A New Trailer Drops for the "Witnesses" Movie

[_canpakes]

As Peterson puts it:

But we didn’t use such wireless microphones and wires. We used boom mikes. Or, if you prefer, “boom mics.” (I really dislike that spelling, which seems to be prevalent despite my opinion of it.) What these ardent critics are seeing isn’t a wireless microphone and wire, it’s a vest that ties in the back.

This seems like a peculiar hangup for a man who is headlining the trailer with the odd banner phrasing, “Dramatic Film in Theatres October 2020”.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

From the executive producer's blog, an update about the evening:

Accordingly, afterwards, my wife and I went out for dinner with friends at TruReligion Pancake and Steakhouse in Orem. I don’t know what the others were thinking about but, to me, it was something of a celebration.

Seriously, why is he compelled to always let people know he's shovelling food down his gullet at every opportunity? What a weird thing to note with regard to the project.

- Doc

[_Doctor Scratch]

And it looks like there is a solid, black, plastic object that is sort of "leaning" away from his body, with wires trailing from it.

Could it be a walkie talkie? I heard they use these still on sets and makes sense in a secluded area.

It definitely could be. Maybe it was intended as an "easter egg"? You know, like how you can supposedly see "inappropriate" things in Disney films, such as the priest sprouting an erection in The Little Mermaid? Critics will be able to eternally point to that scene in the film, and no one will be able to tell whether it was a wireless mic, a 'walkie talkie,' or merely the ties from the Harris character's costume vest. I mean, has anyone from Disney ever officially stated/admitted that the priest really is getting a chubb? Can you dismiss it as just a "fold" in his vestments? In the end, everyone just eventually settles into a detente where all parties wind up agreeing that, yes, there is some ambiguity at play. I think the challenge to the filmmakers going forward will be one of interpretation (this is allegedly a production supported by an organization that rather vainly calls itself "Interpreter"), or, rather, the control thereof. There are definite means of controlling whether or not viewers see--or *think* they see--a wireless mic clipped to the back of the Martin Harris actor's waistband. Indeed, those methods have been discussed--including CGI. But there is another, cheaper road forward, of course: one where you just shrug; or you try to say that anyone who makes this criticism is a "jerk"; or whatever else.

That said, just look at the clip/"trailer." There is no denying that, even if it *is* Harris' vest-tie, it's very easy to mistake it for something that contemporary viewers would have far more commonly seen--i.e., a wireless mic. I mean, I don't consider myself an expert on men's fashion--from any era--but I do believe that is the first back-laced vest I have ever seen on a man. And I know the basic premise is there (I can't help but think of that awesome, cream-colored suit jacket with back-belt that Jack Nicholson sports in an early scene in Chinatown). So, I guess they've got to rely on the very dumb logic of filmic communication: Can they assume that, because they've shown an earlier scene w/ Harris running, and with (odd, to me at least) back-tied vest, that viewers will then continue to assume that back-tied vest w/ strings visible, is indeed the back-vest, and not a goof-up on the part of the filmmakers, by "accidentally" leaving a wireless mic in the scene?

Look: this is a controllable thing. It's going to come down to how much they care. DCP can try to write us off as hostile "nobodies" if he wants. But if he does that, this ambiguity will remain in his film.

ETA: were requests for donations made at the end of the free panel event--i.e., the one that was not part of the official LDS Film Fest (which actually required the purchase of tickets(, but was "tacked on" to the end of it?

[_Gadianton]

ETA: were requests for donations made at the end of the free panel event--i.e., the one that was not part of the official LDS Film Fest (which actually required the purchase of tickets(, but was "tacked on" to the end of it?

You mean from the Q&A meeting held in Orem, as Mr. Midgley aptly and truthfully put it?

It's a good question. I don't know the answer, but my guess, for what it's worth, is "yes".

[_Physics Guy]

I took a screenshot of the scene with the “mike” and thought, Yep, that’s a mike—I didn’t notice at all on first watching but there it is. Then after reading the vest tie explanation I looked again and yeah, it could just be a knot of some kind. I don’t think it’s a big deal if it happens to look a bit like a mike. It’s a detail you see for two seconds and few viewers will notice it.

