My Review of the Witnesses

[Everybody Wang Chung]

*SPOILER WARNING*

I saw this movie last night at the South Jordan Megaplex. We had no problem buying tickets. There were 13 people in the theater. After about 15 minutes a mother left with her young child and didn’t return. Perhaps the mother was shocked by the loud gunplay, or harsh mob violence – or maybe it was Joseph Smith bashing the 2 of the 3 assailants over the head (one with a large stick and the other with the Plates) knocking them unconscious. Either way, this mother and her child split and never returned.

Another observation. An older gentleman who was sitting up front had his phone screen turned up very bright and was playing what looked like Candy Crush throughout the entire movie. Nobody in the theater cared enough about the movie to ask him to stop.

A few initial observations. The movie was at its best when there were drone shots of the scenery. It was beautiful camera work. Unfortunately, there were only a few drone shots.

The music was top notch. I especially liked the rendition of Nearer To God To Thee at the beginning of the film. It was actually good enough that I would purchase the soundtrack.

Now the bad. The plot is very messy and confusing. A non-member will not know what in the heck is going on. Most members will be confused as well. Also, there is very little character development and the characters are all very one dimensional, except for a touching scene with Joseph and Emma burying their infant son Alvin. It was a surprisingly powerful scene.

I was very disappointed that DCP’s film avoids many of the uncomfortable historical issues. What follow is my stream of conscious thoughts about the film:

-There is no discussion in the film about Joseph’s Seer Stone other than the narrator (David Whitmer) stating that the Plates came with seer stones called Interpreters, but Joseph preferred to use his own Seer Stone. There is nothing in the film about where Joseph got his Seer Stone or about his prior treasure digging with his Seer Stone. And, definitely no mention of Joseph’s trial/conviction for fraud by using the Seer Stone unsuccessfully in treasure digs.

-There is no mention about Joseph Smith’s polygamy other than a brief confrontation between Joseph and David where Joseph defends his affair with Fanny Alger by stating that they were sealed by the power of God. Nothing else is mentioned about polygamy. Nothing about Joseph’s 30 plus other wives, nothing about how Emma felt and nothing about Joseph hiding most of his wives from Emma.

-There is no mention about why Joseph was arrested and sent to Carthage. No mention that Joseph ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor because it was exposing Joseph’s polygamy. Nothing at all. It just shows (in a flashback through Oliver’s dream) a mob storming Carthage jail and shooting Joseph while he falls out the window. Very confusing.

- David Whitmer is told by his father that he can go see Joseph if he plows the family's entire field which will take 3 days. The next scene is David’s father asking him how he plowed the field in one day. David tells his father he has no idea who plowed the field. David’s mother then steps forward and says that she saw 3 men plow the field and then abruptly leave. The implication is that the 3 Nephites plowed the field so David could join Joseph. Didn’t David’s mother think it was a little strange that these 3 strangers just showed up and started plowing their field? Wouldn’t that at least merit asking her husband or David who these men on their farm were and who hired them?

-The courtroom scene was a total howler. Lucy’s attorney leans over the table and in loud voice tells her to go to the witness stand and give her testimony just like they had rehearsed. Also, with Lucy on the stand, the attorney tells the court to speak up because Lucy can’t hear very well. Martin, who is sitting in the courtroom then speaks up with a loud voice and says, “she can hear well only when she wants.” The courtroom of course bursts into laughter.

-After David Whitmer saw the angel, he is shown running across the field to share the news with his fiancée, Julie. As he is running, you can see the Eddie Bauer red logo on the bottom of his boots. A quick Google search shows that Eddie Bauer was established in 1920.

-The dinner scene with Martin Harris and Joseph shortly after Martin loses the 112 pages was a Chinese stir fry. The rice, water chestnuts, broccoli and other veggies are all visible. Maybe Chinese stir fry was the rage back then, but for some reason it struck me as very anachronistic. The more reasonable explanation is that the movie crew used the local Chinese restaurant food for the scene.

-There is a scene where Lucy Harris has the 112 pages and is standing in her parlor with several of her friends reading the pages and howling with laughter. Martin bursts in and screams at everyone, grabs the transcript from Lucy and storms off. It was a very overdramatic and silly scene.

