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and addresses some of the hard issues raised by the black LDS priesthood ban instituted in Brigham Young’s time until rescinded in 1978.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+

Continue reading »]]> Notes from Day 1 of the 2012 LDS Film Festival:

Looking through the final schedule, this year’s LDS Film Festival has the usual variety of feature films, short films, and documentaries, but new this year are some “musical interludes” before screenings featuring local musical artists.  Undoubtedly a decision made to broaden the scope of the festival and support local LDS musicians, who face many of the same difficulties supporting themselves and finding audiences as LDS filmmakers do.

For an “LDS” film festival, though, there seems to be a minimal amount of LDS content and themes among the feature films screening this year.  Other than the documentary Two Brothers (chronicling the  lives of two LDS siblings), and a screening of the 1931 film Corianton (based on stories from the Book of Mormon) there doesn’t seem to be any direct LDS character studies or topics.  (The closest might be The Last Eagle Scout, depending on how it ends up approaching the LDS / Scouting connection.)

Obviously, making conclusions about content based on two paragraph blurbs from the schedule handout is not a precise method (and direct LDS content can be found in many of the short films, which aren’t on my schedule this year).  If impressions are correct, though, this wave of films by LDS filmmakers feature more generally applicable religious stories and principles rather than LDS-specific movies (such as films based on the Joseph Smith story, or LDS missionaries shown in previous years).

An interesting trend (if it is one) — not necessarily good or bad.   Since I just wrote how LDS film can be insular at times, I think it is a good step for LDS filmmakers to look for more generally-relatable material with positive religious principles and themes to broaden the audience.  However, I think it would be sad if LDS filmmakers end up abandoning all specific LDS material en masse and the “LDS” Film Festival becomes just a “Utah” Film Festival for local artists with no LDS connection other than where the filmmakers happen to go for Sunday services.

On to Wednesday’s feature film:

Redemption

Written / Directed by Tom Russell

Based on a true story, Redemption (also known as “For Robbing The Dead”) is set in 1860′s Utah, although (as above) there are no obvious LDS characters or content and religion plays only a small role.

Henry Heath is a lawman who has settled in an unnamed small town with his wife and young daughter.  After their daughter passes away due to illness, the town discovers a local immigrant worker named Jean Baptiste has been digging up graves from the local cemetery and stealing their clothes.  Branded on his forehead and exiled to a remote island (Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake, where the movie was filmed) Baptiste lives a lonely, meager existence, leaving behind his mentally-ill wife and a host of people who wish he was dead (and who may do more than ‘wish’).  Heath respects the law and volunteers to bring Baptiste provisions, but soon finds himself the target of community prejudice as well, for seemingly “forgiving” someone who is unforgivable.  How far should he go to help and protect someone who may not deserve it?

Redemption is a solid and moving film with a resonant theme, amply supported by some strong performances.   As a writer, Russell plays the two main characters correctly:  neither the “hero” or the “villain” are portrayed in black-and-white manner, and the ‘grayness’ of humanity, in fact, becomes the thrust of the story.  Heath is a decent guy who does what is right, but he’s been involved in violent encounters where the “right” and “wrong” may be in question.  Maybe he needs forgiveness and mercy as well?

Jean Baptiste isn’t portrayed as overly remorseful nor villainously callous — rather he’s strangely aloof, without ever directly admitting he’s sorry for his actions, but without demonstrating a malicious motive for doing so, either.   Maintaining that balance means that Heath doesn’t have his decision about how to treat Baptiste made for him.  Jean is neither a saint nor a monster — just a strange man who has done some bad things.  The film emphasizes that criminals like Jean are still human beings, and without necessarily “forgiving” him for his transgressions, Heath has to consider how Baptiste should be treated to respect the demands of justice but without violating his humanity.

