Reviews
of Recent LDS Films and a Question: What’s It Gonna Take
to Crossover into Mainstream?
By
Thomas Baggaley
It's time for me to empty out my "in" box and see
which videos and DVD's have arrived at your source for LDS
market videos in the past few months. On the heels of Kieth
Merrill's recent article and the energetic response from those
agree and disagreeing, let me first say that I am very, very
glad that I didn't have to write a review of The Book of
Mormon Movie. Because of the nature of that film, I think
that may have been the most difficult review I would have
ever had to undertake, and I tip my hat to those who have
not shrunk from the challenge.
Luckily, I worked as an orchestrator on that film, and that
gave me an easy out, since you usually don't write reviews
for your own films. I do have some thoughts on LDS Cinema
as a whole, some of which I've shared in this space in the
past, and others which I will leave to the end of this article.
But first, on to the movies!
Liken the Scriptures II: A Mighty Change of Heart
They
did it again. One South Studios did not waste any time getting
out the second installment in their direct-to-video scripture-based
musical production series. Again, the film has a lighthearted
tone, similar to the popular Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor
Dreamcoat, and of all the LDS market films I've seen,
it seems like the filmmakers had the most fun working on this
one. This time, Aaron Edson and Dennis Agle chose to tackle
the story of Ammon's missionary visit to the court of King
Lamoni, but their take focuses on Abish the Lamanite servant
whose family had accepted the gospel years previous. T. J.
Young, the older brother of the excellent actor who played
Nephi in the previous installment, does an excellent job as
Ammon and Abish is very capably sung and acted by Katherine
Nelson. (Ironically, the way the film is cast, T. J., the
Nephite missionary, actually looks more like a Lamanite than
most of the supposed Lamanites, but this does not distract
from the film at all.)
This film's greatest weakness is probably that it had to follow
the previous film, which was surprisingly entertaining, and
although still pretty good, it doesn't completely live up
to the expectations created by the first one. About half way
through the film, I found myself longing for a rich, deep
male voice to contrast with all the tenor-range vocal writing,
but I never got it. There was more dancing in this installment,
and the choreography seemed solid enough, but the camera work
never seemed to fit in as a part of that choreography. A couple
of the songs tend to walk a very thin line between funny and
mildly irritating - at least for my tastes - and finally,
there are some moments that simply don't work - the pacing,
camera angles, music and acting just don't quite come together,
such as the climax that never happens as Abish takes the queen's
hand to raise her up and it seems rather that the queen almost
starts to get up before Abish even gets there.
It seemed to me that the film was put together more hurriedly
than the first one, and while the ideas were sound, if the
filmmakers had taken a little more time in preproduction,
especially to carefully "choreograph" the camera
work in detail in advance as well as taking greater care about
the overall pacing of the film, music, and story, they could
have resolved most of these issues with little or no problem.
That being said, there are still quite a few fun, silly moments,
much like the first film. Its best moments are when T. J.
as Ammon sings the title song while traveling to the land of Nephi. Those who have served missions will
get a real kick out of the dedication this missionary shows
as he preaches the gospel to every creature that crosses his
path. My kids loved it, and I'm sure A Mighty Change of
Heart will find a fond place in many LDS homes.
Pride and Prejudice
click
to buy |
 |
A lot of people liked this one, and the filmmaking itself is
of a better quality than many of the other LDS cinema flicks.
The acting is solid and the lighting, camera work, music and
direction would compare reasonably well with the average lower
budget studio release. However, my biggest problem with Pride
and Prejudice was that I just didn't really get the sense
that the characters were actually LDS in any way other than
name.
The problem is that the premise of the film is that the Latter-day
Saint culture, especially at BYU, provides the perfect opportunity
for resetting Jane Austen's book in modern times, basically
because everyone's so eager to get married. But if you're
going to move the story to a new time, place and culture,
I feel you ought to let that culture weave its influence throughout
the story. To not do so is to miss an important opportunity
to learn something both about that culture and about the original
story. If you're not going to explore the possibilities of
this kind of cross-pollination, you would have been better
off leaving the story in its original setting.
