DiscussMormonism.com

I finally finished watching on YouTube the 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ”. Roger Ebert’s review of the film when it first came out, in which he exclaimed it was the most violent movie he’d ever seen, perhaps scared me away from it for years. Finally, however, I’ve finished watching it.

I thought it was a powerful and beautiful film. I don’t think the violence, most of which is focused on the scourging by the Roman soldiers, is gratuitous or overshadows the message of redemption that it is the story of Jesus. In fact, I think it the violence may enhance its message in some ways.

Yes, Mel Gibson obviously took some artistic liberties but, anyone who has been to the temple has been forced to watch a crappy film that captures NONE of the essence of God, nature or the pre-mortal realm can certainly give Gibson a pass on his artistic license.

Why can’t the Church make a similarly powerful film about the life of Jesus, the Church, Joseph Smith or anything Gospel related? I suppose the offical answer is that the Church is in the business of gathering souls, and not making blockbuster films. But seriously… the most powerful LDS-produced movie about Jesus is a short film that was released as either “The Lamb of God” or “To This End Was I Born”. In one zone conference, our mission president showed us that movie, which had just been made available to the public. At the time, it was pretty hot stuff. But when I see it now, I’m really embarrassed and disappointed by its shoddy production values and complete lack of gravity. It’s in English, it features actors we’ve all grown tired of seeing in various Church films, and it tries too hard to deliver an emotional punch to the gut.

The Church produced a fairly decent 60-minute film within the past five or six years about the life of Joseph Smith that they show at Temple Square. I’ve seen that movie on DVD and it's not bad cinema, really. It has beautiful on-location cinematography, great sets, solid acting, and an overarching spirit about it. Cinematically it’s the finest film about the life of Joseph Smith produced to date, even though it completely glosses over the real history of the Church, Joseph Smith and is told from an apologetic point of view.

As missionaries, we used to have only about three or four God-awful VHS movies to show investigators. The films I recall were “The Prodigal Son”, “On the Way Home”, “Together Forever”, and “The First Vision”. I was always embarrassed to show those to anybody. They sucked ass.

On the mission, I came across a 60-minute film by the Church called “How Rare a Possession: The Book of Mormon”. I eventually bought it and stopped showing the other crappy movies altogether. Five or six times, we had an investigator who had time and interest to sit and watch “How Rare a Possession”, and the feedback was always positive. One investigator, an eye doctor, eventually joined the Church a year after I had left. When I went back to visit my mission with my family during the summer of 2002, he was there and serving in the branch. (He’s likely gone inactive by now, but who hasn’t at some point in their journey.) I don’t expect he was converted to Mormon Christianity by “How Rare a Possession”, but it may have kick started a sincere exploration of the messages in the Book of Mormon. Who knows…

We know the Church can, if it puts effort into it, put out some good cinema. So, why not a film about the life of Jesus that shows some dirt and dust, a bit of blood and sweat, agony and emptiness and fulfillment, fears and hopes, fatigue and endurance, resistance and submission, death and resurrection… and total forgiveness and redemption?

I'm sure some will say that the atoning sacrifice of the Lord was so cosmically immense and complete in its magnitude that it would never be possible to accurately represent on film what actually happened. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try a bit harder that we’ve done, does it?

I know the Church has recently completed a movie set somewhere southwest of Provo, in which they’ve recreated the ancient Jewish city of Jerusalem and its environs (in my opinion, all the ingredients necessary for a total disaster). The set is targeted to be used to produce a series of “shorts” over the next 20 years for use in seminaries, Sunday schools, and with missionaries. I can only hope that the resulting products don’t suck ass as usual.

Part of the problem is it cannot have "inappropriate" material. It has to be a film the whole family can watch, from grandma and grandpa to little 5-year old Jimmy. So it ends up being like an after school special. Also, it needs to be a missionary tool, so it ultimately comes across as cheesy propaganda. The Passion of the Christ was a great film. I know it was anti-Semitic at times, and Mel Gibson is a total prick, but that film moved me like no other religious movie has. But there is no way an active LDS could have made that film. An R-rated film about Jesus? Blasphemy.

Interestingly, his next film, Apocalypto, was about the Laminates in Mesoamerica. I loved that film. But once again, there is no way an LDS person could make a Book of Mormon themed film as good as Apocalypto. For one thing, the source material sucks, but even if they made a offshoot story based in a Book of Mormon setting, they couldn't make it like Apocalypto because they would have to tone down the violence, and make it faith promoting somehow so missionaries can show it to investigators.

Recently my home teacher asked me to go with him to see 17 Miracles at the stake center. It is the story of the Willie & Martin handcart companies, "two Mormon pioneer groups making the trek on foot from Iowa to Utah in 1856 and who encountered trials, tragedies, and small miracles along the way" mainly because they left so late in the season and were way under equipped with food and clothing. I have ancestors that were part of those companies and one was even portrayed in the movie in a small part, so I was interested. While the movie had stunning scenery and the lead actually seemed to be a fairly decent actor, the story line was about as bizarre as I could imagine given the tittle. At the end of the movie I turned to my home teacher and asked what he thought. Shaking his head he said "it should have been titled "50 Bad Decisions.""

That story would make an incredible movie if it were approached as the unmitigated disaster it was. But the bizarre juxtaposition of the few "miracles" that occurred next to all the tragedies made a mockery of the title.

Hey you guys are forgetting about that unforgettable masterpiece Johnny Lingo. Now just try to find a nonLDS movie that compares to that gem.

