Mormon Cinema and the Problem of Intent
By Scot Denhalter on Jun 8, 2006
When I was asked to participate in a panel discussion of Mormon Cinema at Sunstone West in Claremont, my first reaction was to wonder what exactly Mormon Cinema might be. Of course, I realized that there was something out there to which we can point and say, “That’s Mormon Cinema,” but it is always difficult to nail down satisfactorily inclusive definitions for artistic categories.
The program abstract for the session provided its own definition: “feature-length, fiction films with LDS subject matter, produced by latter-day saints independently of the church, and released theatrically.” This is as good a working definition as any, but I would suggest dropping the word “fiction.” With the release of Greg Whiteley’s New York Doll, I think it is clear that documentary film can contain LDS subject matter and should, therefore, be included in our working definition of Mormon Cinema.
As a component of the choice to make a film using LDS subject matter, the problem of intent raises some interesting questions. What is the intent of the principles behind the choice and presentation of LDS subject matter? Given that no film is made with a single driving intention, can one among the many motives for choosing to portray LDS subject matter be seen as universal to Mormon Cinema?
In his comments at Claremont, panelist John Charles Duffy expressed the belief that producers, directors and distributors of Mormon Cinema should be more open about their intent to evangelize the public as do their counterparts in Christian Cinema. For him this intent made Mormon Cinema more closely akin to Christian Cinema than to Jewish Cinema. He pre-empted filmmaker claims to multi-culturalist intentions – that they just wanted to “tell our story” – with the observation that no other ethnic group manages a global missionary effort to convert people to their ethnic group. Duffy admits to a very loose employment of the term “ethnic,” but the fact remains that we are a sub-culture dedicated to converting others into the sub-culture. With this comment, I realized Duffy was using the term “evangelize” quite literally. He believes LDS film makers do what they do to make converts.
The other panelists were somewhat uncomfortable with this suggestion. For myself, I do not believe that Mormon Cinema in general intends to “evangelize” the public. Of the 26 films which belong on my list of Mormon Cinema, I can only see three that possibly might be thought of as possessing the intention of creating converts: the first three installments of Larry Miller’s The Work and the Glory.
Later in the discussion, film maker Richard Dutcher asserted that it was not his intent to evangelize when making a film containing LDS subject matter, but rather to tell a good story involving Mormon characters. I think his desire closely resembles the multi-culturalist intentions behind Jewish Cinema as expressed in the mission statement of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival: “an ongoing exploration of what it means to be Jewish and to showcase films that will draw a diverse and inclusive audience” and “to present images of Jews that serve as a counter-point to Hollywood images and negative media stereotypes.”
Though it seems Duffy would dismiss Dutcher’s claim to multi-culturalist intentions as disingenuous, I think it self-evident that Dutcher’s films succeed in communicating to a religiously diverse and inclusive audience what it means to be Mormon: cultural idiosyncrasies notwithstanding, Mormons are pretty much like everybody else. No converts, just a good story told and some headway made in combating stereotypes. The same could be said for other films like The Other Side of Heaven, Angels in America and New York Doll.
The same cannot be said about the many comedies from Halestorm. These films do not seem to intend to “tell our story” as they are obviously made for Mormons specifically and not for a more diverse and inclusive audience. Neither can films like Saints and Soldiers, Napoleón Dynamite, and Los muertos, la carne y el Diablo be said to be driven by multi-culturalist intentions. I am not sure they should even be included in the list of Mormon cinema. Though they are made by Mormon film makers, the essentially lack Mormon subject matter. The Mormon soldier in Saints and Soldiers is never identified as a Mormon; a t-shirt from Ricks College is the only real Mormon reference in Napoleón Dynamite; and, the two gringo missionaries who suddenly appear in Los muertos, la carne y el Diablo for no apparent reason are never identified as Mormons. The primary intent behind all these films seems to be purely pecuniary.
To intent to make money is, of course, universal to all films and may be said to be the primary intent. And whether or not they succeed in this does not appear to be connected to issues of quality. On the other hand, I find it interesting that the films driven by the additional multi-culturalist intent are almost always good films while those that also intend to entertain an exclusively Mormon audience, to teach a sweet moral lesson, or to produce converts are - every one of them - lousy films.
