How will the "Witness" be portrayed?

[_Gadianton]

On another thread, IHAQ asked a question that made me think of this, but I can't find the thread now. In the upcoming film in production by Interpreter, a serious decision is yet to be made, and that is the decision regarding how to portray the actual "witness" in both the three-witness and eight-witness scenario.

I will focus on the three-witness scenario, but the eight-witness scenario may be the more serious matter.

There are three basic ways the witness scenario can be portrayed and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

1 - The full reveal. Moroni, bathed in white light, will descend from heaven with a set of gold plates. They'll need to have rings and a band separating the sealed portion from the Book of Mormon. From an artistic standpoint, this one will be the most difficult to pull off. Revealing the face of the supernatural is difficult to do without coming across as campy. A lot of work can go into ratcheting up tension, all to fall apart with a poor depiction of what lies beyond. It's not impossible to do, of course. Take the classic movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind. After a steady buildup and bringing all the big players to Devil's Mountain, Spielberg dared to reveal the wiry, physical form of the aliens, but somehow he pulled it off and the scene was effective. Perhaps Interpreter won't show Moroni descending, but just show him standing in the midst of the witnesses. Still not easy, and then here is a Nordic, clean-shaven white male with a square jaw carrying all kinds of dicey political implications along with the plates. Outsiders will skewer the film for its gratuitous affirmations of the classic Mormon "master race". The upshot is the Brethren and stalwart TBMs will receive such a portrayal very well, and having the stones to do it may score them points against the new MI.

2 - Again in omniscient mode, the three witnesses will be shown together and perhaps there will be a white light, but they won't actually show Moroni -- maybe just glimpses of hands and plates? This would follow the conservative formula one finds in the classic movie The Lost Boys where the feeding of the vampires in "bat mode" is implied, rather than shown explicitly: a bunch of dudes with big old wings flapping around. Not only would this be safer artistically, it would be safer politically. The downside is it raises questions about what they actually saw. The Brethren may interpret such a move as lacking full faithfulness. But as a message to outsiders, it's still pretty gutsy. At the end of the day, the gaps will be filled in logically: a guy with plates came sailing out of the sky, defying the laws of physics -- not just defying gravity, but having floated through space without a pressure suit or any atmosphere.

3 - When I was teenager, some of the older kids in the ward had a slumber party and did the unthinkable: They played a game called Dungeons and Dragons. According to the participates, the Dungeon Master had been taken over by the devil, and all kinds of crazy things occurred. I only heard from a couple of the participants, but each had a perspective that involved among other things, "waking up" on some part of the property separated from the others. In my minds eye, that last part would be in omniscient mode, and then the supernatural elements flow as part of each individuals perspective. The perspectivist formula could be a good way to go, as TBMs could read in a literal supernatural, and outsiders could interpret as subjective, and thus avoid heavy-handed politics to a degree at least (what is portrayed is filtered through participant accounts, not as ratified as full objective reality by the producers), and also avoid looking silly in terms of what the physical claim actually is: a guy roaming through space with just a robe. The downside is the Brethren could easily interpret such a work as completely lacking in faith that maintains the witness as "real".

And so as you can see, the Witness film has a lot to think about in terms of how to be most effective with outsiders vs. scoring points with the Brethren and insiders.

[_I have a question]

As with any film purporting to be a portrayal of actual events, the "Witnesses" team will have to consider where on the spectrum of accuracy they will pitch the project. Will it be a educational documentary that runs through all the known facts of the matter, or will it be an action/adventure "based (loosely) on real events"?

On that point, from the marketing narrative the "Witnesses" team seem to want to portray that the film will be "all things to all men".

WITNESSES, produced by the Interpreter Foundation, consists of four episodes to be released within days of each other. Each will reconnect us with the history, the claims and counter-claims, and ultimately the stalwart consistency of each witness’ testimony.

https://witnessesfilm.com

The full-length version will feel like a feature film that will pause occasionally for a discussion with expert scholars, scholars who will answer questions, bring forth first-hand accounts, and help us understand why these witnesses doubted the church but never doubted their faith.
Content of varying length will be created for classrooms, social media, web and streaming distribution and for sharing throughout the world. Efforts to reach the widest possible audience are well under way.

