LDS
Cinema Gets Better and Gets a Bum Rating
By
Thomas Baggaley
Several
people have written to ask me why, with the recent releases
of Pride and Prejudice and Halestorm's latest feature
The Home Teachers, I haven't written any reviews of these
films. The fact is that I have been sequestered from the world
in preparation for some very important exams that are just around
the corner for me, and it would take something extraordinary
to bring me out of my cocoon right now. Well, actually it took
TWO extraordinary things.
The Best
Two Years
The first
of these is the release of a wonderful little film called The
Best Two Years. No, this film isn't the second coming of
It's a Wonderful Life, but as far as making a film for
the LDS market, I think this film hits it right on the head.
In fact, I would not hesitate to say that of all the various
LDS-market theatrical release feature films (including those
from Richard Dutcher and the relatively high-budget The Other
Side of Heaven), I personally enjoyed watching this one
most of all.
The Best
Two Years was written and directed by Scott Anderson and
is based on Anderson's play "The Best Two Years of My Life,"
about his experiences as a missionary in Holland. It centers
on the lives of four missionaries sharing a small apartment
in Haarlem, a city west of Amsterdam. The film stars Kirby Heyborne
as Elder Calhoun, the epitome of the nerdy greenie missionary,
and KC Clyde as Elder Rogers, his less-than-enthusiastic trainer.
Cameron Hopkin is Elder Van Pelt, a self-obsessed missionary
who has at least three different girls waiting for him at home,
David Nibley plays district leader Elder Johnson and Scott Christopher
puts in a nice, restrained appearance as Kyle Harrison, an American
visitor to Holland who Elder Calhoun keeps running into and
keeps trying to give him a Book of Mormon.
Although
at first glance, the film relies on stereotypical LDS missionary
caricatures, the script and the performances are strong enough
to overcome this potential weakness. Many return missionaries
watching the film will feel that it reflects mission life more
accurately than any of the previous mission-based films, and
although the filmmakers did not go out of their way to try and
attract a crossover non-LDS audience (which would probably have
ended up weakening the story), the themes and interpersonal
relationships depicted are universal enough that any person
who happens to watch the film should be able to engage in the
story, regardless of their religious background and despite
some story elements which would be unfamiliar to most outside
of the church.
With outdoor
scenes being shot in Holland, director of photography Gordon
C. Lonsdale captures the beauty of the multi-colored Dutch landscape.
Well-known LDS songwriter Michael McLean adds his talents to
the production, and all in all, it's just a feel-good movie
about faith and just plain getting along, with just a few corny
moments along the way.
The Best
Two Years combines good storytelling with an excellent understanding
of its target audience. It doesn't aspire to be anything more
than what it is, a low budget film catering specifically to
Latter-day Saints, yet within those parameters, Anderson and
producers Fred Danneman and Michael Flynn (who appeared as Laban
in last year's The Book of Mormon Movie: Volume 1) have
put together a charming little film that manages to entertain
audiences without (I believe) offending even the most conservative
of church members.
Incidentally,
after the box office performance of recent LDS market films,
if this film doesn't turn a profit, it will not bode well for
the future of the LDS Cinema in general. I think this film will
be a pretty good indicator of the financial health of the genre,
because I just can't see anyone making a film that is better
suited for the LDS market than this one.
By the way,
in case you haven't been counting, The Best Two Years
is the 15th LDS Cinema feature film (not counting The Legend
of Johnny Lingo, which is not technically LDS Cinema,
although a large portion of its audience has certainly consisted
of members of the church familiar with the original Brigham
Young University-produced short film).
Saints
and Soldiers
The other
extraordinary event that has brought me once again to the reviewer's
desk is the recent announcement that Saints and Soldiers,
the next scheduled LDS Cinema release, was given an R rating
by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Of course,
the filmmakers appealed the decision (the appeal was denied)
and have since been working with the MPAA to see if it would
be possible to somehow edit the film in such a way that will
maintain the integrity of the story and yet meet the association's
requirements to at least receive a PG-13 rating.
This is
shocking news, especially with the many films that Hollywood
releases each year that somehow get a PG-13 rating when it seems
quite obvious that they should be rated R. It would seem that
by the MPAA's own standards, there is no possible way that Saints
and Soldiers deserves an R rating. It is also quite a blow
to the film's financial prospects, meaning that the ever-elusive
crossover audience becomes all the more important, because regardless
of whether the film's content actually deserves that rating
or not, there are many Latter-day Saints who will choose not
to see it.
I saw the
film at the Gloria Film Festival last fall, and I was stunned
to hear about the rating. It did not strike me as a particularly
violent movie (most of the movie is completely free of violence
actually) but of course, being set during World War II, there
is some violence involved. You do see some blood, but the subject
matter is handled about as tastefully as war can ever be handled,
and it certainly isn't a gory film. There is also a little bit
of profanity and some of the non-LDS characters smoke in the
film, but if this film deserves an R rating because of its violent
content, then OBVIOUSLY the entire Lord of the Rings
trilogy of films, every single James Bond film and superhero
films like Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Batman
films should have received R ratings as well, because they are
far more violent than Saints and Soldiers. What's more,
every single war-themed film in which someone actually dies
should receive an instant R. Giving these films a PG-13 and
Saints and Soldiers an R seems tantamount to giving Saddam
Hussein a slap on the hand and then sending a jay walker to
the electric chair.
