REVIEW: BYU-TV's "First Look" Episode 201

First Look is a weekly series put on BYU-TV that showcases student films and filmmakers with interviews about some of the nuts and bolts that went into the film. I, for one, love the idea that they interview the filmmaker to get a sense of how the film was first seeded and some of the processes that go into creating the film. I'm sure this isn't a new format but all the formats I've seen only include a small clip from the film, which leaves me begging for more. But, come to think of it, only showing a small portion of a clip is a great marketing ploy to get the viewer to purchase the complete film.

Anyway, as I was saying I love the format of the interview to get a basis of the film because when I actually got to watch the film I was already emotionally committed to the film, which enhanced the viewing experience.


For example, First Look episode 201 included a short film I had previously seen, Violette, at this year's LDS Film Festival in the Shorts Program. I remember sitting and watching this film at the festival and thinking about how bored I was with this film and how I didn't really connect with the protagonist. However, after watching the interview with Aline Conti (who directed Violette) and listening to her explain that this was based on her experiences of being the only Church member in her family and going through some alienation after arriving at BYU, I was eager to watch Violette again. Why I was eager was because I wanted to see how the film was an expression of Aline Conti's alienation from family and Church (in the form of BYU due to the fact that the majority of the student body are members) in the form of Violette.

Also, in the interview Aline Conti mentioned that the shepherd in the film was representative of the Savior and how he sustained her during her difficult transition, and I drew the conclusion of that allusion the first time I watched the film, however to have my conclusion validated and explained by the director herself set myself up to connect to the film.

I'm not sure if this is the case with everybody but I find myself wanting to revisit previously viewed films with the new perspective derived from persons directly involved with the making the film.

The other film, The Loss of a Wrestling Match, was different experience because it was brand new to me. Yet again, having interviewed Jed Cowley, the director, I was yet again eager to see what he was talking about in the film.


I think knowing and hearing from the storytellers themselves how the story being told is based on actual experiences creates connections to the fictionalized characters in their fictionalized world. As an aspiring animator the one piece of advice to becoming a great storyteller is to make it so the audience can emotionally and intellectually and that can be achieved through true and relatedly experiences, and First Look helps establish that connection between film maker's vision and audience's expectation.

Missionary Themed Films

There are two genres that immediately come to mind when you mention "church movies"- the quirky goofy movies like Singles Ward and The RM or the missionary movies like God's Army and Called to Serve. Albeit there are other Mormon film genres out there (surprisingly there's a Mormon Thriller about good and evil spirits, but that's for another post), one has to wonder why so many missionary themed films? Personally I like to think its because as clean cut don't-rock-the-boat Mormons we rarely come into contact with "drama" on a daily basis. That's generally speaking of course. However, it is in the mission field where most of us will ever get to experience something found in a Real World episode. You would think by now someone would've come up with a missionary reality show. But, for now, we have the missionary films.

At first, missionary films were made to get little boys excited about serving a mission. Even though they are institutionally made, they are highly propagandistic, because I took the bait, hook, line, and sinker! The films was Called to Serve. My age: 12. After seeing the smiling and happy missionaries, companionships made in heaven, foreign languages, and highly romanticized tracking, I was hooked! Man, oh man, was I in for a rude awakening! My MTC companion was crazy and we almost duked it out one night, the Spanish language was looking impossible to master, and tracking was a nightmare. But as an idealistic and naive missionary I thought Called to Serve couldn't be wrong, because the Church made it, and what they produced was perfect.

Yet, such films are still in circulation today, even though countless return missionaries can attest that the situations portrayed are askew. So why would they continue to be in circulation? Why hasn't someone stood up to denounce their "inaccuracies"? I, personally, think they stay in circulation because they do serve their purpose. They are "perfecting bodies of Christ" in that the films themselves aren't perfect, but they are perfecting vehicles of little boy's desires of serving a mission. As for denouncing them, another response has come about, a more synergistic response: Make films that portray that are more accurate. For, I don't want to entirely dismiss propagandistic missionary films as wrong, for they are right about the happiness involved in serving the Lord and others.