The use of grave robbing as Baptiste’s “sin” is interesting (even beyond the true story element of the movie).  Jean Baptiste isn’t a murderer or child molester, after all — is robbing dead bodies an “unforgivable” sin as community members state in the film?    A modern comparison may be those who burn the US flag today — something many consider to be hugely offensive and unforgivable from a primal, emotional perspective, but not necessarily from a logical perspective (compared to other crimes).  Why do we bury dead bodies with expensive clothes anyway, when even to religious believers those items are useless?   Jean Baptiste’s motive doesn’t appear to be financial in nature (since he doesn’t sell any of the stolen items).   Perhaps it’s just his warped sense of practicality that said, “THEY won’t need those things, I should use them…”    Russell correctly doesn’t slant the movie to argue grave robbing should or should not be considered a serious moral crime; he merely portrays Baptiste’s actions and the community’s response and uses them as the catalyst for the true theme of the film:  how do we correctly apply the laws of justice and mercy?  How do we show compassion and charity, even to those who do things we consider sinful and offensive?

Redemption is not perfect.   Whether due to theater audio issues or a strong accent or both, a fair amount of Jean Baptiste’s dialogue was unintelligible for me; an obstacle when Baptiste’s dialogue forms a core part of the film’s message.   Russell also uses some strange camera angles and haphazard editing that disrupt the flow of the film.  Many scenes seem to start or end a second or two too quickly, while others linger two seconds too long without any reason behind it.   The story and performances are strong, but to me the directorial and editing style detracted from the film rather than added.  Tom Russell the writer appears to be a few steps ahead of Tom Russell the director, even though it is clear he has the tools and the vision in both areas to become a premier filmmaker in time.

(Even then, the writing still has issues:  the film starts with a ten minute subplot with five additional characters whose purpose is merely to setup Jean Baptiste getting caught robbing graves.  Afterwards, none of those characters are seen or mentioned again.  I’d have to believe any screenwriting professor would have looked at that sequence and said, “Simplify!”, finding a less convoluted way to set up the main story.)

There are enough “adult” elements in the film not to recommend for children (the film will probably be PG-13, but without anything mature LDS audiences will find offensive).   Flaws aside, Redemption is a solid, thought-provoking film that has a positive message about charity and compassion for everyone.  I look forward to what Tom Russell produces in the future.

[Redemption is scheduled to release theatrically in spring 2012]

My Grade:  B

Continue reading »]]>

Island of Grace is the “Christian-ified” version of the film Rescued (one of Candlelight Media’s dual release films discussed in a previous post).  While I wasn’t a huge fan of Rescued, I was curious about the differences and decided to re-watch both films to see what changes were worthy of note.

You may ask:  why?  Why spend time looking at differences between versions of an admittedly obscure film that wasn’t going to find a large audience in either LDS or “Christian” form?

I believe there are larger issues at play here.  The marketing decision to create alternate versions of Rescued for different audiences raises questions about how LDS film fits within the genre of “Christian” film, if at all.  Aren’t LDS films “Christian” films already?  If not, how do the two approaches differ?  Using Rescued and Island of Grace as a case study, I’ll look at some specific differences and then try to make some larger points about LDS filmmaking philosophy.

Rescued and Island of Grace are 95% the same, only with a few scenes and snippets of dialogue changed.   My initial Rescued review still adequately covers the plot and the spiritual elements:  Megan, Mark, and Chris are stranded on a tropical island after a plane crash.  Chris is the faithful LDS, Megan less so, and Mark has no particular beliefs.  The focus of the film is the love triangle between the three, along with Chris’s encouragement of Megan to become more faithful in her church activity.

Some specific differences, along with commentary:

Rescued:  Chris tells Megan he was impressed by how she read The Book of Mormon at lunch every day, which led directly to his conversion and baptism.

Island of Grace:  “The Bible” is substituted for “The Book of Mormon”.

Not a surprising change, although this edit helps support the Evangelical belief that Mormons view the Book of Mormon as the “replacement” for the Bible, rather than a complement.  Since this sequence doesn’t include any specific passages from either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, the LDS version could also have just used “The Bible” for consistency, right?

Rescued:  At the airport, Chris catches Megan drinking coffee and gives her the LDS ‘stare of disapproval’.

Island of Grace:  This scene is cut entirely.

Also not a surprising edit, as the coffee drinking will have no relevance to a non-LDS viewer and there’s no follow-up scene later in the movie that would make its inclusion necessary for continuity.