At a recent
film festival, 400 audience members were polled as to what rating
they thought Saints and Soldiers would receive. Out of
these 400, only 5 people (just over 1%) felt it deserved an
R rating. 395 felt that it deserved a PG or PG-13 rating. I
don't know. Perhaps the ratings board gave it an R rating because
they felt teenagers couldn't possibly handle the sight of seeing
Kirby Heybourne, who previously has played squeaky clean LDS
characters, holding a cigarette in his hand. The fact is that
I shouldn't have been too surprised; not after that same ratings
board made The Book of Mormon Movie: Volume 1 the tamest
PG-13 movie since that rating was added to the system back in
the 1980's.
This is
how messed up the system is: By the implication of the wording
of the PG-13 rating ("Some material may be inappropriate
for children under 13") and according to the ratings given
to a number of films, the ratings board apparently believes
that it is appropriate for teenagers (13 and older) to see nudity,
to be exposed to be repeatedly crude and vulgar language including
limited use of the word that used to be known as the R-rated
word, and to witness multiple acts of violence where the violence
is glorified and free of consequences for anyone except for
the characters designated as "bad guys" - even when
the behavior of the "good guys" is sometimes as crude
as that of the "bad guys." At the same time, according
to this same ratings board, apparently a film that tastefully
shows that war is not a party, that there are often good people
on both sides of war, and that recognizes that there are consequences
for violent acts and that in war, sometimes people you care
about get hurt, even killed, is not appropriate for those same
teenagers to see without an accompanying parent or adult guardian.
What's more, this same film has very little profanity, no nudity
and no sexuality. Whatever. To me this seems like a blatant
inconsistency.
MPAA
Ratings Are Inconsistent
The MPAA
ratings board does not base their decisions upon the morality
of a given film. Their entire function is to try to inform parents
about the content of films so that parents can decide if the
film is appropriate for their children to see. In fact, their
web site (http://www.mpaa.org)
states "If you are 18 or over, or if you have no children,
the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant
for parents, no one else." Yet to read their description
of what content is permissible under each of the ratings, it
is clear that the 8-13 people who at any time are members of
the board probably do not have the same standards for their
children as most LDS parents.
According
to the MPAA web site, in a G-rated film "Some snippets
of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common
everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated
films." It wasn't that long ago that we used to speak of
a film having an obligatory swear word so that it could avoid
the G rating and get a PG. Now, apparently, that isn't enough.
In the MPAA
description of PG, emphasis is placed on the fact that since
PG means parental guidance, there are some things present which
"parents may consider some material unsuitable for their
children, but the parent must make the decision. Parents are
warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry,
to PG-rated movies." According to the site, this material
may include, "profanity, ... some violence or brief
nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as
to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion
of parental guidance."
As for PG-13,
the MPAA site describes it as a film which "leaps beyond
the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity,
sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite
fit within the restricted R category ... If nudity is sexually
oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13
category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes
into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of
the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive,
shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film
at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead
the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one
of these words used in a sexual context. These films can
be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating
Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect
the opinion of American parents."
MPAA
Is Not Independent
Of course,
that the MPAA ratings board does not share the same values as
the average Latter-day Saint, or even with mainstream America
in general, is not a new revelation. This is a battle of words
that has been going on for years. The PG-13 rating was originally
created two decades ago to try and silence the complaints of
many who felt too many films that should have been rated R were
sneaking through with a PG rating. What many Latter-day Saints
may not realize, however, is that the image of the MPAA ratings
board as an independent entity handing down sober and impartial
judgments is not completely true.
Quoting
the MPAA web site yet again: "The Motion Picture Association
of America (MPAA) serves its members from its offices in Los
Angeles and Washington, D.C. On its board of directors are the
Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors
of motion picture and television programs in the United States.
These members include: Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures Entertainment,
Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal Studios, Inc. and
Warner Bros." There is nothing independent about the MPAA.
It is controlled by Hollywood's major studios. Furthermore,
the official title of the motion picture rating system is the
"Voluntary Movie Rating System." It was created as
a system whereby the studios would advise parents of the content
of the films they released. In other words, the studios are
essentially rating themselves. The potential for a conflict
of interest is obvious - even though the ratings board is not
paid directly by any of the studios. Could it be that this possible
conflict of interest is in part responsible for the inconsistencies
between ratings assigned to Hollywood-distributed blockbusters
and independently produced and distributed films like The
Book of Mormon Movie and Saints and Soldiers?
Of course,
it would be ridiculous for the ratings board to give a G rating
to a film that deserves an R. That would shut down the whole
system. But isn't it conceivable that there might be some incentive
to let major studio releases slide by with a PG-13 rating and
increase the potential audience and income of the film? And
wouldn't that lead to the general slipping of the scale and
lowering of standards that seems to have happened over the years?
It seems
apparent that if Hollywood cannot apply a consistent standard
to its rating system that applies equally to studio distributed
and independent films or if even in applying the ratings system
the board has lost touch with the value systems of the average
American family that perhaps a stricter, more independent ratings
system might be appropriate. In any case, Latter-day Saints
are certainly becoming more aware that we cannot rely on any
ratings system alone to guide our theater-going decisions. It
is up to us to become more informed, using whatever resources
we can find (for example screenit.com - a site which gives detailed
information about the content of every major film) as we seek
out those films which are "of good report or praiseworthy"
and try to avoid those influences that would tear our society
apart.
