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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
"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.
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