Fence Sitter wrote:Recently my home teacher asked me to go with him to see 17 Miracles at the stake center. It is the story of the Willie & Martin handcart companies, "two Mormon pioneer groups making the trek on foot from Iowa to Utah in 1856 and who encountered trials, tragedies, and small miracles along the way" mainly because they left so late in the season and were way under equipped with food and clothing. I have ancestors that were part of those companies and one was even portrayed in the movie in a small part, so I was interested. While the movie had stunning scenery and the lead actually seemed to be a fairly descent actor, the story line was about as bizarre as I could imagine given the tittle. At the end of the movie I turned to my home teacher and asked what he thought. Shaking his head he said "it should have been titled "50 Bad Decisions.""

That story would make an incredible movie if it were approached as the unmitigated disaster it was. But the bizarre juxtaposition of the few "miracles" that occurred next to all the tragedies made a mockery of the title.

LOL. I caught part of that movie at my in laws. I saw the scene where a woman refused to continue because she was so distraught. I think one of her kids died or something. So she sat on the side of the road while the rest of the company went on ahead. Another woman came back to comfort her and try to convince her to continue on with them, and as they sat there a pie appeared on the ground in front of them. They got all excited and picked it up and started eating it. It was filmed in a way that the pie just appeared out of thin air, because nobody else was around. I guess that was one of the miracles. A pie. Your children may have died along the way, but we'll give you pie to make you feel better.

Fence Sitter wrote: Shaking his head he said "it should have been titled "50 Bad Decisions.""

Oh snap!


That answer to the question "Why does the church always produce crappy films?" is this:

Because they're not trying to make "good" films. They're trying to help/make people "feel the spirit". It would be great if both of those could be done at the same time, but you have to at least try.

An additional factor is that it is really, really hard to make a "good" movie. Even if you have the money, a good script, talented actors, and a good director and editor (and "good" other talent), it's very easy to make a poor or mediocre film. There is also a little bit of luck involved.

Depending on how you count it, there are at least 200-500 films made in the world every year. Of these, few would be considered "good" (or be at all memorable). When you factor in the limited budget and talent pool available to the Church, the few number of films they produce, and their focus on factors other than being "good" (i.e. being spiritual or instructional), it isn't surprising that few, if any, LDS films are "good".

This goes for books, music and art too.

Why Does the Church Always Produce Crappy Films?

Correlation.

cinepro wrote:
That answer to the question "Why does the church always produce crappy films?" is this:

Because they're not trying to make "good" films. They're trying to help/make people "feel the spirit". It would be great if both of those could be done at the same time, but you have to at least try.

An additional factor is that it is really, really hard to make a "good" movie. Even if you have the money, a good script, talented actors, and a good director and editor (and "good" other talent), it's very easy to make a poor or mediocre film. There is also a little bit of luck involved.

Depending on how you count it, there are at least 200-500 films made in the world every year. Of these, few would be considered "good" (or be at all memorable). When you factor in the limited budget and talent pool available to the Church, the few number of films they produce, and their focus on factors other than being "good" (i.e. being spiritual or instructional), it isn't surprising that few, if any, LDS films are "good".

This goes for books, music and art too.

I agree with what you say here Cinepro. The problem I had with 17 Miracles is that in a bizarre attempt to make people feel the spirit they made what could have been a really good film into a bad one. Change the title, rewrite a few scenes, and focus on the story as the tragedy it was and this would have been a good film.

Weirdest part of the film was the scene when one of the twelve apostles comes through the company on his way to Utah, riding in a luxurious carriage, well fed and comfortable. He stops to give a speech to the starving freezing handcart company in which he reprimands the lead part (Levi Savage) for lack of faith in the gospel because he had cautioned the handcart companies that leaving for Utah that late in the season may not be a good idea. Then the apostle gets back in his carriage and heads off to Utah. I looked around me and saw people nodding their heads in agreement with the apostle!!! Over half the people in those companies died on the way and this guy gets his faith questioned because he tells them this might not be such a good idea? This same guy had no family in the companies and was returning from a three year mission. He waited with them back east so he could travel with them to help them. He risks his life on numerous occasions to help other people and he has his faith questioned by an apostle riding in a carriage in comfort!!!

cinepro wrote:
Depending on how you count it, there are at least 200-500 films made in the world every year. Of these, few would be considered "good" (or be at all memorable). When you factor in the limited budget and talent pool available to the Church, the few number of films they produce, and their focus on factors other than being "good" (i.e. being spiritual or instructional), it isn't surprising that few, if any, LDS films are "good".

This goes for books, music and art too.

I'm guessing by your screen name that you are involved in "the business".

There are some truly great movies made on very limited budgets. If you have attended any film festivals you know what I mean.

My first thought was that the problem might be a very small talent pool in the LDS church, but on reflection, I don't think that would be true.

I don't have any information on how the Church goes about making films, but if I had to guess, I think it might be that LDS productions are headed up by some sort of committee. Probably a group not chosen for their artistic talents, but rather for their acceptability to the powers in charge (political).

It's been my experience that anything governed by that kind of group usually ends up as less than mediocre. I think the talent to write and produce a good film exists in the LDS. It just never has a chance to overcome the "least common denominator" mentality of the group.

It's been my experience with that sort of thing that if you ask people for opinions on a project, they feel bound to make "corrections" that are usually disastrous.

Quasimodo,

I tend to agree that most LDS films suffer "death by committee". Using an independent advertising agency, the Church was able to produce some award winning commericials in the 70's and early 80's, but really nothing since then.

The following was my all time favorite. The Church even paid Carly Simon a butt-load of money to cover her song "Julie Through the Glass" for this commerical (It starts at the 4:35 mark):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I17r6W5ThqM