However, that in itself is telling.  If the original scene was detached from the core of the story and unnecessary in the non-LDS version, is it necessary in the LDS version?   If Megan drinking coffee obviously has no connection to her spiritual  journey for a Baptist or Presbyterian viewer, are we sure it has a connection to her LDS spiritual journey either?

A film that believes in obedience to the Word of Wisdom as a universal spiritual principle applicable to everyone (rather than just something that LDS need to follow because they’re LDS) should support that idea within its run-time.  By doing so, perhaps those hypothetical Baptist or Presbyterian viewers who have never thought about coffee (or alcohol) from a spiritual perspective might start to after seeing the film. Dropping this scene in the “Christian” version implies it has little place or meaning within the LDS version either.

Rescued:  Mark comments that his primary complaint about religion is that “God asks for too much time”.

Island of Grace:  [Cut entirely]

Another edit that’s telling from an LDS standpoint.  “God asks for too much time” is likely not even in the top 20 reasons a “non-believer” might object to traditional Christianity, which doesn’t require a lot of time commitment from even the faithful members.  As before, there’s no follow-up dialogue in the LDS version to either support or refute Mark’s comment.     As with the coffee, the absence of this scene in Island of Grace presents an indictment of that scene being included in the LDS version in the first place.  Does God “ask for more time” from non-LDS Christians?  Are there spiritual benefits for non-LDS to spending more time on church matters (even though they’ve already been “saved”)?

If the film wants to present that idea as a primary or secondary theme, it needs support.   Most people would agree that an active, practicing Latter-Day Saint spends more time on “church stuff” than the average practicing Catholic or Protestant.  Is that extra time valuable or unnecessary?  Dropping the subject in the non-LDS version implies the latter.

Rescued:  At the end, Megan says to Chris: “I may have opened your eyes to the gospel, but you showed me how to live it.”

Island of Grace:  Megan says instead:  “I may have opened your eyes to accepting Jesus Christ, but you showed me how much He really matters.”

In general, Island of Grace adds a handful of mentions of Jesus Christ by name to the screenplay, whereas Rescued had none.  References to “joining the Church” become “accepting Christ”  and so forth.

The obvious question:  why wouldn’t the emphasis of the original be on Jesus Christ, with instances of His name occurring naturally?  Imagine if an Evangelical reviewer saw both versions of the film and described to a friend what the differences were:  “Oh, the Mormon version is the same story just with all the references to Jesus Christ removed.”

Read that sentence again.   Is this supposed to convince other religions that Mormons are Christian?

Rescued’s Tagline:  ”She showed him the gospel.  He showed her how to live it.”

Island of Grace’s Tagline:  “Danger threatens them.  Faith comforts them.  Grace can save them.”

Noting that the DVD cover taglines are almost certainly NOT written by the director or the screen-writer, the Island of Grace tagline has no relationship with the content of the movie:  the concept of “grace” is never mentioned and even the idea that faith has “comforted” Chris (or Megan) has no support.  (Chris prays on his own in the film, but never talks about prayer bringing him peace or giving him a firm conviction that they will be saved from the island eventually.)  Both versions of Rescued seem to miss the obvious spiritual parallel of being stranded on a island and needing outside assistance to be rescued, with being in sin and needing the help of Jesus Christ and the Atonement.

The use of “grace” in the title and tagline appears to be just a marketing ploy for Christian viewers through an attractive “buzzword”, even though it’s not reflected in the content.  The Rescued tagline (coming directly from dialogue within the film) seems to be the more honest version.

Interestingly, even dialogue that doesn’t change between versions can have alternate interpretations depending on the differing contexts.  At the end, Megan seeks to reconcile with Chris and tells him “I was doing all the wrong things” and needed him to tell her so.   What exactly were “the wrong things”?