Instead, the film stays slavishly true to the original book
- which wouldn't necessarily be a weakness, except they had
already opened the door to changes by moving the story to
its new time and place. If you are unfamiliar with the book
and haven't seen the movie, the basic storyline follows Elizabeth
Bennet, played by Kam Heskin, a young (supposedly) LDS woman
who, unlike her boy-crazy friends, is focused on her budding
writing career and her studies at BYU, with only a mild interest
in dating - that is until she meets Will Darcy (played by
Orlando Seale). Darcy is rich, sensible and very handsome,
but their first encounter is a disaster and their second not
much better. The question is, will the attraction they feel
for each over be enough to overcome their "pride and
prejudice" toward each other?
Only two characters seem motivated at all by anything to do
with the church. Unfortunately, these are the scripture-quoting
Collins (played by Hubbel Palmer) who uses the "be fruitful
and multiply" commandment to try and coerce Elizabeth
to marry him, and the less-than-socially-savvy Mary (Rainy
Kerwin), who is just as fanatic in some ways as Collins is.
Neither is really presented in a positive way (although they
each get a few laughs). As for the other characters, they
attend church, but that's about it. There is a lot of discussion
about the "pink bible" - the hot-selling instruction
book on how to catch a man - but none from the prophets or
the scriptures, and basically the gospel seems to have no
influence on their lives at all. Now maybe that's okay. Certainly
there are some members of the church who are seen at church
on Sundays but the gospel hardly influences their lives during
the week, so that alone doesn't make the characters unbelievable.
But if that is the case, then it would seem logical to go
somewhere with that, and it just doesn't happen, leading me
to believe that this was not the intention of the filmmakers
but the result of trying to shoehorn LDS culture into the
original story with a minimum of changes to the storyline.
Admittedly, there are many critics who feel that one of the
weaknesses common to most LDS cinema films is an inaccessability
to non-LDS theatergoers, so this may also be a result of trying
to avoid LDS-specific topics that might alienate a non-LDS
audience, but I am convinced that removing or avoiding LDS-specific
references in a film is not the answer and only serves to
weaken a film with LDS characters. Certainly there are few
films with as many Jewish-specific references in them as Fiddler
on the Roof, but that cultural specificity and the role
it plays in motivating the characters is one of that film's
real strengths. The same can be said of the Greek Orthodox-American
culture in My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
The key is presenting this specificity in a way that others
outside the culture can really understand it, not avoiding
it entirely. But in the few places where this film does present
some Mormon-specific references, they are not presented in
such a fashion, while for most of the movie, they just aren't
there at all.
When one character runs off to Las Vegas to get married (and
not in the Las Vegas Temple) you'd think that someone
(if they were truly LDS characters) would mention the phrase
"temple marriage", but it seems that the only problem
anyone has with the situation is that she's marrying a real
jerk who has on previous occasions taken girls to Las Vegas
and marrying them just so he can spend their money and leave
them emotionally shattered and alone. In fact, the only other
way LDS culture seems to influence the film is through the
things that aren't present - no alcohol at a party that nonetheless
was nothing like any party I was aware of during my time at
BYU, no swearing, etc. - rather than through anything that
culture might add to it.
Bottom line: Fans of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice
(the book) will probably enjoy this film. Those who have been
looking for an upgrade in the overall craft of filmmaking
in LDS Cinema will also be pleased. The film is well made.
But if you are looking for LDS Cinema at its best - an exploration
of Latter-day Saint characters and themes - this film will
probably leave you disappointed. Go in expecting pretty decent
(low budget) filmmaking and an okay story (albeit with a somewhat
weak, contrived ending) in which the characters could really
be any marriage-hungry 20-somethings (not specifically LDS
- as long as you ignore some of the Mormon-specific references
introduced by Collins) and you'll be fine.
The Home Teachers
I have to admit. I went into this film with pretty low expectations.
It's not that I didn't like Halestorm's previous endeavors.
I thought both The Singles Ward and The R.M.
had some very funny moments. I just had not taken the opportunity
to see this film in the theaters, and after it basically bombed
during its theatrical run, I was expecting to see a film that
no one liked. After actually seeing the film, however, I have
to admit it wasn't as bad as I expected. (How's that for a
promotional quote for the back of a DVD cover?)
click
to buy |
 |
The Home Teachers is the story of a pair of home teaching companions who could
not be more opposite. Greg - played by Michael Birkeland (The
R.M.) is a football fanatic, who even takes his children
out of in-progress Primary lessons so he won't miss the opening
coin toss. Nelson, played by newcomer Jeff Birk, is a different
kind of fanatic. He figures that even though he and Greg just
got assigned as companions and barely got their home teaching
list, why wait until next month to have 100% home teaching?
There are, after all, a few more hours of daylight left this
month.
This is a much more physical kind of comedy than either of
Halestorm Entertainment's previous productions (The R.M.
and The Singles Ward), and as a result, the filmmakers
are able to actually keep the laughs going throughout the
film, not lagging as much about 2/3 of the way through the
film as they did in their previous films. Admittedly, some
of the gags are so unbelievable you occasionally laugh that
they expect you to believe these things could possibly happen
rather than at the jokes themselves, but the ending is less
contrived than either of the previous films, although it's
still pretty predictable. (There's really only one way this
film could have finished - and that's evident even before
the film starts ... after all, this is home teaching!) Also,
there is one point where the film feels like it should be
over, having already come down from its dramatic climax, but
there's actually still quite a bit to go so they could get
to that predictable ending.
But still, I'm a bit befuddled by the film's lack of performance
at the box office. It certainly had some very funny moments,
and in some respects was the most entertaining for a general
audience of any of the three films. It's the kind of film
that you think people would be able to enjoy, regardless of
some of its shortcomings. (Filmmaking flaws didn't stop people
- myself included - from enjoying Halestorm's previous two
films after all.)
Maybe people just don't want to be reminded that they're sitting
in a theater when their home teaching isn't done yet. Maybe
audiences saw it as just too much like so many other physical
comedies Hollywood has put out, but not as good as say a Steve
Martin or a Martin Short film - or any of the other better
known masters of physical comedy (can we even go back to Buster
Keaton, Laurel and Hardy or Charlie Chaplin?). Or maybe audiences
are beginning to get restless - expecting more from LDS Cinema
(which they have since gotten from both The Best Two Years
and Saints and Soldiers), and waiting to catch the
entertaining though flawed films on video. Whatever the reason,
The Home Teachers still makes for a fun evening's entertainment
and might be worth checking out if you are in the mood for
some light, clean, fun entertainment.
The State of LDS Cinema
So now that we've lived with the concept of films by Latter-day
Saints for Latter-day Saints for a while, what have we learned?
Things seem to have settled in a bit. Two distributors, Excel
Entertainment (who will be releasing The Work and the Glory
the day after Thanksgiving and God's Army II some time
afterward) and Halestone Distribution (distributors of Baptists
at Our Barbecue - another film you will not see me reviewing
because I had some limited connection with the production
although it was released October 8th - and Sons of Provo,
which will be hitting theaters soon) have settled in as the
main providers of LDS Cinema theatrically. (There are others,
like Thomson Productions and Covenant Communications, which
specialize in direct-to-video releases.) There certainly still
seems to be plenty of interest in this growing market - both
from filmmakers to produce films for LDS audiences (if they
can only attract enough investors to get the films made) -
and from theatergoers who voice plenty of their own expectations
and desires about where things ought to go from here.
Right now, the "genre" seems to be most attractive
to Latter-day Saint filmmakers and actors just starting their
craft - those who do not yet have established careers in film.
As much as we hear about the minuscule budgets most of these
films deal with, the fact is many independent filmmakers would
love to have about a $400,000 budget to work with on their
first feature-length film along with a ready-made audience
that seems to guarantee that a halfway decent film that manages
to get the attention of this target audience will gross about
$1 million in theaters, with the expectation of relatively
sizable video sales (at least as far as independent films
go) to follow. Most independently produced films - especially
first-time efforts - don't perform nearly as well.
It has also attracted at least the interest of some established
professionals as well. Jerry Molen certainly was not relying
on The Other Side of Heaven to make a name for him
after having already produced many of Steven Spielberg's films
(such as Hook and Schindler's List). The upcoming
multi-million dollar adaptation of the first book from The
Work and the Glory series will be interesting to watch,
as it also involves some very experienced filmmakers, at least
by LDS Cinema standards. But the fact is that for most professionals,
it just won't be financially feasible to work on LDS Cinema
films unless the films start making more money and larger
budgets become more reasonable. On the other hand, these films
really have been performing as well as ought to be expected
as far as attracting an audience from within the church.
Those who would say LDS audiences are not giving enough support
to these films, just aren't paying attention to the numbers.
The fact is that only about 2 percent of the population of
the United States are members of the church. That means only
1 person in 50 fits into that target audience for LDS Cinema.
A film grossing $1 million dollars during its theatrical run
drawing its audiences primarily from members of the church
is comparable to a film produced for a much more general audience
grossing $50 million domestically. Out of over 500 films released
last year (2003), only 58 grossed more than $50 million in
the United States. Among those not reaching the $50 million
plateau were such notable titles as Peter Pan, The
Jungle Book 2, Under the Tuscan Sun, Secondhand
Lions, Rugrats Go Wild, and The Core. It
would seem that LDS audiences are attending this films at
least at the same rate that the general public attends
the average studio release.
This is why filmmakers and critics talk so much about the elusive
crossover audience. (How can you tell a film is LDS Cinema?
If at least two or three times during an interview the filmmakers
insist nonmembers will enjoy it too, it's definitely LDS Cinema.)
Filmmakers have tried all kinds of means to try and make LDS
Cinema more attractive to nonmembers. Some have insisted that
there is so much anti-Mormon sentiment among some of the other
Christian denominations, you can't make LDS Cinema and still
expect a crossover audience. I have two thoughts myself.
Star Power
Hollywood has known for years, it's all about the stars. That's
why the lead actors and actresses for a film get paid millions
of dollars. (Believe it or not, most people who work on a
film actually get a normal - or worse than normal - wage.)
Stars are the brand names audiences associate most with to
decide whether they want to watch a film or not - more than
any other aspect of the film. To most nonmembers, an LDS Cinema
film is just like any other film out there. And if they don't
know anything about the film, why should they see it? Add
a recognizable star, and you have a better chance that John
Doe in Tuscaloosa, Alabama who doesn't care either way about
the church will decide to walk into that theater. The reason
these films have not attracted that crossover audience is
not so much that people are anti-Mormon, although of course,
some are. The reason is because most people have no reason
to be interested in the film and find out about it. A recognizable
star gives them a reason.
This is not a new idea. But at the same time, no one has really
tried it. Richard Dutcher wants to use a couple of recognizable
stars in his production of The Prophet (including casting
Val Kilmer as Joseph Smith and F. Murray Abraham as Governor
Thomas Ford of Illinois assuming their schedules work out
with the production schedule). Of course, that makes that
film a much more expensive one to produce and therefore more
risky - making it harder to raise the necessary money. The
closest any of these films has come to having a bona fide
star involved was The Other Side of Heaven, when Jerry
Molen and company were blessed to have cast Anne Hathaway
in the role of Sister before she got her big break in The
Princess Diaries. The result? The Other Side of Heaven
grossed $4.7 million - by far more than any of the other LDS
Cinema films have grossed. And Anne Hathaway, although a somewhat
recognizable name, was not really an established star and
her impact on the film's box office was also limited by the
size of the role she played.
Of course, some members are offended by the thought of someone
who is not a temple recommend holder (or at the very least
living a life that would make them worthy of one) acting the
part of the Prophet Joseph or any of the major characters
of the Book of Mormon in a film. The problem is that Hollywood
just isn't awash with temple recommend carrying leading actors
and actresses. Maybe an actor like Aaron Eckhart, who has
been very open about his membership in the church, although
he readily admits he has not always lived gospel standards
with exactness, or Rick Schroeder (yes, that Rick Schroeder)
who joined the church a few years ago might have some interest
in a leading role in an LDS Cinema film - although neither
has ever expressed such interest. But the pickings are few
and far between if a filmmaker is going to limit himself to
temple-worthy members, and again, the average non-LDS theatergoer
doesn't care about the temple worthiness of the actors. What
they care about is if they have liked films they've seen that
actor in before. No one's tried it yet. It's risky. Actors
with star power don't come cheap and the film might still
bomb financially. But it seems the most reliable way to attract
that oh-so-desirable crossover audience - maybe the only way
it can be done.
Napoleon Dynamite
Ah, but it can be done without star power, say the optimists,
pointing at the occasional (although the truth be known, still
very rare) financial successes of independent films like Napoleon
Dynamite. For those of you that have been on the moon
or just haven't been to the theater lately, Napoleon Dynamite
is a little film produced for $400,000 by recent BYU graduate
Jared Hess and a bunch of other people from BYU and Idaho
(where the film was shot) and then sold to Fox Searchlight
for a few million dollars. 94 days into its theatrical run,
Napoleon Dynamite broke into the Top 10 money makers
for the weekend of September 10th, climbing as high as #8
the following weekend. As of September 27th, it had grossed
over $35 million and was still performing strong, playing
in over 1,000 theaters nationwide. It is a national phenomenon,
and has been acclaimed as the next cult classic. (Despite
the negative connotation associated with some claims that
the LDS Church is a cult, in film this is actually a good
thing.)
Strictly speaking, Napoleon Dynamite is not LDS Cinema.
The main characters are not presented as being LDS, although
a Ricks College shirt does appear in one scene. Fox Searchlight
is certainly not marketing the film to the LDS market. But
many members of the church have seen and enjoyed the film.
Audiences nationwide are intrigued by the film's clean nature
- passing up many opportunities to travel down less-than-savory
twists in the plot that other similar films would have taken.
Teens and 20-somethings across the nation are starting to use
Mormon substitute expressions from the film like "flip"
and "gosh." It has been a success in every way imaginable.
I'll come back to that film in a moment.
What is it that LDS audiences want? Do we really demand to
see films about ourselves? I think that LDS audiences really
want movies they can trust, movies they can feel good watching
and not worry about what the filmmaker might decide to blindside
them with along the way. They could care less if the characters
are LDS or not.
How many times have you heard a member moaning over a scene
or language in a film that "didn't need to be there"
or about a film that would be perfectly enjoyable if they
would just get rid of one or two things that did nothing for
the plot, but were still included, offending the Spirit and
disturbing an otherwise enjoyable time? Why the interest in
LDS Cinema? In part because it's about us, but also because,
in part, we feel like here are movies we can trust to not
offend, to not contain material we'd rather not see or hear,
because (we hope) they are made with people who have similar
values and morals. I can't tell you how many times I've heard
someone say about LDS film that it wasn't the same quality
as Hollywood, but they "would still rather watch [fill
in the blank LDS Cinema film] any time than the filth Hollywood
puts out." What LDS audiences really want is Hollywood
quality storytelling and filmmaking - without all the garbage.
But we aren't alone in this. I think, in part, Napoleon
Dynamite's success demonstrates this. The recent success
of G-rated films like The Princess Diaries and The
Rookie also show this. There is a huge segment of America
that feels alienated from television and the movies. They
don't want to watch the supposed "reality" that
the entertainment industry keeps giving them. They want good,
entertaining stories they can trust to not offend their sensibilities.
Those are the seeds of the crossover audience LDS filmmakers
should be seeking.
So I suggest, don't set out to make LDS Cinema. Make good cinema.
And then market it to the LDS audience. Also, market it to
the rest of America. If the characters absolutely have to
be LDS for the particular story you tell, so be it. If they
don't, then don't make them LDS. Just make them good people
who may very well be LDS. As we do this, hopefully, there
will be other films, made by good Latter-day Saints that follow
the path of Napoleon Dynamite. It is those good films,
LDS Cinema or not, made by Latter-day Saints or not, that
we ought to support by showing up in the theaters - and I
believe people of all faiths will do just that. Throw in a
star actor or two, and you've got the makings of a blockbuster.