-When the reporter (Mr. Kelly) asks an old David Whitmer if Joseph wrote the book, David states, “Joseph was just a farm boy with no education and could barely compose a letter. There is no way Joseph could have wrote a 500 page book by himself in 3 months.” We’ve all heard this response from apologists a hundred times. I could see DCP’s fingerprints all over that one.

-The film’s coverage of the Kirtland Bank Failure is a complete confusing mess. The film discusses that the failure was due to the bank giving out too many loans. Then the film jumps to discussing that the real reason the bank failed was that some guy named Warren took $20,000 in bank notes for himself? Then the movie jumps to Joseph scolding Martin Harris for not investing in the bank and blaming the bank's failure on Martin. Finally, there is a scene with Joseph and Emma standing on a porch and Emma looks into Joseph’s eyes and says, “You were too generous to run a bank.” Joseph then says, “That’s true” and then they both share a laugh and hug. Good freaking heck, DCP. Why was this funny? Thousands of lives were destroyed because of the Kirtland Bank failure. Was this your decision to try to make the bank failure a comedic moment? It was painful to watch, DCP.

I can’t in good consciousness recommend this film. It was very uneven and confusing. The acting was subpar and the directing was not good.

I would give this film 1.5 stars out of 4. I am hoping the film does well enough that The Interpreter will be able to make another movie.

[Sledge]

Thanks for the review. If I may ask, could you tell me a movie to which you would give five stars? This will help me know whether our tastes are similar or not.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Thanks for the review. If I may ask, could you tell me a movie to which you would give five stars? This will help me know whether our tastes are similar or not.

Trust me, they're not.

[Sledge]

Trust me, they're not.

You might be surprised! Here’s a five star movie from me:

“Count of Monte Cristo”

And maybe Witnesses.

But back to the topic: it seems like they could have explored the things you mention if they selected a smaller window of time. You can only tell so much of the story in a single movie.

[Philo Sofee]

Good review Wang Chung... quite helpful as was the other one floating around here.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Good review Wang Chung... quite helpful as was the other one floating around here.

Thanks Philo! One thing I forgot to mention in my review was that DCP decided to remove the infamous wireless mic scene. It's not in the movie.

Also, DCP tightened up the fight scene with the assailant and the Plates. It's much shorter.

[Gadianton]

You might be surprised! Here’s a five star movie from me:

My challenge is to watch Robert Duvall's late 90's movie the Apostle, and watch Witnesses, and then tell us which movie you felt was superior and why.

[Sledge]

My challenge is to watch Robert Duvall's late 90's movie the Apostle, and watch Witnesses, and then tell us which movie you felt was superior and why.

On it

[Gadianton]

A few initial observations. The movie was at its best when there were drone shots of the scenery. It was beautiful camera work. Unfortunately, there were only a few drone shots.

You could only know they were drone shots if you caught a glimpse of the blades from the craft. you don't need to say it, Stake President. Wow.

---

Anyway, I don't fault the movie for not going into Joseph Smith's polygamy, the Bank failures, Joseph Smith's seerstone --- there is so much going on in the so-called "restoration" that five seasons on Netflix with 10 episodes per season might be enough to cover it. I fault them for claiming that they covered it. how stupid to just do a walkthrough of key issues -- "got that one", "yep we mentioned that". Lame. Besides, the movie isn't a history of the restoration, it's about the witnesses.

If they can sheer a few more ultra gullible sheep, here is my suggestion for the next run.

DCP needs to watch Robert Duvall's classic the Apostle several times. Then pick one witness, say Martin Harris. Get out of documentary-by-numbers mode, and find the first-person conflicted experience of Harris, and show it in all its sorrow. In the world of music, discover at least some atonality. The whole "the witnesses answer the critics" is so dumb it's pathetic. If you want to preach to the choir, then you're more or less doing the right thing. If you want to interest non-members, you've got to use some reverse psychology. I mean, how stupid are you people?

[Gadianton]

On it

I look forward to your report. I hope you can write at least 10 paragraphs.