Reviews of Recent LDS Films and a Question:  What’s It Gonna Take to Crossover into Mainstream?

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

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?)

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.