The LDS version places its emphasis on obedience to outward commandments — attending church and avoiding coffee.  With the coffee element cut (and the church attendance downplayed) a new theme comes to the fore in Island of Grace:  being open about one’s faith with others.  Megan hides her beliefs and church involvement from her co-workers, thinking it will hurt her popularity and chances for company advancement.  Chris encourages her to be more steadfast about her beliefs among her co-workers, just as she once was with him.  The LDS version emphasizes Megan’s spirituality (so to speak) as an individual and her shortcomings in obedience, while the alternate version emphasizes her relationships with others as an open Christian — an area where the removal of some unnecessary LDS subtext actually improves Island of Grace by focusing the theme.

Well, almost…   Unfortunately, Island of Grace‘s narrower focus doesn’t make sense when removed from an LDS context.  In the traditional Christian view, Megan has accepted Christ and is already “saved”;  whether she attends church meetings or tells her co-workers about her beliefs is irrelevant.  The subtext of Chris encouraging her to be open with her beliefs is in relation to others:  as Chris was once converted after seeing how Megan lived her Christian beliefs, so she should still be living her religion so their other non-Christian co-workers can be “saved” as well.

However, one of those non-Christian co-workers (Mark) happens to be on the island with them and yet Mark’s spirituality (or even an attempt to answer Mark’s religious questions) is nowhere on the film’s radar.  I would have to believe a non-LDS Christian filmmaker who approached this same story would have made Mark’s conversion the focus of the plot, not Megan’s.

LDS / Christian Filmmaking:  Why This Matters

What can we learn from the Rescued / Island of Grace experience about LDS and Christian filmmaking?

The fact that any LDS filmmaker would feel the need to create a “Christian” version of any LDS film when LDS films are ostensibly supposed to be Christian to begin with sends entirely the wrong message.  The existence of Island of Grace (let alone the use of fake names and the complete absence of references to “Jesus Christ”  in one version but not the other) basically confirms what the hardcore Evangelical community has always believed about Mormons != Christians.   Shouldn’t LDS films stand on their own as “Christian” films without needing any changes whatsoever?  If not, why not?

(Imagine if LDS missionaries were given “Christian-ified” versions of the Book of Mormon with doctrinal elements altered to conform to more mainstream Evangelical Biblical interpretations.  Even if that proved to be more effective in attracting Evangelical converts, wouldn’t this be an admission that the Church didn’t think the Book of Mormon was “Christian” enough on its own?  What would those converts think when they learned about the *real* Book of Mormon and wondered why the alternate version existed in the first place?)

One common Evangelical stereotype of Mormons is that everything Mormon-related — whether Sunday services, books, commercials, or feature films — is designed to entice and ensnare non-Mormons into our ‘trap’.  Ironically — as anyone with actual LDS experience can attest — reality is the opposite:  LDS culture is frequently so insular that non-LDS have difficulty understanding what’s going on, even when they are trying.

While progress has been made in recent years (nixing self-indulgent missionary farewells, for example), sacrament talks during church services all too frequently are centered around Church policies and programs rather than gospel principles, such that non-members attending the meetings can’t penetrate the terminology or find the link (if there is one) to salvation and personal spirituality.  (A good check:  during the next few sacrament meetings, ask yourself “If I was a non-member and I was attending church for the first time, would this talk mean anything to me?” )

Many LDS films fall into this same pattern:  instead of creating a message with LDS themes and principles accessible and meaningful to non-LDS, LDS films tend to be just as insular.  Why is it important that Rowe — the returned missionary from Return With Honor — convince his mother to join the Church?  Why is it important that the missionaries in One Man’s Treasure find the investigator family at the end?  Even films like the most recent Joseph Smith movie seem to be written where only long-time members will know enough of the historical background to follow what’s going on, even though the Joseph Smith story sounds like it should have been an ideal introduction point for non-LDS to enter the LDS world.

It’s true that many Evangelical Christians will reject LDS film blindly for being “LDS” film whether it presents an authentically Christian message or not.  (See this thread and the comments following it as a common example.)  However, many non-LDS are less militant about accepting Mormons (and Mormon film) as good-faith Christians and would provide not only a larger potential audience, but “witnesses” within their own religious communities of LDS film’s Christian bonafides.