Executive Producer Daniel Peterson continues to introduce Witnesses to large numbers through his Sic Et Non blog, his column in the Deseret News, and his notable presence on Facebook.
BYU Religious Education has contracted for rights to include Witnesses in their curricula. Consequently, tens of thousands of students will enlarge their comprehension and appreciation of the witnesses.
The filmmakers have created content for nation-wide PBS audiences, and cable stations such as BYUtv, as well as for international cable distribution. All will be pursued to reach local, national, and international audiences in an effort to provide new information, answer sensitive questions, and focus on faith.
To share the depth of so many interviews with those who desire to learn more, the team will ultimately produce SNIPPETS—many short “films” about 3.5 minutes long—and distribute them via The Interpreter Foundation website.

We haven’t yet done the casting for this specific film project, which will be a docudrama or, as we’ve been calling it, a “dramatic documentary.”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... esses.html

I'm hearing the original cast of "Ocean's 11" are in the frame...Julia Roberts to lose the 116 pages?

I can't wait.

[_I have a question]

Then there's the thorny little issue of making it an "honest" film in how it portrays certain events. For instance, the scene(s) where Joseph is translating the Book of Mormon - by reading single words off of a rock which is placed in his hat, into which he shoves his face. There's also the cinematically problematic scene where some of the witnesses see the plates physically whilst simultaneously others are seeing them through spiritual eyes.

Let me, if I may, offer some principled guidance as to the standards of integrity they should applying to their efforts with this film.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; . . . there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... y?lang=eng

Will "Witnesses" live up to this^ standard? I guess we shall see...

[_Fence Sitter]

The important question is how are they going to make the prop they use for the plates.

Are they going to go the faithful route and make them out of gold? No, because their budget is too small.

How about tumbaga? Still probably out of economic reach for their budget.

Or are they going to go with historical accuracy and make a cheap imitation out of tin or copper and make sure no one really examines it too closely unless they are members of Dan Peterson's immediate family and friends?

[_Maksutov]

Mormonism relies heavily on the imagination and self-conversion dynamic of the believer. A thoroughly illustrated depiction of critical events could be a testimony killer. Look at how dorky the "Book of Mormon movie" turned out to be. They couldn't even finish it because it was so bad.

[_kairos]

It is interesting that Dan's wife is an executive producer along with DCP. Also the list of donors contains the usual suspects- hamblin, lindsay, woody, William Schyver, smoot, scotty dog loyd, but not the Bushman's or the Givens or MI employees etc. Dan has lots of fundraising to do and he has a grand vision of how Witnesses will be distributed- movie, TV, snippet film strips. If Witnesses goes viral Dan may become the big man celebrity he longs to be.

Now if he wants to get it right from all angles, Dan Vogel and his work should be the primary source material imho.

k

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson has posted an update on the film's progress. Some of his comments are worth quoting:

Weirdly, an anonymous online commenter who has been lying about me for several years explains to anybody gullible (and malignant) enough to believe him that this film project is merely a money-making scheme on my part, and that I have no intention, and never have had any intention, of actually producing a film.

He’ll be definitively proven wrong, of course. Probably sometime in the latter half of 2020. But I hereby predict that the completion of the project will have absolutely no impact on him, that he won’t apologize or issue a retraction or change his behavior.

However, I think it important, from time to time, to make certain things very clear. And now is as good a time as any.

As far as profiting from the film goes, nothing in our financial plan involves paying me a single dime. I won’t profit from this project. I won’t receive a single cent. Nothing.

For that matter, while the by-laws of the Interpreter Foundation permit me and a few other senior Foundation leaders to be paid a maximum of $500 per year for our labors on its behalf, none of us has ever drawn a single nickel. In fact, my wife and I are donors to the Foundation, and have been during every year of its existence.

Barring some unforeseen disaster, the Witnesses film project will be completed. The people with whom I’m working are experienced filmmakers, and they know how to bring movie efforts to completion. We’re committed to this endeavor.

We thank everybody who has contributed toward seeing it through. I believe that this project is needed. Without generous donations, though, we would be unable to finish what we’ve started. But it will be finished. And we hope and believe that it will do a great deal of good.