One such film is The Field is White, a low-budget film about a return missionary who loses faith in the wake of his fiancee's death in an automobile accident, and has his faith rekindled from reminiscing in his mission memories.

I enjoyed this film because it captures the essence of what missionary work really is: work. Lots and lots of it. It captured the mundane: the long walks, the miserable tracking, the rejections, the failed appointments, etc. Interestingly enough this film was made on a low-budget, which actually served to reinforce the mundaneness and amateurish qualities of the content. It was full of bad acting, which the mission is full of (scripted discussions, scripted door greets), and amateur film production (not-quite-men-not-quite-boys "producing" an "audience" on an outlandish message). So all in all, this film is more accurate in it's aesthetic and portrayal of the missionary life.

But, if I were to show to this film to a prospective missionary, I would immediately show Christmas Mission immediately thereafter.


Even though it has the aesthetic of a institutional film it goes for the rough around the edges look of God's Army, even though it preceded it a year earlier. Everything about this film was very professional, in fact too professional. Even though it had more realistic situations (tracking is highly unsuccessful with rude people, tension between companions, and bitter yet golden father to teach) it still seemed somewhat unrealistic due to its highly polished aesthetic. However the performances given by Corbin Allred (Elder Tomberline) and Clayton Taylor (Matt) were "real" enough to outweigh its glossy image. This film does leave out a lot of the mundane and highlights more of the ups than downs, which begins to tip it's portrayal into the Hollywood realm.

So, from the numerous films of missionaries I gather we won't be seeing a fading out of existence for this genre. Also judging from the uprising of missionary films it is safe to assume the well of material won't dry up anytime soon. So that leaves the way this story can be told- low-budget vs. high production, amateur vs. professional, documentary vs. drama, etc. And seeing as how their are numerous accounts of missions this story can be told in many different ways.

Native American depictions: "Bitter Wind"

I watched a Scott Whitaker film, Bitter Wind, as part of my research for an upcoming paper I'm writing concerning the depiction of Native Americans in film.

This short film deals with the devastating effects of alcohol on a Navajo family, as retold by the oldest son. We follow the family from the a time where everything is idyllic to a time where the family ranch and family decays as a result of alcohol, to finally their struggle to recreate a new life alcohol-free.

At first, I was apprehensive as I've seen more than enough of bad and inaccurate depictions of Native Americans which further perpetuates stereotypes (evidence of misguided public ). However, with Bitter Wind I was very impressed that many of the Navajo mannerisms were captured on film. I'm impressed because I can easily see how the "acting" of the Navajo actors would be wrong for conventional standards. For example, when the oldest son returns from a school that is located far from his home, he rushes up to meet his aunt, who is outside gathering fire wood, and instead of exploding into bear hugs and tears, they shake hands for a brief second and they wrap a single arm around the other. It's kind of hard to explain this common Navajo greeting, however I was impressed it was unaltered.

There are many other mannerisms in the short film that break Hollywood conventions of which led me to ask the question of why would the film makers preserve them instead of adapting them to the "norms"? At first I thought it was attributed to ignorance, that the film makers didn't know what they were capturing. But, if it was ignorance, then how does that account for the feeling of something doesn't jive with our expectations of "normal" reactions? So then I thought maybe they did know what they were capturing but that raises the question of why did they decide to capture it? There could be a variety of reasons. Maybe the filmmakers knew the Navajo and therefore didn't find anything odd with their performances. Maybe there was some Navajo men or women part of film making crew.

For whatever reason, I found it was a compliment that the small and subtle mannerisms of the Navajo made the final cut. And what impressed me more was that this was an institutional film, not a film created by one of it's own. My Professor said that within Church history, Native Americans held a prominent place, which is totally opposite of Hollywood. Maybe this accounts for the near accurate depiction of the Nez family.

