First Look: Christian Vuissa and Maria Augustina Perez

The "First Look" series exists to highlight up-and-coming Mormon filmmakers and to show and discuss their work. This episode focused on the creators of "Roots and Wings," a short film made in 2002 as a student project at BYU. The director and the writer of the films were interviewed (both of whom served as the film's producers as well) and answered questions concerning the film. As it appears, they were the recipients of a generous grant from the MPS which allowed them to make the movie they had pitched as seniors at BYU. The film was then picked up by Thomson Productions and distributed on video.
Though this film certainly wasn't my favorite, I can really appreciate what it's trying to do. The story is one we've all heard before but told from a unique perspective: the man who DOESN'T get converted to the gospel. It is his journey of understanding and eventually accepting the decisions of his wife and children that is particularly captivating. This is a story about charity, about understanding and tolerance. This man progresses and brings his family closer together as a result. The production values were relatively low and I thought a lot of the cinematography was misdirected. I felt disoriented for much of the film and the overall aesthetics left me wanting in that department. However, I think this was a bold move and an important step in the process of defining Mormon Cinema. It's about family, about love, about acceptance, and about a variety of perspectives.

Missionary Movies

Watching "God's Army" and "The Best Two Years" back-to-back was certainly an interesting experience. I'd seen both before, as a missionary in fact, and had not been terribly complimentary in the past. We were encouraged to watch with a critical eye this time and I found myself, surprisingly, much more forgiving than I've ever been. I think learning about the history of Mormon film and the place of movies like these in the LDS Film tradition has helped me appreciate and, yes I admit it, even LIKE these movies more.
"God's Army" is arguably one of the most influential Mormon films in history. It brought about the beginning of the fifth wave and brought back the idea of commercial theatrical release in connection with the Mormon niche market. It was low-budget and perhaps the writing, directing, and acting could have been better. But there is no denying the fact that it was a bold move. Dutcher took his religion and put it onscreen, warts and all, for all the world to see. You've got to admire that tenacity.
"The Best Two Years" is, in my opinion, a much more successful film in almost every area. there is no way, however, that it would have been made if Dutcher had not already paved the way with "God's Army." These movies point to an interesting trend; the commodifying of the Mormon missionary as a gold mine of compelling stories. It's true: members of the Church, myself included, love to hear missionary stories and to see them onscreen is a different experience altogether. The fact that these two movies have found their way successfully to the homes, hearts, and hands of LDS moviegoers is indication of a growing trend that shows no signs of stopping.

"Saturday's Warrior" - Heaven help us...

Okay, I admit, I didn't go into my viewing experience with a very open mind. I had seen it before and was thoroughly unimpressed the first time, so the thought of sitting through another two hours of "Yes-Flinders-No-Flinders" was not an appealing prospect. Unlike a lot of my friends I wasn't raised watching this video. My first time seeing it was as a jaded teenager who already had the makings of a theatre snob. And I am, admittedly, NOT the target audience for this musical. However, I did go into this experience with a more critical eye and would not let myself dismiss what I saw as "fluff." I found myself genuinely curious as to why this musical had such a profound influence on Church members. (I also tried my best to look past the poor production quality and imagine what the original stage production might have been like.) In watching "Saturday's Warrior" I noted several reasons why this has occurred.
1. Mormons onstage! Yeah, it's that simple. The fact that LDS beliefs and culture found themselves singing and dancing onstage in a musical is enough reason to get people excited. Seeing something performed validates it in a way and there is no denying the potential "fun factor" of a performance of "Saturday's Warrior."
2. Wholesome family entertainment. Mormons get excited about squeaky clean easy-to-digest entertainment. (Note, for example, the success of "High School Musical.") Naturally, then, "Saturday's Warrior" posed no threat to anybody's thresh holds regarding sex, violence, or language. That in and of itself almost assures a place in this specialty niche market.
3. The plan of salvation exposed. This show has been widely criticized for its inaccurate doctrinal points especially regarding the pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal life of its characters. However, it was something incredible, I'm sure, to see the abstract principles we'd heard in Sunday School as the meat-and-potatoes of a compelling narrative.
4. Hot topics. There is certainly no denying the power of the arts in discussing important issues and having a lasting effect on the viewers. Obviously the issues of overpopulation and abortion were paramount when this play was written and they are dealt with dramatically in "Saturday's Warrior." The writers took a firm stand on the side the Church has taken and infused the script with topical significance.
5. Home video. Mormons love videos. Most of the people I know who confess their love for this musical do so because of their experience with the video. "I watched it every Sunday afternoon," "It was my favorite video as a kid," and the like. The recording, though very poorly done, comodified the production and made it widely available to brainwash, I mean, uplift Church members all over.
I'll be honest: I did not enjoy this production. I doubt I would enjoy it onstage and I honestly hope never to be a part of any production in the future. However, I can see to a certain extent how this story has found its place in the heart of Mormon culture and in the hearts of Church members everywhere. Just not mine.

