Entertaiment

By Kieth Merrill

You want to make a movie? No talent? No story? No clue? Don’t worry. All you need is money.

Daring the damnation of literary blasphemy, I paraphrase Calvin Coolidge:

“Nothing in the world of independent movie making can take the place of money. Talent will not; nothing is more common than filmmakers with talent and no money. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb (and every filmmaker knows he or she is an unrewarded genius). Education will not: the world is full of graduates from notable film schools who have never made a movie – and never will. Money and the ability to raise money are omnipotent. The slogan “press on” has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race – unless you’re trying to make a movie in which case “press on” means get another job. Without money, you ain’t making any movies.” [See endnote1.]

The survivors in the increasingly entertaining “reality show” of Mormon cinema will not be the guys with talent or the gals with great ideas. The ones who come out of the jungle alive will not necessarily be the players with creative vision, good taste or a profound commitment to change the world.  The winners will be the ones who figure out how to raise money. As a survivor of independent filmmaking I can tell you. Separating a man from his greenbacks is not only difficult; it borders on alchemy and mysterious art.

We should pray, of course, that some grand ternate of that supreme law “irrevocably decreed in Heaven” somehow insures that those gifted few with “inspired hearts and talented fingers”2 might also be blessed with the power to find the dough.

Sorry to make you mindful of the mammon of mortality. Making movies is not about great stories, luscious lips and sunglasses. It is about M O N E Y.

Making that critically important 2^nd film is not determined by film festivals, rave reviews or critics gurgling “auteur.” It is determined by how much money the first one makes. It depends whether investors get their money back. It depends on the filmmaker finding a financier. It is not complicated.

Even the new LDS superstar director Jared Hess and partner wife would probably confess that Napoleon Dynamite is not classic cinema or high art. But like it, love it, or not understand what in the world the movie was all about – when a film that cost $400,000 to make earns $40,000,000 at the box office with no end in sight, you can be sure that Jared and Jerusha get to make any movie they want.

Even some of the 100 members of that exclusive, elusive club of “mega-money Mormons” – who all recite the same list of excuses for not supporting Mormon Cinema – wish that they had invested in that one.

Poking around the mysterious art of funding Mormon movies for an article called,   “Investing in LDS Cinema,” I met Bill Tolbert.

Bill and I became kindred spirits the day we saw Gary Roger’s Book of Mormon Movie, Vol. 1. We both hated it. Bill is more gentle than I in his critique. He wrote to me, “My wife and I attended an almost empty theatre in Denver in January and watched the film.  Although noble in its attempt, it was clear to me that this low budget film by fledgling filmmakers was not the embodiment of the beloved scriptures, for which members of the Church hunger.  When the film was over, I leaned over to my wife and whispered, “Now I know I need to get involved with A Voice from the Dust.”

Remember, Voice From the Dust? That’s the other feature film based on Lehi’s journey that is not yet made.

This is one of those special projects when that law “irrevocably decreed in Heaven” will hopefully match the money with Peter Johnson and his team, whom I believe to be among those with “inspired hearts and talented fingers”2.

Almost everyone agrees we need an epic motion picture telling of the Book of Mormon story. Guys like me tromp on failed efforts. See “Tempest in a Teapot” Guys like Bill Tobert tromp into the fray and work to solve the problem.

Bill is quite remarkable. He joined the Church in college. He has lived an extraordinary life. He has been a part of the U.S. space program and directed manned spaceflight operations.  He has helped develop and manage national renewable energy sources. He has developed and financed hundred-million-dollar infrastructure programs. He has served as the CEO or chief operating officer of several U.S. and Middle Eastern companies. Among other church assignments, Bill served in a stake presidency.

Bill has lived and worked on every continent except Antarctica.  He has seen the miracle of the Church as it has bloomed in countries around the world.

He was a senior vice president with one of the largest engineering firms in the U.S. the night he whispered to his wife, “I need to get involved.”

Bill told me, “Since my conversion to the Church (as a college student), I have always viewed my Church service as a secondary role.  It seemed like my professional career always seemed to cut way into my church work.” Putting the Book of Mormon on film the way it needed to be done became new kind of church work for Bill. He left his prestigious position and significant salary. He volunteered to help Peter Johnson and his team realize their worthy dream.

And what does “help” mean in the world of independent filmmaking?  FIND THE MONEY. That became Bill’s quest.

Nothing in Bill’s history of tackling tough challenges had quite prepared him for the opposition he would encounter raising money from Mormons – even for a first class high quality Book of Mormon movie. (Of the 100 “top names” in Mormon money to whom Bill presented Voice From the Dust  – who are to so many other great causes truly “patron saints” – , only eight have been willing to invest in the project to date, and then only modestly.)