But of course that only works if LDS film is accessible enough to begin with for those non-LDS viewers to understand.  Candlelight Media obviously recognizes the larger potential audience, but changing the content to attract “Christian” viewers is an admission that the original film doesn’t stand on its own as “Christian”, which is a problem when even those more open-minded Christian viewers can find out about the existence of the original film and legitimately ask, “why?”.    If LDS film is, in fact, sharing meaningful and authentic Christian messages, then we should have the faith to let those messages stand on their own, even if the number of non-LDS who find the film are few.  (No different than the LDS approach to missionary work.  Let the message speak for itself, and let those that will hear, hear.)  If LDS film is NOT sharing meaningful and authentic Christian messages then something is wrong, and we might question the filmmakers’ approach to the material to begin with.

Does this mean movies from LDS filmmakers should be avoiding all unique LDS content for accessibility purposes?   Not at all.  LDS content is the most unique element that LDS filmmakers have to offer, and presenting strange cultures and new settings is, in fact, one of the strengths of film in the first place.  The point is filmmakers need to consider how that LDS content is presented, especially from the non-member perspective.  Those glimpses into unfamiliar worlds need to be written and directed so that neophyte viewers can understand the world and the motivations of the movie characters better, without being impenetrable to anyone who wasn’t already a part of the community.

“LDS” and “Christian” filmmaking doesn’t need to be an ‘either/or’.  Amy and Shawn Kenney (for example) are LDS filmmakers who seek to create positive, spiritual films that are generally applicable to LDS and non-LDS Christians alike.  They seem to be the perfect bridge between “LDS” and “Christian” film, but take note of Shawn Kenney’s quote from the article:

The difference between a Mormon film and a Christian film is that one is geared to an LDS audience, usually with subject matter or references that are uniquely LDS, while a Christian film is faith based, it is inspirational, not necessarily denominational.  A Christian film may appeal to those of many different religions and backgrounds, whereas a Mormon film may not be completely understood by those without some Mormon background.

Who says that LDS film *can’t* also be “faith-based”, “inspirational”, and “appeal to those of many different religions and backgrounds” while coincidentally featuring LDS characters and philosophy?  Why does there need to be a clear demarcation between “Mormon film” and “Christian film” in the first place, such that LDS filmmakers like the Kenney’s feel the need to choose one side or the other?  LDS filmmakers should not need to avoid all specific LDS doctrine and terminologies altogether to make a “Christian” film, but just ask the question:  is my film crafted to make the story and message understandable to all audiences regardless of religious background?

LDS Film:  Preaching to the Choir?

One last point:  Sean Means, film critic for the Salt Lake Tribune, has commented on why locally released LDS films haven’t tended to be very good:

Microscopic budgets and amateur production values occasionally played a part – though that didn’t explain it. (Lack of resources doesn’t keep a great many great movies to emerge from the Sundance Film Festival every year.)  No, the main reason is that too many Mormon filmmakers are more concerned about being Mormons than being filmmakers – and promoting the faith takes precedence over telling a compelling story.

Taking Means’ comment a step further:  I’m not sure LDS filmmakers are being successful ‘promoting the faith’ either, in the sense that the LDS content in films is often taken for granted without support or defense.   Are LDS films persuasively presenting LDS principles to LDS audiences (let alone non-LDS ones), or are they simply “preaching to the choir” — providing a message that has no impact on anyone who didn’t walk into the theater sharing the filmmakers’ religious assumptions?

Why is Megan drinking coffee in Rescued significant even to an LDS viewer?  What if there are LDS members (and there are) who identify more with Megan than Chris, feeling that obedience to minor commandments and the major LDS time commitments don’t have a direct connection with spirituality (as their absence in the “Christian” version implies)?   Why does Lisa — the main character in Once Upon A Summer — quit her job and let her husband work outside the home, and why is that decision the “correct” one?   Why is it important that Aaron’s 23-year-old daughter get married in the temple in One Good Man even though it excludes her fiance’s non-LDS parents from attending the ceremony?

