than real people (Read the character descriptions on the website and you can get a feel how each family member has been condensed into a one sentence description that represents their persona in the film)  The dialogue is on-the-nose, explaining in direct terms what happening and what lesson the audience is supposed to be getting.   Each Webster family member gets at least one “speech” to review with the audience about what they’ve learned.  At no time does it sound like what an actual family would say to one another.

Does that matter if the content of the film still provides a good message?  If you treat the film as a “lesson” — something to show and discuss in a Family Home Evening or other setting — Stand Strong is servicable.  As a meaningful and compelling film, the lack of artistry hurts.

Stand Strong is also ultra-orthodox in its view of family roles, which may alienate audiences who don’t share the filmmakers’ assumptions.   The father is intended to “preside, provide, and protect” in all things.  When the Websters face severe financial trouble, there’s no discussion whatsoever of Tara, the mom, working outside the home to help them dig out of their hole.  The 18-year-old son Brendan is encouraged to develop his talents and help his father with his business; however, his 16-year-old sister — notably — is not.  The film gives her no talents or skills at all, in fact, and implies her role in the family is not to help overcome their current challenges, but apparently to wait for marriage.  (In a strangely creepy scene framed like a marriage proposal, the dad gives his daughter a ring to represent his role as her father and patriarch until her future husband replaces it with a ring of his own.)   Stand Strong also provides a valentine to home schooling, with the strong implication that any mother who loves her children should be home-schooling them rather than (selfishly) sending them off for someone else to teach.  (“I don’t want to miss another moment of my kid’s childhood!”)  The film shares scriptures from Proverbs 31 and the New Testament as support, but it is still debatable whether they justify such strident conclusions about the Right Way to live as a family.

The moral about financial management and keeping priorities straight is a timely message (even if the financial advice is just a variation of this SNL skit).  However, the lack of realistic characters and constant preaching make Stand Strong more tedious than it should be.  (Who would have thought Christian Vuissa’s film would have been the most nuanced of the pair?)  The Kenneys have potential as effective filmmakers, I just hope next time they spend more effort creating a compelling story and realistic characters to go with their gospel-oriented message.

My Grade:  C+