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?...