Despite the praise I have for this film and its film makers, I have some qualms about the overbearing use of music and lighting. I found the musical score very overbearing in many scenes and I found the lighting unnecessary. For instance, when the Uncle is trying to talk to his brother about how his addiction is tearing the family apart, a harsh red light is shown on the father as he reacts violently to his lecturing older brother and slaps him across the face. I thought this scene actually suffered from the use of the red light and turned what could have been a shocking scene into a gimmick because the violent face slap was enough to convey the message of rage. As for music, well let me just say that there were scenes with overbearing musical score that were comparable to scenes from Measure of a Man (scene of mother expressing her doubts of the choice of friends her son hangs out with and her son disgustedly reassuring her that nothing wrong is going to happen and walks out of the kitchen *queue overbearing distressing music*)

However, I do realize that at this time those were the popular and effective choices to make. If you've ever seen a live action Walt Disney film from around the same time they employed what we now a days consider gimmicky techniques, and we also have to remember that "Judge" Whitaker started out as an animator working for Disney.

Anyway, all in all I was very impressed with Bitter Wind but flustered that recent depictions of Native Americans in popular Hollywood films retread the same footsteps of its predecessors. However, I do see an uprising effort to accurately depict Native Americans (Steven Spielberg's Into the West).

But, that's the identity crisis that all minorities, ethnically or culturally, struggle with in film, whether made by one's own or by Hollywood.

'The Mormons' & 'New York Doll' : Comparative Documentary Analysis

So I was feeling a little ambitious (ok, a lot ambitious) and decided to view the documentaries of Greg Whiteley's New York Doll and Helen Whitney's The Mormons and compare film techniques of delivering the message or truth (as all documentaries claim to deliver). Boy, were my eyes bigger than my stomach!

Aside from the innumerable discussions that the selected content of 'The Mormons' could, and undoubtedly has, generated, I was very pleased with Helen Whitney's attempt to reach across the whole board and sample from diverse interviewees. Also, I was impressed with the ambitious and bold attempt to objectively address tender issues within Mormon history: Polygamy, Blacks and Priesthood, Gays, Feminists, Politics, and the Mountain Meadows massacre to name a few. I, for one, found myself with the group of Mormons that find themselves "quite afraid of its history, oftentimes afraid of real historical investigation," (Jon Butler, The Mormons) because of ongoing aforementioned controversial topics. However, I was fascinated by the "information" (I put them in quotes because I found most of the interviews biased) "because much of their allegedly strange and messy past is connected with core beliefs" (Mario S. De Pillis, Review of 'The Mormons', BYU Studies).

But, enough of the content.

One difference I noticed between the two documentaries was the length of interviews. In The Mormons the interviews tended to be surgically edited while those of New York Doll tended to be looser in its length, capturing just as much silence as speaking. The difference in length helps the viewer, for lack of a better word, trust what is being presented. For instance, there was a part in the second segment of The Mormons where it was allegedly said that Apostle Boyd K. Packer made a statement against Homosexuals, Feminists, and Scholars. This was combined with images of newspaper columns with this paraphrase splashed across the title, and as soon as this image time frame ended, Elder Packer is shown saying that he must have said it if it was in print. This was jarring for me, not because he was purportedly confessing his guilt, but because the edit happened to quickly, kind of like a slight of hand magic trick. I felt there was more to what Elder Packer was explaining that was deliberately cut. Also, I think I only heard the voice of the interviewer once throughout the whole four hour program. It kind of makes you wonder what type of questions were being posed.Now, contrast this with New York Doll. The interviews were not cut down as often and the voice of the interviewer could be heard frequently. This type of largely untampered interview instills in me that no slight of hand magic trick is being pulled over my eyes (and ears), and I am more readily open to influence from these types of interviews.

Another thing I noticed was the violin or some type of classical music that accompanied the interviews in The Mormons. Contrast this to the interviews in New York Doll where the interviews didn't have any music with it.

With strategic edits and musical overlays I am more inclined to question the sincerity of any type of interview as opposed to those that do without. However, to be fair to The Mormons I was careful to take into consideration the breadth and plethora of information that needed to be carefully selected in addition to film techniques.