If any LDS has questions about these principles (or seeks for a helpful example to defend those principles to friends and family), they won’t be able to point to the above films, all of which present those decisions without discussion or analysis.  ”Promoting the faith” can also mean defending LDS principles to LDS themselves.   Movies are designed for entertainment, sure, but are also tools of communication.  A film does not have to be specifically created to “change people’s minds” on a matter, but history contains many significant films that were effective in “changing people’s minds” regardless.  LDS film can also be a tool to introduce and explain LDS doctrine and philosophy within real-life scenarios that viewers can identify with, even if they are not in the “choir”.  LDS film shouldn’t be just a medium that LDS audiences depend on only for passable entertainment without profanity, sex, or violence that doesn’t do anything more than confirm things they already believed.

Rescued was obviously not created (nor should it be judged) to be the epitome and primary representative for LDS film as a genre.  There are other films that serve as better examples of what LDS film can accomplish.  The alternate versions of Rescued, however, do form a good case study in looking at Christian and LDS filmmaking in general and how to approach it.   As part of developing messages and themes accessible for non-Mormons, LDS film should ask some basic questions:  what is the purpose of LDS film?  What is the audience?   What are the common struggles and benefits that being LDS bring, and how can we portray them accurately and effectively onscreen?   What basic message can non-LDS learn here that would help them better understand LDS philosophy and religious thought (even if they disagree themselves)?  Does this film present a “Christian message” — an introduction / reinforcement of gospel principles and teachings of Jesus Christ that viewers of any church could respond to?  Are LDS doctrine and cultural interpretations supported or just assumed?

In short, wouldn’t the ideal future of LDS film be where an “Island of Grace” version never exists?  Can LDS film reach a point where each film stands on its own, inside and outside the Church, without needing tweaks to be considered “Christian”?

Continue reading »]]> The 2012 LDS Film Festival will be taking place January 25th through the 28th at the SCERA theater in Orem, Utah.  The primary schedule has been announced at the official site, although there will be further updates of showings and presentations closer to the festival opening.

Some highlights of this years schedule:

• Redemption — a drama about a lawman and a prisoner, set on the western frontier in 1862.  Directed by Tom Russell and starring John Freeman, Margot Kidder, and Barry Corbin.
• Stand Strong — a drama about a family in crisis who learns what success is really about.  Directed by Amy and Shawn Kenney.
• The Last Eagle Scout — satirical drama/comedy about a future society without Scouting where one young man tries to finish his Eagle before time runs out.  Written and directed by Kels Goodman.
• Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love — the 1931 black & white film adaptation of the Brigham H. Roberts novella (based on the story of Corianton, son of Alma, from the Book of Mormon).
• The Measure of a Man — a true story of an orphan in the Great Depression era who travels from Oklahoma to California and ends up raising a large posterity.  Directed by Elizabeth and Andrew Waite.
• The Letter Writer — latest from LDS Film Festival head Christian Vuissa, a drama about a rebellious teenager who becomes the apprentice to an old writer of life-affirming letters.

In addition, the festival also features the regular assortment of documentaries, short films, discussion forums, and filmmaker presentations.  Tickets can be purchased online at the SCERA website or at the door.

Continue reading »]]> [The Book of Life -- written and directed by Marco Lui -- is now available for general viewing through Audience Alliance.  The following is a reprint of my original review, posted in January 2011 at the LDS Film Festival]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmGBQ7Fgj2M

Life is Beautiful meets Saturday’s Warrior in this Italian movie from writer/director/actor Marco Lui.  Like fellow Italian Roberto Benigni, Marco Lui is adept at physical comedy (and uses jokes and humor to distract attention from serious situations).   This beautifully shot Italian fable centers around spirits’ journey from the preexistence to mortal life and beyond.

Lui himself plays a spirit in the pre-existence who receives training on how to use comedy and jokes as tools in teaching, in preparation for life on Earth.  He meets a lovely female spirit playing the piano and the two of them start up a courtship.  Of course, their memories will be veiled once they both come down to Earth, and Marco will have to find the girl and start the courtship all over again before their brief, mortal time runs out.