Later, in the Comments, someone asks for clarification:

I am sure this is the same troll who claims to be a bishop, and claims to have traveled with you to Israel.

And DCP replies:

The very same. He regularly lies about me. This is merely one of his latest inventions.

So, I guess Everybody Wang Chung has accused DCP of doing the "Witnesses" film as a moneymaking scheme? That's certainly news to me. I can't recall having ever read such a thing. It's too bad that Peterson doesn't supply a link.

For *my* part, I have publicly aired criticism of this project:

Thanks for posting this, Tom. My God, what stamina you have. I am going to go ahead and go out on a limb and make a public prediction: this film will never see the light of day. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that, but you heard it here first. The movie will never be completed.

Earlier on in the thread, the Hon. Rev. Kishkumen complained about apparent lack of candor and authenticity, but I must respectfully disagree. This radio "program" was perhaps the most unguarded that we've seen DCP in quite some time. The nugget I've quoted above is a perfect example. DCP, ego-driven as always, fails to see all the pieces of the political puzzle even though they're right there in front of his face, and he is even spelling them all out in a very public way. I mean, think about it: "[Elder Pearson] realizes..." Huh? Why even mention a GA? What this tells you is that they've had to try to persuade the Brethren that their film won't drive people away from the Church, and/or that it won't make the Church look bad. (Are the Brethren helping to fund this Mopologetic venture, I wonder?)

Another reason why I think the film won't come to fruition is along the lines of what Dr. Robbers has said. I can't think of any way that they'll be able to stage the "counterarguments" in a way that's convincing. What, are they going to smear the historians who agreed to be in their film? "Oh, yes, Professor Z has dismissed the Witnesses' testimonies, but we happen to know that she's an anti-Mormon who watches pornography and drinks alcohol." "We acknowledge that Professor with. has a Ph.D. from Brown, but we can confirm that he's never read the Book of Mormon, by his own admission." They are, of course, going to cherry-pick whichever non-LDS appear in the film, and, really--I admit I was joking about the *type* of smear that's likely to appear, but in all honesty, what kind of "response" are they going to be able to mount against whatever supposed "counterarguments" they collect?

There is just no way that this proposed film can turn out well. Again, I want to emphasize that I totally, truly, sincerely *hope* that this movie gets made. But I really think that this is a really low-rent version of Jodorowsky's Dune: an insane, fever-dream of a project that seemed interesting for certain reasons, but was just not doable in the end. Just the way that DCP is pitching this--way blown out of proportion, far too ambitious: "we want to address every single serious objection"--spells disaster, in my opinion. (And as an aside, doesn't it count as a "serious objection" if we have a problem with the ethics of the people who are making the film?)

If they *do* manage to make it, however.... Wow. I am thinking Heaven's Gate. Waterworld. Something akin to that. I am really hoping for an LDS version of The Room: "John Dehlin! You're tearing me apart!!!!"

So, to reiterate:

1) I think the film will be a failure. Whether that is because it never gets made, or because it is plainly and simply awful (however you'd like to define that), I stand by my prediction.

2) I genuinely hope the film gets made. Make no mistake, though: it is going to be bad. If it has any polish at all to it, it is still going to be banal in the way that corporate promotional materials are "bad": neatly photographed and edited, and perhaps even "slick"-looking, but basically soulless. If the film manages to transcend the aesthetics of an infomercial, I will be impressed.

3) I agree with Dean Robbers that the "re-enactments" will likely be the most significant aspects of the film. This is, after all, where the filmmakers are going to try to milk the emotion from their target audience. I cheerfully predict that these scenes will be howlingly and knee-slappingly funny. Let Dr. Peterson prove me wrong! (He had better hope that he is the one directing those scenes. Otherwise, how can he be certain that they are "up to par"?)

[_Dr Exiled]

DCP needs to work this into his movie somehow. You know he wants to ....

[_I have a question]

I note Peterson stops short of saying Mrs Peterson won’t profit from this venture.

[_krose]

... nothing in our financial plan involves paying me a single dime. ...I won’t receive a single cent ... none of us has ever drawn a single nickel.

Well, he has all the smallest “single” coins covered. Thorough.