Overall, I was impressed with Helen Whitney's The Mormons but as Brian Q. Cannon, Associate Professor of History at Brigham Young University, said in his own conclusion of The Mormons, "If one role of the historian is to remind storytellers that the past is not infinitely malleable, one role of the filmmaker as artist may be to juxtapose discordant elements from the past in fresh, creative ways."

In addition to this, I also say that another role of a filmmaker is that of a storyteller, which hints at the possibility that Helen Whitney may have had a hint of storytelling, in addition to journalistic, tendencies in mind. This would certainly explain the dramatic music soundtrack to her interviews.



Suggested Links:

newyorkdollmovie.com
pbs.org/mormons

Mormon Documentaries

This past Thursday night we dived into the Mormon Documentary, which attempts to get back to the essence of people and their normal, mundane ways of living, and reveal hidden character. This is all done in the spirit of the Transcendental Style of film making, minimal edits, no musical score, and long shots.

Fit for the Kingdom films are series of short documentary films shot with consumer level equipment focusing on the everyday, ordinary LDS person(s) who are just living life the best way they know how. Some films are as short as five minutes while others can be as long as fifty minutes, and all focus on a person and permits them do the uninterrupted (not to mention unscripted) talking as they go about their lives.

This is all done in the spirit of a manifesto that Dean Duncan, Associate Professor of Theatre and Media Arts at Brigham Young University, wrote outlining key points:

1. Portray ordinary people in ordinary circumstances working toward a worthy goal of sainthood

2. Comfort and strengthen viewers through aforementioned portrayals

3. Attempt to capture the process of transcendence of life's trials

The short films we viewed had persons of every age and nationality, from Leroy, a senior cross walk guard who isn't shy to admit he leads a boring but peaceful life, to a Heather, a handicapped young girl who is loved by her family and the trials and blessings that have come into their lives.

Some of the short films we watched expressed belief in God, while others were just good old fashion fun with no mention of theology or ideology whatsoever. The accomplishment of the key points in Dean Duncan's Manifesto are in viewing of the short films collectively rather than individually, as the contrast of lives reveal more than if treated individually.

In some short films such as Girl's Camp and Greg nothing of religion was discussed or trials recounted, just youth being youth. A question was raised in my class concerning these short films and if they were aligned with Dean Duncan's Manifesto. I have given this some thought and I would have to say 'yes'. I say this because the short films that don't document persons recounting difficulties transcended, they do show the character of the person(s) which does reveal much of their belief system. For instance, as I watched Girl's Camp, Greg, and Whitney & Lynette I thought to myself that if these persons were not LDS (or any other religion affiliated) things could've taken a different route. For example, the girls in Girl's Camp could've smuggled alcohol into camp and had fun documenting pranks on those that unwittingly passed out (or something of this nature as seen in this YouTube video, warning: some swearing involved), or Greg in Greg could've talked about all the parties and girls that is usually associated with a new license. However, the fact that these things never came up goes to show the under lying character that was nurtured with Christian ideals, which subtly fulfills with Dean's Manifesto (Sorry if I keep calling it "Dean's Manifesto," I just don't know what else to call it).

All in all, I think the current short films is the product of this key statement found in Dean Duncan's Manifesto:

"We wish to reveal. In stead of the becoming that is prerequisite to conventional narrative, we seek subjects that demonstrate righteous being."

Pioneer films & The Body of Christ

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

For the body is not one member, but many.

And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

-1 Corinthians 12:12,14,21,27

In our last class we discussed how films with church content can also function as imperfect members (form) in a perfect church (content). For example, "Together Forever" was by far from being perfect, yet it serves a purpose in instigating interest in the Church.

With this in mind we watched several Pioneer films celebrating the sesquicentennial anniversary of Mormon Pioneers. (As a side note I know our professor discussed this concept with us because he wants to us see that every film, however imperfect, was in a way a stepping stone to more effective films, and we need to see this significance other wise we wouldn't have more successful films such as Legacy, however I think he said this because he knew how much we would laugh at these films.)