The Book of Life is one of the most overtly LDS films in recent memory — a surprise anywhere, but certainly coming from Italy, where LDS members are few and LDS filmmakers even fewer.  The plot is basically a dramatization of the LDS Plan of Salvation, with many sections from the Book of Mormon quoted word-for-word in the film.   Stylistic film-making, and high energy performances keep The Book of Life from becoming a dull motion-picture-length Sunday School video.   The film is anchored by Marco’s performance, who throws himself into his “clown” role with both infectious enthusiasm and physical skill.

Like Saturday’s Warrior, the use of the preexistence as a plot point lends itself to some speculative elements that don’t stand up to doctrinal scrutiny — a little more problematic here, because The Book of Life is obviously meant to be a direct parable of the Plan of Salvation and could end up teaching the wrong lesson.  In Lui’s vision, our talents, future occupations, romantic encounters, and even our mortal life-span are preordained from our time in the preexistence — a principle that can have some dangerous implications when taken to the logical extremes.  However, the film is straight-forward and innocent, and families will probably be able to treat story elements as story rather than hard doctrine.

While Marco’s courtship of Chiarra is sweet, there’s one casting nitpick:  Chiarra is an “adult” of unspecified age in the film, but the actress playing her looks like she’s 16 (while Marco is 30) and this adds a slight (and, I’m sure, unintentional) “creepiness” factor to the relationship that undercuts the romance.

Many have wondered when LDS filmmaking would stretch beyond Utah into other countries and languages. The Book of Life is evidence that it has already started to happen.  Even better, The Book of Life is as pure a family film as you can get, with spiritual content and entertainment for both children and adults (provided everyone is okay with reading subtitles).

My Grade:  B+

Continue reading »]]> Just in time for Christmas, let’s look at Christmas Angel, a holiday-themed movie directed by Brian Brough (Turn Around, Rescued, Beauty & The Beast) and released to video in 2009.

Christmas Angel stars Bruce Davison as the title character, a rich retiree who spends his remaining years doing “Secret Santa” service for those around him.

Davison’s character — symbolically named “Nick” — spends great effort to perform his acts of service without notice or praise, but two who know his ‘secret’ are Ashley, his down-on-her-luck neighbor whom he enlists as his personal assistant, and Will, an ambitious writer who may turn Nick’s service into a public magazine story for all to read.  (They are played by Kari Hawker and KC Clyde, their second movie together after The Dance.)

Like many Christmas movies, Christmas Angel is a simple, feel-good experience with no true “villains” and little conflict.  (The worst thing any character does is “take a quote out of context”.)  While dealing broadly with issues such as sadness, loneliness, and death — non-trivial things during the Christmas season when the suicide rate notably rises — Christmas Angel focuses on the positive side of humanity, emphasizing good people and the feelings of service and charity.  (“When you help someone, you’re the one that benefits the most!” says Nick.)

Ashley, an orphan without family or friends other than Nick and her dog, despises the holiday season (“a commercial, soulless endeavor that encourages over-spending and eating”).  Will looks at Nick’s story as a means to an end — a great public interest story to help get him in his editor’s good graces.   As you might expect, both of them have their hearts softened towards service and charity (and each other) by the end.  Yes, it’s all pretty predictable, but since it has a good heart, viewers will probably be inclined to forgive the film for its unoriginal narrative.

Other than older characters musing about the afterlife, Christmas Angel stays strictly non-religious — possibly bothersome to viewers who prefer at least some “Christ” in their Christmas, but the primary themes of compassion, charity, and serving others should count as “religious” enough for most audiences whether belonging to a specific church or not.

Christmas Angel — in keeping with the cheerful holiday spirit — is one of the least cynical films around; however there’s a cynical subtext to the film that deserves discussion since it underlies the entire premise of the film:  that is, the value and importance of money when it comes to service.

We learn early on that Nick is living beneath his means in a lowly apartment next to unemployed Ashley.  When he offers her a job as his personal assistant to facilitate the secret Santa gifts around the city, he admits that’s he’s actually wealthy (“enough to buy several city blocks”, he says).  After she looks at the list of service targets and expenses he has planned, she remarks (correctly) that “this stuff costs money!”

Yes it does, and the fact of the matter is:  the movie wouldn’t exist without having a rich character bank-roll everything in it.  Where did Nick’s money come from?  He used to be a CEO of a large company — a “ruthless” one, in fact, as he notes himself in an introspective moment, one more concerned about dollars than human value.

