The Latest "Movie Made by Mormons" Ain't Too Mormon-Friendly

[smac97]

We've had plenty of conversations about "Mormon" cinema (which I would broadly define as "Movies made by Mormons and about Mormons"). The production of films in this genre has apparently slowed down quite a bit in the last year or two. Financial problems and the poor quality of prior entries is probably to blame.

A somewhat related group of "Mormon friendly" films (made by Mormons, but not with Mormonism as a focus) has been accumulating under the direction (literally) of Ryan Little. He is the director of Saints and Soldiers and Forever Strong. Both of these films avoided profanity and sensuality (though Forever Strong had a rather tame teen pool party - briefly depicting some girls in bikinis - that may have ruffled a few conservative Mormon feathers) and told interesting stories about interesting characters. Unfortunately, neither was a notable financial success. Saints and Soldiers made $1.3 million on a $780K production budget (I'm not sure if that latter number includes P&A - "Prints and Advertising" - which can be a sizable amount). Forever Strong made even less (only $719K), on a probably larger budget. And it was not well-received by critics. I enjoyed both movies and appreciate the effort by Ryan - an LDS director based in Utah - to make quality films that are accessible by, but not necessarily about, Mormons.

I just watched a teaser trailer for Ryan's next project: The Age of Dragons. It has an interesting premise: a re-telling of Moby Dlck, except it's on land, and with dragons instead of whales. Ahab is played by Danny Glover. Vinnie Jones ("Juggernaut" from the third X-Men movie) plays Stubbs. Oh, and it was shot in Utah.

Unfortunately, the teaser trailer suggests that Ryan may be moving past the Mormon-friendly stage of filmmaking. The film includes a character named Rachel, a beautiful-and-fearless dragon hunter and adopted daughter of Ahab. The teaser trailer is brief (only 85 seconds long), but it manages to include not one, but two, shots of Rachel taking her clothes off (not R-rated, but not what I would call "Mormon friendly," either). One shot even appears to be during a sex scene. And the accompanying music is a bit off (heavy metal guitar and drums).

I won't link to it, but do a search for "Age of the Dragons" on YouTube and you'll find it.

Bummer.

-Smac

The teaser trailer is brief (only 85 seconds long), but does

[LifeOnaPlate]

Much of the power of Melville's book comes from the open sea. It seems like the shift to dragons is a ploy to appeal to current tastes in mythical beats more than a way to better employ the metaphor Melville intended. For that reason (much more than the few seconds of a woman's naked back, and certainly more than the music) I think the movie looks questionable.

[LDSToronto]

Unfortunately, the teaser trailer suggests that Ryan may be moving past the Mormon-friendly stage of filmmaking. The film includes a character named Rachel, a beautiful-and-fearless dragon hunter and adopted daughter of Ahab. The teaser trailer is brief (only 85 seconds long), but it manages to include not one, but two, shots of Rachel taking her clothes off (not R-rated, but not what I would call "Mormon friendly," either). One shot even appears to be during a sex scene. And the accompanying music is a bit off (heavy metal guitar and drums).

Well, to be honest, after watching the trailer, I'd say the movie, in total, looks cliche and second-rate, Mormon-made or not. I have a question - why are you hung up on the two second glimpses of female flesh, but not the 60 seconds of violence?

H.

[frankenstein]

the harry potter nude scene is worse.

[smac97]

Much of the power of Melville's book comes from the open sea.

The open sea being unpredictable. Dangerous. Adventurous. I can see that. But snowy, mountainous terrain can be these things, too.

It seems like the shift to dragons is a ploy to appeal to current tastes in mythical beasts more than a way to better employ the metaphor Melville intended.

I am okay with "re-telling" well-known stories by modifying the plot a bit. I'm not sure the filmmakers were trying to create a "better" metaphor than Melville's original, just a different take on it.