Thanks for this report, Scot.
Although Duffy’s point about the Church’s proselyting efforts is not something to entirely dismiss, you make a better point with your reference to the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival.
I think it’s quite clear that other hyphenated Americans are looking to “evangelize” their group, in the sense of combating stereotypes and creating more recognition (and sometimes rights) for their community.
This becomes especially clear when one looks not just at the films, but also at the way ethnic media review and write about them.
Comment # 1 by William Morris | Jun 8, 2006 | Reply
I agree with Duffy in theory, and Denhalter in principle…
To the extent that one of the three-fold missions of the Church is to “proclaim the gospel”, you could argue that any artistic output produced by Mormons about Mormons bears at least the fingerprints of evangelism. I grew up in the Church (outside of Utah) with the sometimes disconcerting and paralyzing idea/responsibiltiiy that I was an “example” to the world of Mormonism, something I was never to forget. Ultimately, whether in this life or the next, every soul would have the opportunity to accept or reject the Mormon Church. As such I was more hyper-aware than spontaneous, more cautious and calculating than reckless and free. Some Mormons might feel they live their lives in a constant state of if not active, than passive evangelism.
When we put our art “out there”, can we ever forget we are representing at least Mormon Culture and Mormon Ideals, if not the Mormon Church itself? Is this not a form of evangelizing? You could argue that all Art that stems from Religion is therefore evangelical, but for that to be true all religions would have to be evangelical? Are all religions evangelical? Is Judaism, for example? Are Jews looking for converts, or are they more concerned with their version of “perfecting the saints”? This is why I agree with Duffy in theory. (If that is even what Duffy *meant* in the first place… I was at that session but cannot remember the details.)
Now, having said all that I’d like to say that I agree with Denhalter in principle. Theories represent the ideal, not reality. Even if “proclaiming the gospel” is inseparable from Mormonism (and Mormons themselves), in reality it is often so distant, so subjugated, so non-applicable to a variety of situations (including Mormon Art) as to be inconsequential.
Comment # 2 by Matt Thurston | Jun 8, 2006 | Reply
Why does this even matter. Any of the films that actually mention the Church are a complete embarrassment , and should never have been made.
Comment # 3 by Jennifer | Jun 9, 2006 | Reply
Matt brings up a very important point. Mormon culture inculcates within its ranks an undeniable relationship between social activity and proselytizing. Even the implicit charge that we be an “example” before the world is more than just a reminder of the need for good public relations; it is also tied to a hope for garnering converts. This is nowhere more clear than in Paul Dunn’s defense of Donnie Osmond’s choosing not to go on a formal church mission as his career as a performer was already a greater mission than most members are blessed to fulfill.
The term “evangelize” is inherently troublesome. It means “to preach the gospel to” or “to convert to Christianity;” hence, it is technically a Christian activity. The term “proselytize” is more inclusively religious, meaning “to induce someone to convert to one’s own religious faith.” Those mainstream Christians who do not see Mormons as members of the club would then insist that Mormons proselytize and do not evangelize.
So, although Jews obviously do not evangelize; they also do not proselytize. Try converting to Judaism. Part of the process involves a detailed lecture on why one might not find Judaism a good fit. Thus when a Jew makes a film involving Jewish subject matter, he feels no intrinsic compulsion toward create new Jews. He may or may not have the intention to reveal Jewish humanity. If he does possess that intent, his goal is one of pure public relations unalloyed by the attendant impulse to convert.
Thus, according to Duffy, given their cultural indoctrination, Mormon filmmakers must necessarily be driven (at least in part) by the impulse to proselytize. This makes them more like Christian filmmakers and less like Jewish filmmakers. But as Matt has pointed out, all this is theoretical. When we get down to cases, things are not so simple. Dutcher is clearly uncomfortable with the notion that his films can be seen as part of a larger missionary effort. I strongly suspect that LDS Church leadership would also be surprised (and, perhaps, concerned) to discover that Dutcher’s less-than-idealized depictions of Mormon life are seen as contributing to the church’s three-fold mission.