Brother Tolbert sent me a copy of an essay he wrote called, Patron Saints. With Bill’s permission – and some modest editing – I have extracted the following segments from his fascinating review of historical patronage of religious art and more importantly his clarion call for a new kind of “Latter-Day-Art-Patron-Saint”.

From the essay:

“Patronage is the oldest model of support for the arts.  The thoughtful and gracious patrons of our past have allowed our generation, and generations yet to come, to inherit some of the most moving and inspiring works of art imaginable. 

The term “patron” was a title conferred on a person who supported or championed a cause in a very visible and meaningful way.  As a church, we are fortunate to have many good Latter-Day Saints who are true patrons – “patron saints,” as I will call them. 

However, our LDS patron saints of the arts are in shortest supply at a time when the power of the visual arts is approaching its zenith.

The historical linkage between art and religion is unmistakable.  It can be found in the paintings of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling, the music of Bach and Handel, and the writings of Milton. 

In the Western World, the Church was historically the principle patron of the arts. The impact of this early patronage was most visible in the visual arts of architecture, paintings, sculptures, and smaller works of art.  

Julius II (Giuliano Della Rovere) was considered the greatest art patron of the papal line (1503-1513).  His close friendship with Michelangelo and his patronage of other artists, including Bramante and Raphael resulted in the creation of extraordinary works of art that in many ways epitomized the Renaissance – visible creations that have lifted hearts, moved minds, and strengthened faith throughout the centuries.

Julius II set an example that moved others to become “patrons of the arts,” including Bindo Altoviti, and Lorenzo de’Medici. 

Bindo Altoviti (c.1491-1556) was a friend of many important Renaissance artists, including Michelangelo, Cellini, Raphael, and Vasari.

Lorenzo de’ Medici (c.1449-1492) was another key figure in the creation of the Renaissance and an important patron of the arts in fifteenth century Florence.  He acquired sculpture to embellish his palace and commissioned many smaller works of art to help support young artists.

King Urien Rheged (c.530-590), one of the earliest Christian Kings in Britain, was a great patron of the arts, particularly the works of his personal bard, the famous Taliesin.

King Nezahualcoyotl (c.1403-1473) was a noted 15^th century poet philosopher and patron of the arts in what is now central Mexico.

The Qianlong Emperor (r.1735-1796) was a major patron of the arts.  His most significant commission was a catalogue of all-important works on Chinese culture, the Siku Quanshu. 

Patrons still exist in our world today.  There are many individuals and foundations that serve the role of sponsor, supporter, benefactor, helper, backer, and angels for the arts. Unfortunately, as De Tocqueville once said, “Democratic nations will habitually prefer the useful to the beautiful.” 

For many of us, supporting the arts is a subject far from our minds.  We expect someone else to worry about those finer things.  We find ourselves relying on the Church to somehow provide us with those things mentioned in the 13^th Article of Faith.  If there is a beautiful piece of scripture-related art, uplifting music, or scripture-based film, we generally give no thought to how it was funded or who it is that was its patron.  We just hope to be able to buy it a discount at the Church Distribution Center.

If that were the way it worked in the 15^th and 16^th Century, we may very well have missed the Renaissance! 

In order for LDS arts to blossom (particularly the visual arts), we have need of “patron saints” – those who are willing to be sponsors, supporters, benefactors, helpers, backers, angels, and guarantors of LDS artists and artworks.

There are many LDS patron saints today that support the educational programs at BYU and fund cancer centers and medical research. Most go unnamed because of their desire to remain anonymous. However, these patron saints of other good causes vastly outnumber LDS patrons of the arts.

I will give you an example where patron saints are needed in the blooming LDS motion picture arts.  I choose the film arts because it has become my passion. I choose film because it can become a high-art for “carrying the mission of Christ to all the world,” as prophets since David O. McKay have often stated.

Frank Capra, the director of It’s a Wonderful Life, once said:  “We have it within our power to speak to hundreds of millions of people, two hours at a time, in the dark.  No single person before has ever had that power: no emperor, no saint, and no individual, however powerful.  So we have a tremendous responsibility in what we say…As artists, we have a wonderful tool…to do away with hate, bigotry and war, and work for the brotherhood of man…”

The feature-length motion picture in development entitled A Voice from the Dust is a perfect example of the need for modern day patron saints. It is a high-budget development effort to create an accurate, scripture-based artistic film based on The Book of Mormon. (see: www.avoicefromthedust.com) We believe that it could become a benchmark legacy film within the LDS community.  This film is being developed as the first of a high quality artistic film series created to bring to life the scriptures and lessons of the Book of Mormon and its people using striking state-of-the-art visual effects.

But these very goals put it out of the reach of simple funding options.  The church rightfully maintains a double-arms’-length separation from commercial projects. Even though this film seeks to have both an artistic and spiritual impact, it does not qualify for the age-old “patronage of the Church.”  The LDS Church is no longer in the film business and has effectively dissolved its studio system.  Independent projects must rely on private funding.