What happened to theatre?

We discussed in class the Church's integration of theatre and other cultural arts in the youth programs in the past compared to the relative dismissal of theatre alltogether that we see across the board today. Naturally, this conversation got me a little "riled up" as I remember the countless hours I spent on Wednesday nights playing basketball for a mutual activity and never being interested in the activitied church leaders seemed to assume we were interested in.
This is more, though, than the rantings of a kid who sucked at sports, more than the accusation of negligent youth leaders. This is an indication of a greater problem in the institutional church. I visited a ward in Pleasant Grove last Sunday and was impressed by the useful and functional (albeit small and primative) stage with which the cultural hall was equipped. I was delighted to see that there was a place for cultural events along with the familiar basketball and volleyball capabilities. At home in Sacramento, I go to church in one of the largest buildings I've seen in the church. It has two stories, two chapels, two cultural halls, and no stage. It is all too clear where the Church's priorities seem to lie these days. It is extremely rare to see a church building without a gymnasium. But as far as the "cultural hall" goes, little preparations are made for cultural presentations whatsoever. A raised platform and an occasional front curtain are token gestures but represent a lack of any real commitment to fostering a love of the arts within the church.
Why this change? Is it budgetary? Is it because of the growing number of church members worldwide and the need for speedy construction? Or is it what it appears to be: a churchwide abandonment of the arts? I hope it isn't the latter. I have been involved in theatre for most of my life and I've been constantly challenged by the task of reconciling my membership in the church with my involvement in the arts. I've had to justify myself to many of those basketball-loving young men's leaders who thought no good could come from practicing theatre. We know from the words of the Brethren that artistic expression can and should be something virtuous, lovely, and or good report and praiseworthy (to borrow a phrase) but unless we truly invest time, money, and energy in these essential areas, artists in the church will continue to feel marginalized and Zion will not grow in beauty as we know it must.

Why so much Pioneer art?

I wonder sometimes how the pioneers would feel seeing their journey across the plains romanticized the way it is. Surely at the time they were concerned with keeping up and making it through one more day, with keeping dry or keeping warm, with feeding their families. The image of families pushing handcarts or singing pioneer children might seem humorous to those who were in the thick of it. It may not be inaccurate, but I imagine it’s amusing for them to see something that was so commonplace and monotonous in their day made to be something of an ideal in ours.
Perhaps there is nothing more clearly “Mormon” than the story of the pioneers. They represent the faith, hope, charity, sacrifice, obedience, patience, humility, dedication, and unity for which we all strive. Naturally, then, the pioneers have been the subjects of and inspiration for much of what we see in Mormon art. The sesquicentennial celebration of 1997 brought about a renewal of this aesthetic and a veritable explosion of Pioneer-centered works by, for, and about Mormons.
Some seemed relatively indulgent. We watched in class what might be called the first Mormon music videos: a collection of folk songs accompanied by footage of the trek that sought to recreate the cross-country journey of the pioneers. This really was mainly indulgent and I found it hard to believe that someone could sit through one of the three 90-minute installments without, as I found myself doing, falling asleep. I can see, though, the appeal of such a production to those who simply wish to celebrate their heritage and the great feats that our forebears have accomplished.
Many celebrations accompanied the commemoration including one at BYU that was grand in scope and heavy in spectacle. The Church has a tradition of pageants and this exuberance was captured in the clip we saw of the pioneer celebration. Obviously this was an event that celebrated not just the arrival in the Salt Lake Valley but of the ideals that drive Church members, the “Mormon Dream,” if you will.
Certainly the most famous pioneer movie is “Legacy.” “Legacy” is a Hollywood-style epic film that celebrates the nobility of the pioneers and connects that heritage to each of us who find ourselves beneficiaries of the sacrifices that they made. I watch this movie and realize that the Pioneer aesthetic isn’t purely nostalgic or indulgent but is a manifestation of the Restored Gospel in action. This has become a “Title of Liberty” of sorts that we can raise up and strive to uphold in our own lives. This is why we keep seeing the pioneers and will continue to appreciate their stories.