This is not to say that Dutcher’s films cannot serve as a catalyst for conversion. I happen to know of one instance where Brigham City served just that function. Nevertheless, I feel it obvious that proselytizing the gentiles was not Dutcher’s primary intention when he set out to make that film. I am guessing his priority of conscious motives ran something like this: 1) make money; 2) tell a good story well; and, 3) depict my people respectfully and realistically. “Proselytize the gentiles” lies somewhere down the line along with other unconscious motives like “make mom proud of me.”
Perhaps we should consider the multi-culturalism and proselytism as two ends of a single continuum. All Mormon Cinema falls somewhere along that continuum. The point I was trying to make in my original post is that (according to my personal and limited judgment) these films grow aesthetically better the more closely they approach the multi-culturalist end of the continuum.
Comment # 4 by Scot Denhalter | Jun 9, 2006 | Reply
All good points.
In our working definitions I don’t think that “proselytize” and “evangelize” should be so broad as to encompass films whose main “Mormon” goals are to increase the number of fair portrayals of Mormons in the media or reduce Mormon stereotypes. That’s surely a “Mormon” goal, but it’s far short of evangelizing for converts.
On a related subject, Scot, (& not meaning to threadjack), you mentioned “Angels in America” which I have yet to see. My sense is that I should see it because it is an important piece of (cinematic) drama. My question is, will I enjoy it? I’m not asking for psychoanalysis here, just your sketch of the value of “Angels.” Is it stimulating, informative, insightful or the like?
Comment # 5 by Rob Briggs | Jun 9, 2006 | Reply
Scot nails the heart of the issue: “The point I was trying to make in my original post is that (according to my personal and limited judgment) these films grow aesthetically better the more closely they approach the multi-culturalist end of the continuum.”
I agree. And I think it is true for all religious or political “art”.
Rob, I’ve seen Angels in America, although it was long enough ago that I can’t offer much in the way of a specific critique. Check it out. I didn’t love it, but I found I enjoyed much of it, and found some of it “stimulating, informative, and insightful”. (On the negative side, I do remember thinking it was sometimes a little too self indulgent and overwrought.) For what its worth, I think it has more to say (politically, spiritually, about life) than, say, Big Love. I’m not giving it an overwhelming recommendation, to be sure, but its worth checking out.
Comment # 6 by Matt Thurston | Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
I believe Richard Dutcher was acting as a freelance agent for the Church when he produced God’s Army (1). He portrays in a satanic light a young missionary who was “reading books”, you know “those” kind of books.
Is that really what satan is all about, tempting us to read books.
Watch the film again and pay attention to the negative spin he gives to reading books.
Dutcher has dug an hole for himself and he’s going to have a hard time getting out of it. He has pandered to the Mormon audience and now many of them won’t suppoort his films because he shows missionaries with tattoos and most Mormons can’t handle that.
So now he is doomed to pandering eternally to shallow Mormons and that is a special kind of hell for a producer who would like delve more deeply into the Mormon psyche. Richard has made his bed and now he’s got to lay in it. It is very sad, I’ve enjoyed all three of his movies.
All this time I thought satan was trying to get me to play with myself and now Richard tells me that he was just trying to get me to read books!
Badmormon
Comment # 7 by gordon hill | Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
This discussion thus far does not bode well for the artistic success of Mormon cinema. If Mormon filmmakers feel they ought to proselytize, or present the faith in a positive light, or even counteract stereotypes, their work is likely to suffer artistically.
Consider the possibility that the first truly great Mormon film (there certainly aren’t any yet) might well wind up being made by a “bad” Mormon, perhaps even a non-Mormon. The film’s greatness might arise out of the writer’s or director’s struggle to resolve inner conflicts about some aspect of LDS theology or history, or to reconcile belief to experience, or whatever. Such a film might not present the faith in a wholly positive light, yet it could still be completely Mormon in its sensibility and subject matter. Think of a Mormon version of The Last Temptation of Christ (not such a great film, but at least they tried) or Jesus of Montreal (a much better film and a better example of what I’m trying to get at). An even better example: Schindler’s List (which in the most important sense is a Christian film, not a Jewish film).