The trailer does all have an amateurish look to it somehow, however—I just can’t put my finger on how. There's something subtly off about how everything looks, that makes it all look staged and fake. Whatever the cause of this is, it’s an interesting problem in filmmaking that I never realized existed.

Somehow major films avoid this problem, but I can’t think what they do to avoid it. Something with lighting? Frame rate? I've heard that too high a frame rate can make even the work of top-tier studios look bogus like that. The images are so clear that all the props obviously look like props, whereas if you just drop the frame rate the human brain interpolates realism and it all looks real.

In this case part of it might be the costumes. They’re all cut to be so This-Is-1830! that they’re outlandish with high collars and neck stocks, and by itself that might just be accurate, but it draws a lot of attention to the other striking feature of the costumes, namely that (as has been mentioned by others) they’re all brand-new and perfectly clean. That might be fine with lords and ladies in a Regency drawing room but it looks weird for farmers in the woods. Perhaps the kind of weird that it looks is precisely an instinctive impression that this is a play or a film set, not real.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The Midge remarking on the film:

One question clearly was about whether there was any indication that the Brethren might have some concerns about a film in which every effort has been made to have all the sometimes grim details set out. The answer was for me very gratifying. The answer was an emphatic YES. One reason is that Professor Peterson's pet film project can do things that otherwise probably cannot be done.

Huh. I’m not sure how to interpret that.

- Doc

[_Symmachus]

The Book of Mormon, in my own imagination has the shape of a large rock in the middle of a river against which we are thrown, and we have to go one way or the other. Its claims are so audacious, its text is so massive and complex and convoluted."

Huh? If we are being thrown against a large rock due to a river's current, we aren't going to "go one way or the other." He seems to be saying we are confronted by a choice, but indeed in such a situation our only choice, if we are still conscious after being slammed against the rock, is to struggle for survival, which may mean avoiding the rock entirely.

No surprise this is from an American English professor, child of an intellectual tradition that has never figured out just how the hell a metaphor works (Exhibit A: the dictionary-muncher who scribbled together The Great [sic]Gatsby).

I rather think of the Book of Mormon as an iceberg in the north Atlantic circa 1912: a mass of jagged points that ultimately melts in the light and heat of warmer waters and brighter days because there is nothing at its core. Go ahead and steer your titanic church into it while claiming that it's really an island and that the captain will never lead the ship astray, a ship which can never be sunk in any case.

[_Dan Vogel]

Susan Easton Black. . . what hast thou done?

She--who should know better, considering her status as emeritus professor of church history--states that critics have resorted to saying that the witnesses saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes."

THAT'S A BORDERLINE LIE!! The implication, of course, is that the critics invented this from thin air. Not so; Martin Harris said this point-blank and critics are merely reminding us what he said.

Where are the critics to speak for themselves?

[_Dan Vogel]

The trailer is a joke. It would have been helpful if they made the actor carry plates that were really between 40 and 60 pounds. Having Joseph Smith swing the plates in the sack and hit the ruffian show just how real and historical the producers are trying to be. If they can't get that right, how can we expect them to represent the witnesses testimony accurately. The film merely perpetuates the myth created by a superficial reading of the printed testimonies, not the full historical record.

[_Lemmie]

Not really about the trailer, but this exchange explains how the Mormon witnesses might be considered actual evidence by some.

Gemli:


How do you know that atheists have seen spirits? If I claimed with bated breath and wide eyes that I saw a spirit, how could you tell I was being honest, or if I'd had a mental breakdown, or if I were under duress? There is tremendous pressure brought to bear on people who live in religious communities to conform to the prevailing theology.


−
Ideeho gemli • 9 days ago

The way I’d tell if you’re telling the truth is by the power of the Spirit confirming to me the truthfulness of your statement. I know that is not “scientific,” but whoever said God has to conform to gemli’s predilections? In any event, it is sure. I have experienced it.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -body.html

This exchange also shows why Utah is the MLM pyramid scheme capital of the US.