Manipulation and Mormon Film

We can usually easily spot manipulative media. We’re quite wary of anything that tells us how to think. Occasionally we willingly surrender to such representations but it is always carefully and with a certain foundation of trust. I’ve subjected myself to manipulation for most of my life coming from institutional Church films and often wonder why I do this. More importantly, I wonder why I spent two years in Brazil showing these things to others and why I continue to see film as an important tool in the hands of the institutional Church.
First of all, I suppose I should back up my claim that Church movies are indeed manipulative. For one thing, they are largely one-sided. The Church can do no wrong and all the issues you see are more black and white than life ever could be. One of the primary aims of these films is to invite the Spirit and inspire the viewers. This begs the question concerning the ethics of such a goal. Can we feel the Spirit through film? Can a movie, something static and artificial in nature, truly testify of truth? And is it ethical to expect something unchanging to have an effect on a wide variety of viewers?
Such are the issues I find with Church films. A keen example of this tendency toward manipulation is “Together Forever.” This film is a false documentary which presents actors portraying converts to the gospel testifying of truths they themselves do not believe. On whose witness, then, does this film’s intended spirituality rely? The writers? The director’s? The member’s who pops it into the DVD player? This film also goes further than presenting truth and testifying of Christ and the plan of salvation. It plays on the heightened emotions and fictional situations typical of a narrative film and adds the spiritual element almost as a sort of “wild card” to make an already emotional audience mistake this involvement for the Spirit. I’m not saying that people cannot have a spiritual experience with this, or any other church film. I saw the powerful effects that this and other films could have in the conversion process over and over while I was on my mission. I only say this to point out the danger of marrying high drama and preachy religious content and the difficulty in distinguishing our reactions.
I suppose most of my acceptance of practices that I find problematic comes from the trust I have for the source of these films. I know that they come from the Brethren (or at least are approved thereby) and somehow that eases my mind and calms my doubts about their morality and proper place. They certainly can’t do much harm and I’ve seen the good that can come of a little innocent manipulation.

"Mormon Women and Depression"

This documentary was quite inspirational to me for a variety of reasons. First, I was impressed by the sheer bravery it took to undertake such a project. The filmmakers were exploring an issue that remains difficult for many Church members to talk about. There was even a certain amount of controversy surrounding the distribution of this film as well. The subjects portrayed, though, are truly the heroes (or heroines) of the piece. I can't imagine how much it must have taken for these women to tell their tragic, moving, and inspiring stories for all the world to see.
Secondly, I believe that this film is the best example of what can happen when Christian (read: also Mormon) values meet real world (read: Telestial) problems. This is the Atonement in action. This is forgiveness, love, opposition, suffering, pain, improvement, mercy, kindness, etc. The most emotional moment of the film for me came as one woman described how her testimony of the eternal nature of her marriage and family ultimately saved her life. She talked about how her husband had refused to give up on her even in the depths of her depression and I'm hard-pressed to think of any better example of Christlike love in any other film I've seen. Yes, it's tough to face the "harsh truth." But this is what I think will really inspire us.