Nick describes his change of heart — about realizing what truly mattered in life, and setting in motion his plan to use his great wealth appropriately.  Good for him — obviously the world needs more people who come to exactly that same conclusion — but we can’t help but note that without having been that “ruthless” CEO in the first place, none of the service Nick renders in the film would have been possible simply because the money would not have been there.

Having the right attitude towards service and compassion is the first (and most important) step in charity, but money forms such an essential part of Nick’s particular brand of service that it simply begs the question:  what if you’re NOT independently wealthy?  What can individuals who weren’t former CEOs do to make a difference in the community?  Surely there’s something for Ashley, Will (and by extension, the viewers of the film) to learn about service that doesn’t require having a fabulously rich neighbor to facilitate?

This dilemma is actually addressed in the film indirectly in one of the subplots:  Nick tells Ashley and Will about his friend — a father mourning his son who died while saving others.  Nick knows he’s troubled, but doesn’t have a solution (obviously, this is a situation where spending money doesn’t do a lot of good).    Later, Ashley and Will consult together and come up with a solution using more intangible resources at their disposal that’s appropriate and meaningful to him, without requiring great cash outlays.

This serves as a good example of how charity can be performed without needing to be rich, but isn’t emphasized as a major theme of the film.   Nick and Ashley’s primary mechanism for charity throughout the movie is spending money — which, again, is valuable and necessary service, especially among the truly poor and needy, but not necessarily feasible or instructive for average viewers who don’t have wealthy fictional movie characters as friends.

The other noteworthy financial subtext in Nick’s story is that it’s obvious Nick isn’t actually using his money very effectively.   He obtains his targets for secret charity through personal observation and a handful of helpful informants — useful in smaller scopes, but surely a more systematic way might find charitable endeavors on a larger scale?  Nick hires Ashley to assist him, seemingly only because she’s his neighbor and she’s unemployed and this is part of his “charity” to her.  But surely there are a lot of “Ashleys” out there — unemployed individuals who would love to be part of a good cause if given the chance?  If Nick is indeed “filthy rich”, why not hire more than one assistant, not only for their benefit, but for support of his cause as well?

With the amount of money and resources at Nick’s disposal, wouldn’t he and everyone else be far better off creating a charitable foundation on a larger scale?   More employed people equals a greater utilization of resources equals a greater scope for charitable impact around the community.  It seems that Nick would (ironically) be better off if he actually approached his charity as he once approached his job as CEO of a corporation.  Obviously, part of the reason for his limited scope of service is his desire to remain “secret”, but at some point the value of secrecy and anonymous service would become dwarfed by what could be accomplished by a more direct, and organized (albeit public) foundation.

Business is business, whether for profit or not.   CEO skills can (and have) been used in charitable and philanthropic venues for decades.    Covenant House, for example, is a NY-based charity focused on homeless and/or impoverished youth that has already created “franchises” in 11 other states and several countries.  The same principles and methods that help for-profit corporations succeed also help non-profit organizations succeed:  hiring competent employees, aligning them with available resources to accomplish a worthy goal, then hire more employees and repeat.  (Sites like CharityNavigator.org outline a large number of organizations that employ a lot of people as well as efficiently provide valuable charity and services to those in need.  And it is a useful site for checking how charitable funds are used, encouraging efficiency and accountability.)

If Ashley and Will are smart, they’ll continue Nick’s work by hiring other people immediately and not worry so much about being “secret”.   Greater scope of charity, and meaningful jobs for those in need without having to accept “handouts”.

The subtext of Nick’s wealth (and inefficient use of that wealth) probably won’t matter for those looking for a simple, uplifting Christmas story, but does hurt the film’s applicability to general audiences.   Viewers will be reminded that service is important, especially in the Christmas season, but are provided by examples of service that will be largely beyond their capability to provide.  As a Christmas story of good people helping others, Christmas Angel is decent (if unremarkable); if only the details of the story didn’t rely on the giver being part of the proverbial 1% rather than the 99%.

Final Grade: B-