The films that were hard to swallow was Legacy West, a PBS documentary that followed the trek from Omaha, Nebraska to Salt Lake Valley, Utah, and Woman, the Pioneer, which uses interpretative dance and music to express the emotions that the early Pioneers undertook. They were so hard to watch because they did not use Hollywood conventions. For example, Legacy West was broken into segments for every part of the journey, narrated at the beginning to inform the viewer of historic events, and this was followed by hymns or folk songs accompanied by time-lapse photography of clouds or water. This was the pattern throughout the series. For me personally I found it tedious to watch. I was yearning for something dramatic to happen, a wagon gets raided by Indians or oxen go berserk and stampede into the wild. But nothing happened.

Woman, the Pioneer was equally monotonous and tedious to watch because it used the same melancholic music and was set to photography of young women dressed up in pioneer dress and performing interpretive dance in the hills (think of the the Sound of Music where Julie Andrews sings and dances with the kids up in the mountain meadows, but without the singing). Some classmates found this interesting, but I could not connect with this.

As boring as these films were for me, our professor reminded us that film is an art medium and as an art medium need not adhere to strict rules (i.e. Hollywood) but is free to be expressed in any way. With this in mind I got to thinking about the audience that would appreciate, connect, and even have a spiritual experience with these particular films. I also thought of the "body of Christ" and how I shouldn't write these films off as boring or poorly produced. If we take the "body of Christ" metaphor, than these films are just as important as higher production (and more popular and successful) pioneer-celebratory films such as Legacy or Faith in Every Step.

Now this begs two questions to be asked: "Who would find these films spiritually enlightening?" and "How can I find these spiritually enlightening despite my Hollywood-convention conditioned mind?" For Woman, the Pioneer, dancers and women would find this uplifting, and since I am a guy and not a dancer, it is no wonder why I found it not engaging. For Legacy West, my first thought for a potential audience would be retired senior citizens who want peace and quiet. I most likely am generalizing for the first question as this question could have many possible answers, but if we're to take my answers at face value than I have virtually no chance at enjoying these films for (a) I'm not planning any time soon to become a female, nor (b) will senior citizen status come for many years.

After these thought experiments I conclude that these films were not created for monetary gain or popularity or even to create a spiritual experience, but they are primarily for the "artists" involved in the films, and secondly for any who would appreciate it.

REVISTED: Together Forever

I just wanted to briefly revisit a previous post, Emotional Manipulation, that discussed some of my concerns of the techniques employed to manipulate the emotions.

I just read the an article that my professor, Gideon O. Burton, co-authored with a colleague, Thomas J. Lefler, entitled Toward a Mormon Cinematic Aesthetic: Film Styles in Legacy, that explores the "Hollywood movie" and Paul Schrader's Transcendental Style.

In a nutshell, the "Hollywood movie" is basically what we see everyday; a clear cut narrative that usually focuses on one protagonist from intro, conflict, and resolution. All the forms of film are employed that tells simply and clearly with music scores eliciting certain emotional responses, editing that reads clearly, and visuals that appeal. These are all driven to "not simply serve an idea; they create vividly felt vicarious experience." (emphasis added; Lefler, Burton; pg. 275)

On the other hand, transcendental style is the film theory that the viewers must dig out the spiritual or transcendence of a film that down plays the visual appeal, contains cycles in its structure, musical score is dropped for ambient sounds, cuts are held to a minimal, and in the moment of a climax, a visual symbol replaces the dramatic musical score.

As I read this article I had Together Forever in mind, and could easily see that this short film employs the "Hollywood movie" mold, with a dramatic score to stir the emotions, "seamless" cuts, and appealing visual elements (actors, locations, props, situations).

So does this sway my opinion either for or against it? I'm still not sure. I just wonder if the filmmakers intentionally wanted to manipulate emotions, for which is grounds for me rejecting this film, or if this film is just one stage in a developing genre. I'd like to say it was film that was part of development, because all the institutional Church films are vast and different and just recently it seems to be finding its style that agrees with moral film making decisions and its message.