Worldwide Training Broadcast

What makes this broadcast different? The biggest difference to me is the natural and (for lack of a better word) casual approach the speakers and Church leaders took in their presentations. Elder Holland’s opening address seemed to me to be the most scripted. Elder Packer, then, was shown at a desk with papers and open scriptures and delivered an address that flowed naturally as if each of us were sitting on the other side of that desk and receiving personal counsel from a loving leader.
The bulk of the presentation consisted of a round-table discussion with Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, and the presidents of the auxiliaries. It was great to see these leaders in an environment other than the somewhat artificial and polished feel of General Conference. One of my religion professors was talking about the days when conference talks were unscripted and the speakers were allowed to speak from the heart. He mentioned that the death of Elder McConkie was largely the cause of this change and that the “feel” of General Conference has changed significantly since. I don’t know for myself. Obviously, the current form is the only one with which I’ve ever been familiar, but this broadcast gave me a taste of how it must be to see these leaders in a different context.
I think this is a brave move on the part of the Church media. It was inspiring and edifying in a different way from typical Church broadcasts. I hope we can see more of this in the future and that we can continue to feel a more “personal touch” in Church training.

"Pioneers in Petticoats"

Many things can be said about “Pioneers in Petticoats.” It was a Sunday afternoon movie for me growing up and my brothers and I valued it mostly for its comedic value. Really, the low production value, contrived plot, and melodramatic acting just begged for giggles from adolescent boys. Recently, though, it has struck me that this movie says a great deal about the values of the Church and how the media of film can be used to promote important values.
This film explains clearly that personal standards are delineated by Church leaders for the protection of its members. Abigail’s dismissal of the values of the Retrenchment Society brought upon her undesirable results. She found herself in an unsavory environment and nearly fell victim to the designs of a dangerous man largely because of her apathetic treatment of Church standards.
Interestingly, the movie was made in 1969, a time when issues of modesty, morality, and obedience to Church leaders were of utmost importance. Certainly, the Church leaders saw the growing trends of disobedience and promiscuity in the world and made a film both to commemorate the origins of the Young Women’s organization and to drive how the standards for which it has stood since its commencement so many years ago. Melodrama and silliness aside, the message is important and likely made a significant difference in its time.

"Ice Cream and Elevators"

“Ice Cream and Elevators” seems elementary and simplistic to present-day students. However, it effectively pioneered a genre that has proven to remain crowd-pleasing and commercially viable today. There is something about Mormon culture (especially BYU culture) that lends itself to parody and “Ice Cream and Elevators” is an early example of this phenomenon. This, then, begs the question: why is BYU Mormon Culture so easy to exploit for comedic motives and why do we find it so humorous?
I think any group of people put in a microcosm such as BYU will lend itself to the extremes we see in films like “Ice Cream and Elevators,” “Singles Ward,” and the like. The humor comes largely from the potential comparison of BYU culture to the rest of the world. Those who take the counsel to be a “peculiar people” too far are, quite frankly, a comic gold mine. BYU also has a dating and romance culture unlike any other in the world. Even those involved therein acknowledge that strange things happen at BYU. Finally, a certain amount of familiarity placed within a more outlandish story can be very humorous. In this film, we saw many familiar thing: art exhibits at the HFAC, waiting for the national anthem to play, and apartments that likely haven’t changed since the time of filming. Much of the laughter was that of recognition as we saw our world blown up on the big screen with larger-than-life characters and laughable situations. There is something delightful and healthy about laughing at yourself and this genre allows for a truly cathartic release.

"Jesus Camp"

Yeah, I know, this is not a "Mormon film." It wasn't on the syllabus and I really didn't even watch it for class. BUT after watching it I am convinced that it has EVERYTHING to do with Mormons and film.
A quick summary from Netflix: This riveting Oscar-nominated documentary offers an unfiltered look at a revivalist subculture where devout Christian youngsters are being primed to deliver the fundamentalist community's religious and political messages. Building an evangelical army of tomorrow, the Kids on Fire summer camp in Devil's Lake, N.D., is dedicated to deepening the preteens' spirituality and sowing the seeds of political activism as they're exhorted to "take back America for Christ."
First, this movie is about religion. It shows a religion and its effect on people. It is an expose of sorts and has a decided slant against religion. Or at least this particular religion... I was struck by the surface similarities and fundamental differences between my own faith and the evangelical religion portrayed in the documentary. While the rhetoric is similar (talk of the fight against Satan, the resistance to evil, the need for repentance) the overarching feel is quite different. The theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is characterized by a positive and constructive sentiment. The focus is on building people up. The doctrine of exhaltation has, at its core, the fundamental idea that mankind can continue to improve unto perfection. I did not see this in "Jesus Camp." In their righteous cause (which, all "scariness" aside, I am convinced is largely the same cause for which we're fighting) their focus seems to be destructive, belittling and cruel. To see the teachings of Christ bastardized in such a way was quite disturbing. It was intersting, though, to see how close we come to this alternative that we admitedly see as frightening.
More importantly, though, the film dealt with the role of Christianity in America today. This is certainly an issue with which Mormon Film is concerned. The people in this film spoke at length of the need to "take back America for Christ." Can we do this? How do we do this? Does it have anything to do with the destructive demonstartions I saw in this movie? I hope not. And, quite honestly, I hope this is not the state of Christianity in America. If so, we've got a lot of work to do.

REVIEW: "Wagon Master"

It is interesting to contrast "Wagon Master" with "brigham Young," a movie ten years its senior. Both could be classified as westerns, both involve Mormon pioneers, both are intended crowd-pleasers. And both try to portray the LDS people as ideal Americans. Anti-Mormon sentiment is a old as the Church itself and it is interesting to see two films that go out of their way to portray the Church in a positive light. It certianly has something to do with the fact that negative portrayal of religion was illegal at the time but I think there is something to filmmakers' apparant interest in looking to such a marginalized group as a portrait of the American Dream. It seems to spring from largely the same impulse as early anti-Mormon films. The Church here is a tool for storytelling purposes. While it was easy at first to use the Mormons as mysterious villains in horrifying settings, it became as convenient to utilize a group of good people with romantic ideals as subjects (or at least as a motif) in western cinema. Interestingly, the neutral portrayal of groups of Mormons has proven time and time again to be quite a blessing for the Church's public relations. To be seen in the public eye as ideal Americans seems to be quite the missionary tool.

REVIEW: "States of Grace"

When I was a kid Lucky Charms was one of my favorite breakfast cereals. Like most kids, I suppose, I was chiefly interested in the colorful marshmallows and put up with the plainer pieces of cereal in order to get to the more enjoyable "charms."
This is largely how I felt about Richard Dutcher's "States of Grace." The film contained "charms" of its own but I felt like I had to wait through a bit of "filler" in order to reach them. This, however, did not make them any less enjoyable but the film as a whole seemed to lack unity or much of a through line. Its emotional power was too frequently lost in the incidental scenes that at times seemed more of a chore than a pleasure to get through.
Clearly this is not a perfect film. Dutcher seems to lack a cohesive, consistent, visual style, a reality attested to by this and his other film pursuits. His writing seems to bounce between sentimentality and edginess and at times feels directionless. Those on screen at times tend to feel more like stock characters than anything else. And several of the scenes in this film were almost painfully long.
It seems almost as if Dutcher spent most of his time and energy on the last thirty minutes of the film and threw together some material to lead up to his emotional climax. I was captivated by Elder Farrell's tragic fall, by Carl's ethical struggle, by the powerful message of Christ's mercy that Holly shared in the hospital. The scene in which Carl revisits the site of his baptism was both visually stunning and emotionally effecting and I very much appreciated the "tearjerker" ending. Yes, Dutcher tends to push buttons but I admire the courage it takes for him to examine such difficult issues.
Church members will (understandably) be bothered by the obvious oversights of both missionaries and their president, but the examination of what is right vs. what is obedient is compelling. The issues explored are difficult to deal with but the overarching message of the grace of God and the enabling power thereof redeems these characters from the (pretty stupid) mistakes they make. All in all, I appreciate the gesture Dutcher made in writing and directing "States of Grace" than I did the film itself. Mormon cinema needs to not shy away from questions without answers and subject matter that makes us squirm in our seats. Richard Dutcher taught us this.

REVIEW: "Brigham Young"

Darryl F. Zanuck's 1940 film "Brigham Young" marked a significant milestone for Mormon cinema: it was arguably the first positive cinematic portrayal of the Church as a whole that was not produced by the Church itself. Though more than half a century has passed away since the film was released its history provides unique insight into the future of Mormon Film.
The primary question raised by "Brigham Young" is twofold. First, what is the effect of the depction of the Church in the media? Second, at what cost is this benefit acceptable? The film was, on the whole, remarkably positive. It portrayed Young as an American hero and displayed a sort of idealistic Western aesthetic in its cinematography. Gone was the idea that the Mormons are a marginal Christian sect too mysterious to be accepted. With this film came the mainstream understanding that still manifests itself in the Church's public relations today. Obviously a film such as this would raise awareness and promote tolerance of a group of whom many Americans had been greatly afraid for quite some time. Church members received the film with great enthusiasm and understandably so.
The second question raises more debate. At times in "Brigham Young" it was clear that writer Louis Bromfield and director Henry hathaway seemed eager to make Brigham Young seem like a folksy American pioneer leader rather than an inspired prophet of God. Religion was barely discussed and the theology of the Church seemed peripheral at best. This is understandable, of course. Zanuck was interested in making money and, as a commercial pursuit, the film needed to maintain a wide appeal and avoid alienating audience members with rich religious content. Thus, compromises were made in order to create a compelling Hollywood narrative. Young was made to look more like an "Average Joe" and the Saints seemed to be just a band of pioneers who embodied American ideals.
This detail sheds light on a paradox that has been a part of Mormon culture for as long as I can remember: how do we reconcile our desire to stand out as a people with the need to fit in? On the one hand we believe to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth and on the other hand we recognize the need to be good neighbors and demonstrate that we are, in fact, much like they are. "Brigham Young" calls attention to this dillemma and, in my opinion, makes a noble effort to reconcile the two schools of thought. All in all, an admirable gesture toward fair representation.

REVIEW: "The Eleventh Hour"

In all fairness, after seeing "Take," my expectations were quite high. I had see what a powerful medium film can be for portraying the principles of the gospel and how exciting Mormon film's future is looking.
Then I saw "The Eleventh Hour." I suppose a detailed negative critique would be largely self-serving and destructive. I'll just say that the writing was unconvincing and farcical, the fight scenes were unsettling and took you out of the story, and the acting was pretty sub-par. I realize that Director/Writer John Lyde was working with a budget much smaller than that of most similar action films playing in a theater near you. But it costs just as much to write a bad script as a good one. "The Eleventh Hour" failed to impress.

REVIEW: "Take"

As I sat in Charles Oliver's "Take" on Friday night, one thought continued to run through my mind: "This is the type of movie Church members should be making." The script never mentioned the LDS Church and the characters were obviously not LDS but seldom have I seen a greater representation of true doctrine on the big screen. I was perhaps more deeply touched and more spiritually strengthened by this film than by "Legacy," "The Testaments," or many other church-produced films. Audience members may have been uncomfortable with the violence, gore, language, or subject matter in the film (I wasn't) but there is no denying that this was a powerful film.
The subject matter largely centered on the healing power of the Atonement as Minnie Driver's character travelled to see the execution of Jeremy Renner's character, the man who had been responsible for the death of her son. The film comments on the importance of "walking a mile in someone's shoes" in order to understand those around you. The climactic scene near the end placed the grieving mother and the hopeless criminal together in a room and, in an extremely powerful moment, showed the change that occurred in both as the mother finally decides to forgive.
While not overtly so, the film is deeply religious in nature. I really cannot say enough about how deeply the narrative affected me (and those with whom I watched the film). I was blown away by the scenes with the preacher when difficult theological questions were addressed. I was breathless as the tragic fates of the central characters was made clear. Tears came to my eyes when the two finally met. And I sat in awe at then end of the film as the convict's conversion was depicted.
The movie dealt with real life issues but the content was tastefully tame. Without making it feel watered down the film was clearly appropriate for LDS audiences of all walk of life (with the exception of small children). This is a film I believe everyone should see. It's a testimony of the power of conversion and the all-encompassing effects of the atonement. Not only is this film far and away better than anything I expected to see at the LDS Film Festival but it is one of the best films I have seen for a long time. I would recommend this film without reservation to anyone.