Church-approved films like the laughable Book of Mormon Movie: Vol. 1 lack honesty, avoid any meaningful conflict, and refuse to ask any hard questions. I predict that the first truly great Mormon film will be one that deals with inherently troubling material–say, Joseph Smith’s tumultuous life and personality, or the Mountain Meadows Massacre–and deals with it honestly and compellingly enough to get the writer and director excommunicated.
I’m not holding my breath, but such a film will appear someday. I suspect it’ll be worth waiting for. There’s tremendous potential in the Mormon experience, but as yet there’s not enough guts to make it into great art.
Comment # 8 by David Mazel | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
None of the films I list in a subesquent post are “church approved.” That would disqualify them, according to our definition, as Mormon Cinema. Thus, the Book of Mormon Movie Volume was was laughable - yes, but church approved - no.
I agree, however, with your point that great Mormon Cinema may well come from a “bad” Mormon (ex, lapsed, post, jack or whatever you want to call such a creature), but it cannot come (according to the working definition of Mormon Cinema) from a non-Mormon. Of course, just such a great film (from a non-Mormon) will not be excluded from our list of Mormon Cinema. Most likely we will re-work out defintion.
The core of what you say goes straight to the problem of intent. As you have suggested (and I agree), what the filmmaker intends to accomplish can often get in the way of his art. And even if it doesn’t, according to a strict adherence to the literary theory of the “intentional fallacy,” what the artist intends is compeletely irrelevant to his art. I don’t hold to a strict adherance to this theoretical fallacy, but I do think what the author intends isn’t always pertinent. William Faulkner was once asked if he consciously chose to use the symbols literary which so many critics had noted in his work. He responded that, no, he hadn’t intende to do so, but that they were there nonetheless.
The great Mormon film you predict will most likely come from somewhere deep (and perhaps, dark) and, as you say, it will not involve an attempt to put the culture or the religion in the best light. That is not to say that it will embarrass the church or its members. It may be completely neutral on that account. Whatever the case, the themes will be universally human as viewed through the lens of the character’s personal Mormon perspective. It will not be about Mormons. It will be about a Mormon dealing with a conflict that a non-Mormon will find on one level unique and intriguing but on another level compeletly familiar.
Comment # 9 by Scot Denhalter | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
re The Book of Mormon: Vol. 1 being Church-approved–my mistake. It was so bland I just assumed….
In a certain way the insistence that limiting “Mormon film” to films by Mormons makes sense, as long as “Mormon” is not too narrowly defined–not defined in terms solely of Church membership but rather in terms of culture and sensibility. I would consider Walter Kirn’s Mission to America a Mormon book on the basis of its sensibility, even though Kirn (if I remember right) describes himself as ex-Mormon. He must mean that in the formal sense of Church membership or affiliation; he’s clearly not “ex” in the sense that his worldview and much of his literary material remain recognizeably Mormon.
The example that keeps coming to my mind here is Schindler’s List. Despite its Jewish director, it’s clearly a Christian film, concerning as it does a Christian protagonist trying to figure out how to authentically be a Christian in a world where most of the nominally Christian members of his society have sold out to the forces of darkness. I would argue that the central conflict is not between Schindler-as-good-man vs. the Nazis-as-bad-men, but between two modes of Christianity itself: the Christianity of the pogrom and the Christianity of the Sermon on the Mount, of loving your neighbor enough to give your life for him. The film puts its protagonist in the sort of truly difficult spot we have yet to see in Mormon cinema. But I think we will see it eventually. Personally, I think the perfect protagonist for such a film would be John D. Lee. Surely his faith must have clashed strongly with his experience. A deeply significant moral conflict could be played out against some gorgeous scenery, with a little sex and plenty of violence and pathos thrown in to boot.
BTW, does anyone on this site know anything about the brief “Fort Joseph Smith” episode in Starship Troopers? Clearly some sort of inside joke, but what’s the story?
Comment # 10 by David Mazel | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply