Witnesses: The Reverend’s Review

[Kishkumen]

Today at 1:10 pm in Payson, UT I saw Witnesses. The experience was quite unlike my usual moviegoing outings in that so many preconceptions and biases were bound to shape my reaction to the film. Remarkable to me was the fact that my Utah relatives were so hesitant to see it. In the end, I went with my father-in-law, who accompanied me despite his skepticism (and he is a Mormon history buff). My brother-in-law, who is personal friends with the distributor, elected not to go with us. He was hoping to get in to the dentist to have emergency treatment on a broken crown.

Why was no one I know excited to see the film? Even active LDS family? They felt burnt by bad LDS cinema experiences in the past. The trailers shown before Witnesses included a drippy Mormon movie about a couple that struggles after they get engaged although they felt spiritually inspired that they belong together. A very Mormon story. Not the kind of thing I would likely ever choose to see.

The TL;DR is that I actually enjoyed the movie quite a bit. On a 1-10 star rating scale, I give it a 6.5/10. Why so high? Why so low? Here is my quick rationale: I usually like horror films that get at least 6+ on IMDb. I know it won’t be fine cinema, but I also know that I’ll likely be entertained. I look for ones that are at least somewhat more than skin deep in the thought put into them.

Witnesses is not a horror film, of course, and I don’t draw the comparison to denigrate the movie. It is, however, a supernatural film. One interesting reviewer of horror movies I read about explained how she, a faithful Catholic, finds horror movies gripping. Her spiritual beliefs, in her view, have everything to do with her experience of supernatural horror. I would argue that Witnesses deals with similar questions, whether consciously so or not.

I’ll be thinking about this movie for some time because, fine art or propaganda, and I do still lean toward the latter, the film does prompt me to ask questions. Who is this for? Why was it made? What does it tell us about the present moment in the American Mormon experience? If this were a bad movie, I don’t think I would be prompted to think and ask. You can tell that a great deal of thought went into this movie. I would even go so far as to say that repeat viewings would yield further insights.

Before I tell you what I liked about it, let me get some basic criticisms out of the way. First, the movie is too long and tries to cover too much. I am not the first person to say this, but I agree with these criticisms. I can see why they did it. The idea of the David Whitmer interview as a framing device, which was a clever thing, tends to pull the story toward getting into the whole experience of the three witnesses from the translation of the Book of Mormon through excommunication and rejoining the Church and later reflections, but honestly it is just too much for one movie.

I would argue that the framing scenes dealing with Whitmer’s persecution and interview bloat the film unnecessarily and blunt its emotional impact. If I were to re-edit the film, I would excise these elements and focus on the linear narrative from Martin Harris’ involvement in the translation to Oliver Cowdery rejoining the Church after Smith’s assassination. One of the problems with the focus on Whitmer, for me, was that I didn’t really care for the execution of the Whitmer material, including the acting.

Martin Harris is probably the best portrayal. I was quite drawn in by the acting. The Oliver Cowdery story turned out to be the most moving. His dream after the assassination of Smith, which prompted him to return to the Church, was very effective in narrative terms.

The biggest problem is, in my view, the way everything is quite obtrusively performed like it is sacred text. You get the sense that there was so much thought and discussion about how to hit the right balance between LDS sensitivities and historical accuracy that the natural flow of artistic expression never breaks out of the barriers of self-conscious spiritual responsibility. You always feel like you are watching a more sophisticated Church video.

Many of the individual scenes were really effective. The Hiram Page incident was gripping, as was the attempted coup in the Kirtland temple. The Fanny Alger incident was pretty brave, and I think a film about Cowdery would have made this more effective, but it seemed oddly out of place in this one. It looks more like an apologetic admission than the integral part of the Cowdery story it should have been.

By the end of the film, I found myself asking, who is this really for? The answer I initially came up with is “struggling/doubting members.” One thing that really impressed me about the film is the way it dramatizes the personal struggles of those who try to live a Mormon life of faith.

Martin struggles with his doubts, his own inadequacies, and strives to get a certain kind of witness. Even after he parts ways with the saints and wanders to other groups, he remains firm in the hard-won divine witness he experienced.

Cowdery grows disenchanted with Joseph, thinks he knows better, and is slapped in the face with his excommunication, but he eventually realizes what he had lost by leaving. He humbled himself and pleads with the saints to return to the fold as a regular, rank-and-file member. This was a moving scene.

And this is when I saw the power of the film being its expression of a yearning from one group of saints to call back their lost and wandering friends. If the three witnesses could experience what they had, and fall away, only to come back being unable to shake the profound impact of Smith and their journey on the path of faith, maybe the wandering and lost saints of today can too.

A further question, however, is raised. Is this not what those who have stayed in the fold yearn to see validated as they think of their friends and family who have lost heart, been offended, and strayed from the fold? Wasn’t this movie really written for them? After all, they are more likely to see the film, and it will comfort them to see that in the end the gospel’s indelible mark will remain despite all the human complications of a fallen world.

I enjoyed this film, and I will definitely see it again. It is not completely successful, but a lot of individual parts of it are. None of the characters is fully developed, but the scope of the film hardly allowed deep character development. I am a little sad that it wasn’t better, but I was satisfied that it was better than many of its harsher critics acknowledge.

[Philo Sofee]

Very nice and thoughtful review Reverend! If I get a chance, I shall see the movie as well.

[Kishkumen]

Very nice and thoughtful review Reverend! If I get a chance, I shall see the movie as well.

I think it is worth seeing in the theater, although I will probably buy the DVD too.

[Shulem]

By the end of the film, I found myself asking, who is this really for? The answer I initially came up with is “struggling/doubting members.” One thing that really impressed me about the film is the way it dramatizes the personal struggles of those who try to live a Mormon life of faith.

Yes, it is for the struggling/doubting members which is at present a large portion of the membership of the church. It's an effort to bring doubters back to the table and feast upon the fruits of Mormonism -- pray, pay, and obey.

For me, Mormonism is dead. An old carcasses covered in flies already eaten of worms. Mormonism grosses me out. It's simply a matter of warning others not to touch the disease and get sick.

[cinepro]

Great review. I wasn't planning on seeing it, but now I think I will.

[Kishkumen]

Great review. I wasn't planning on seeing it, but now I think I will.

Thanks! I think anyone who is interested in Mormonism from the idly curious to the member or critic will probably enjoy it. It is very much a product of the current moment in Mormonism, which is one reason it fascinates me.

[Dr Exiled]

I agree with cinepro. It was a great review. However, your confirming the propaganda aspects of the movie, we all knew had to be there, makes me not care about it or want to see it. The founding story is so out there, even the propaganda version, that seeing it again would make me cringe throughout and not enjoy the movie.

[Kishkumen]

I agree with cinepro. It was a great review. However, your confirming the propaganda aspects of the movie, we all knew had to be there, makes me not care about it or want to see it. The founding story is so out there, even the propaganda version, that seeing it again would make me cringe throughout and not enjoy the movie.

Thanks, Dr Exiled! It could be that you would not enjoy it. It is hard to say. If you can get past the fact that it is about a religion you are disenchanted with, there is still plenty there to be interested in. I expected to be more put off by the portrayal of Smith than I was, for example. And, yes, he is a little too idealized in some ways, but that does not crowd out the humanity of his story. If you are not worried about the question of the story’s truth, the situations are full of drama and psychology that are surprisingly engaging.

[Dr Exiled]

I agree with cinepro. It was a great review. However, your confirming the propaganda aspects of the movie, we all knew had to be there, makes me not care about it or want to see it. The founding story is so out there, even the propaganda version, that seeing it again would make me cringe throughout and not enjoy the movie.

Thanks, Dr Exiled! It could be that you would not enjoy it. It is hard to say. If you can get past the fact that it is about a religion you are disenchanted with, there is still plenty there to be interested in. I expected to be more put off by the portrayal of Smith than I was, for example. And, yes, he is a little too idealized in some ways, but that does not crowd out the humanity of his story. If you are not worried about the question of the story’s truth, the situations are full of drama and psychology that are surprisingly engaging.

Perhaps sometime in the future I'd be able to divorce myself from the parent church's influence over this and turn off the propaganda, focusing on the other aspects of the movie. I suspect, though, that I would be screaming inside for the entire story to be told, warts and all. That's not necessarily inspiring but more interesting. I like heros with flaws and in Mormonism, the founders can't have too many, at least the flaws can't be admitted.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps sometime in the future I'd be able to divorce myself from the parent church's influence over this and turn off the propaganda, focusing on the other aspects of the movie. I suspect, though, that I would be screaming inside for the entire story to be told, warts and all. That's not necessarily inspiring but more interesting. I like heros with flaws and in Mormonism, the founders can't have too many, at least the flaws can't be admitted.

Yes! I would love to see characters who are the more colorful people described in the full range of early sources. One character I found incredibly disappointing was Joseph Smith, Sr. The real man was an alcoholic who was deeply into treasure digging, folk magic, universalism, etc. I imagine he could be kind of embarrassing to the rest of the family. And yet Joseph loved his father very much and wanted to see him in the man he constructed in his scriptural heroes. He wanted a Lehi for a father, and his dad was not quite that. Still, making him Church patriarch did invest him with that gravitas and charisma. Missing very much is the treasure digging. Wow. How can you not have that?