REVIEW: "Peter: Mormon Filmmaker"

This mockumentary, presented at the 2007 LDS Film Festival, is an interesting comment on the Mormon cinema. It is interesting indeed that Mormon filmmakers are already parodying themselves and interesting as well how funny it seems to be. The idea of Mormon cinema is inherently humorous to people perhaps because to many the two seem to be incongruous. Because of its novelty those involved in the movement are easy targets for humorous films such as this.
This short film touched on what has become an issue since the recent advent of popular Mormon cinema: the exploitation of the Church in order for personal, financial, or artistic gain. Really, this film is a funny as it is because the Protagonist is a hopelessly talentless man and because we all know that a ward activity is not the proper environment in which to produce a feature film. The clash of the two worlds is a very real issue in Mormon cinema. If we're making movies about our culture, should meetinghouses be fodder for filming locations? Should church resources be used? Is it even ethical to market a commercial product solely to Church members? These have become very real issues and "Peter: Mormon Filmmaker" addresses and plays on the unique problems and challenges that LDS filmmakers face.

What makes a film "Mormon?"

In class we've discussed the different categories including those films made by the church, films made about LDS beliefs and culture, independent films made by church members, and mainstream films influenced by LDS filmmakers. I went with some friends to the LDS Film Festival and they were curious as to how a film qualifies to be presented as a part thereof. I couldn't find any official rules on the website but I assume the festival is open to movies made by Church members in keeping with specific content guidelines. That said, it was interesting to see the range of films presented. Some were directed by Church members but had nothing further to do with the church and some were overtly Mormon-influenced. The films I enjoyed most were those that were uplifting and inspiring which, interestingly, usually fell into the second category. Though they were not obviously "Mormon" films, their messages were more powerful than those of many films that deal specifically with the Church. I think that is where Mormon cinema needs to go right now: presenting films with a wide appeal but that will teach truth and enlighten those in attendance.

REVIEW: "Trapped by the Mormons"

Before the LDS church had even been organized, persecution raged against it. Anti-Mormon propoganda is older than the church itself and H. B. Parkinson's film "Trapped by the Mormons" certainly wasn't an unusual film when it was released in 1922. In fact it followed a stream of what have been dubbed "Mormonsploitation" films and was based on a salatious and sensationalist novel by anti-Mormon crusader Winifred Graham. What is interesting, though, is the draw Mormonism seemed to hold for artists at the turn of the century and during the onset of film as a creative medium.
Indeed, "Trapped by the Mormons" is not an extraordinary film in its own right. It was received well enough but holds a fascination for me because of its sensationalist content. Isoldi Keene, the film's central main character, is a fearsome villain and fits the bill for a melodramatic fiend. He also happens to be a Mormon missionary who mesmorizes women with his eyes and tricks them into entering into polygamist unions with him and his devilish Mormon friends. This film certainly was shocking to all audiences in 1922 and alarming to Church members and leadership. As evidenced by this and several other films, the Mormon missionary had become a stereotypical villian in stock films of the age, which begs the question: why?
Mormonism lent itself to sensationalism and provided a certain amount of mystery. One need not know much about the church to see that these films have very little basis in truth. However, a far-off people about whom no one seemed to know for certain was ample fodder for compelling stories. People did not flock to the theaters in order to be instructed about a religion, rather they sought a good story and an entertaining film. While Graham's novel assuredly had its roots in anti-Mormon sentiments, the film's interests were mostly commercial.
This practice continues today, though less noticably. The unknown is easy to exploit and audiences care more about being entertained than being preached to. Moviemakers knew it then and they know it now and films continue to exploit, while not taking a serious stand on one side or the other. Perhaps "Trapped by the Mormons" was not the obvious affront to the Mormon religion tat it has been made out to be. Perhaps it was a lucrative artistic venture that tapped into what seemed to be a gold mine of material.

REVIEW: "Happy Valley"

As the lights came up at the close of Ron Williams' "Happy Valley" Thursday night at the LDS film festival, I wasn't sure how I felt. I was, however, sure that I had liked the film and boy was I glad I did. Williams' documentary about the increasing substance-abuse problem in Utah Valley was undoubtedly powerful and profoundly personal. I found myself awestruck by the bravery and conviction it took for these people to come forward and tell their stories. Deeply wounded personalities told stories of broken homes and shattered lives and their honesty obviously struck a chord with the large audience assembled in the Xango Grande theatre.
The film was followed by a question and answer period, as is typical. Williams stood before the applauding crowd and gave some further insight into the film and what it meant to him. The talkback soon progressed into somewhat of a collective soap box rather than a discussion of the film's merits. This really wasn't surprising considering the nature of the film. What was surprising, though, was the manner in which Williams spoke about the project. It soon became evident that this was more than a film: it was a mission. He challenged spectators to go out and take action, to bring people to see the movie, to share the stories we had seen, to fight the problems about which we had learned so vividly. The conversation was peppered with applause and a general positive consensus in the room.
I couldn't figure out why I was bothered at first, but as I look back on the experience I see somewhat of a manipulative undercurrent that continued from Williams' film to his behavior at the talkback session. Like I said, I was glad I appreciated the film because it was made to be something more than that. But the film itself presented interesting problems that I'm still considering.
From start to finish, "Happy Valley" knows it's a film. In a certain respect it is a documentation of the process of making a documentary film and on a deeper level comments on the power the process of filmmaking can have on those involved. Williams himself, along with those whose lives he documents, makes an emotional journey throughout the narrative. This added layer both enhanced and complicated the overall effect of the film. As the film was reaching a close Williams' voice was heard in an interview telling a woman how powerful it would be for the film if she could reach out and forgive the girl responsible for her daughter's death. Later the scene took place, a powerful and heart-wrenching interaction that was then commented on again by Williams, who suggested that the two women embrace. On the one hand, I appreciate William's openness in refusing to mask his hand in the filmmaking process. He could easily have influenced the editing to make such moments seem spontaneous and perhaps more emotionally affecting. Williams, though, acknowledged in his narrative his own efforts to reach and touch an audience. On the other hand, this convention calls into question Williams' tactics in general and whether what he is doing is responsible. Obviously he is firmly committed to his cause and works tirelessly to ensure that progress is made and one cannot help but admire his own honesty and willingness to expose his methods along with his ideas, and show how the medium in which he chose to work truly has the ability to enhance lives.
Yes, the film had its manipulative moments. Yes, I found it ironic that a piece that intended to call into question Utah Valley's tendency to "guilt trip" people fell into the very same trap itself at times. Yes, I wish the honest and profoundly moving stories had been allowed to stand on their own rather than quite obviously serving as tools, the means to an end. However, I left that theatre with tremendous respect and admiration for what I had just seen. Everyone involved in this project had done something incredible and that deserves to be applauded. I continue to think that my own opinion of the documentary as a film is inconsequential and pales in comparison to the significant work being done. Here is a man using an artistic medium to uplift, inspire, and call to action a sleeping people. I admittedly am not comfortable with all of his methods but cannot say enough about how exciting something like this is. This is art doing what it is capable of doing. Sure, we may not get things completely right every time. But "Happy Valley" is a bold, unapologetic, and decided step in the right direction and needs to be seen. It is a pretty good film made by great people with a magnificent cause. And what could be better?

Why create art?

This blog is essentially the fulfilling of an assignment in a Mormon Cinema class I'm taking at BYU. Hence, many of these posts will deal specifically with those issues. However, I'm excited to have somewhat of a "sounding board" for my admittedly strong opinions of Mormon Arts and Culture. I believe that we create art to bridge the gap between the mortal and the divine and that an essential aspect of the "dispensation of the fulness of times" is the flooding of the earth with good, uplifting art. We hear over and over again that we are a chosen people and need to build up Zion in order to bless all the nations of the earth. Well, isn't it time, then, that we buckle down and behave like the artists we need to be?...