For that reason (much more than the few seconds of a woman's naked back, and certainly more than the music) I think the movie looks questionable.

I think Danny Glover comes across as a ham. But who knows? Ryan is a good storyteller. I just wish he would do it without the naked woman (a character who is a newly-created addition to the story, not just a revised aspect of it).

-Smac

[PaulBoyerFan]

Wow, Danny Glover must be desperate for work.

[smac97]

Well, to be honest, after watching the trailer, I'd say the movie, in total, looks cliche and second-rate, Mormon-made or not.

Yes, well. "We dream on a budget," don't we?

I hope it's better than the trailer makes it out to be.

I have a question - why are you hung up on the two second glimpses of female flesh, but not the 60 seconds of violence?

First, I suspect that the film will have more than "two seconds" of nudity. I am accustomed to such things from your average movie director, but not from Ryan Little.

Second, I think on-screen nudity and sexuality is a "bright line rule" that oughtn't be crossed by LDS filmmakers. Same with profanity.

But I don't object to on-screen "violence" per se. It is a qualitatively different aspect of the human condition. I won't go to a movie with gratuitous violence (Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs) or gory violence (pretty much any modern horror movie) or depraved violence (Hound Dog). But violence depicting the struggle between good and evil (Star Wars. Lord of the Rings, The Great Escape, etc.) or even adventurous violence (Moby Dlck, Indiana Jones, etc.) is just hunky dory by me (as long as it doesn't degenerate to above descriptors - gratuitous, gory, depraved, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

Good heavens! This is what you guys consider a "naked woman"? Wow.

[LDSToronto]

Good heavens! This is what you guys consider a "naked woman"? Wow.

*ahem* This is what *one* guy considers a 'naked woman'. And that one guy ain't me. Truthfully, I see more 'nudity' in the weekly advertisements that come with my newspaper.

H.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The open sea being unpredictable. Dangerous. Adventurous. I can see that. But snowy, mountainous terrain can be these things, too.

I think Melville's use of the ocean runs deeper than mere dangerous and unpredictable. (It can be outright monotonous and torturous as well). But above all, it seems to call back to primeval myths of order arising from chaos, the primeval waters from which earth and life emerged. Or like a mother's womb. Stuff like that. Plenty more could be said, but I like the sea imagery and usage much better for the purposes.

I am okay with "re-telling" well-known stories by modifying the plot a bit. I'm not sure the filmmakers were trying to create a "better" metaphor than Melville's original, just a different take on it.

Sure, but to take a classic and considerably weaken it seems like bad taste.

[LifeOnaPlate]

*ahem* This is what *one* guy considers a 'naked woman'.

[Jason]

A re-telling of Moby D!ck in a fantastic setting? Been there, done that. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan even has all the best lines from Moby D!ck in it, paraphrased a bit for the setting;

Khan: I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!

[smac97]

Good heavens! This is what you guys consider a "naked woman"? Wow.

Well, not exactly. I was commenting on what the trailer portends. It shows the female lead taking her clothes off. Twice. In an 85-second trailer. And one of these appears to be during a sex scene. The other depicts a male character spying on her as she is disrobing. Charming. And so Mormon-friendly!

I'm not used to such depictions from Ryan Little.

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

A re-telling of Moby D!ck in a fantastic setting? Been there, done that. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan even has all the best lines from Moby D!ck in it, paraphrased a bit for the setting;

Khan: I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!

You bet! Respinning classic stories through changing the setting and adding characters, etc. is an age old technique. Even Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was taken from an older story. Shakespeare just did it funnier, more cleverly and more tragically.

[Jaybear]

The other depicts a male character spying on her as she is disrobing. Charming. And so Mormon-friendly!

I don't know what you mean. I know alot of Mormons men who enjoy looking at attractive scantily clad women. Come to think of it, other than you and a few others here, I can't think of any heterosexual Mormon men I know who don't find such images appealing.

[daz2]

I hope those offended by suggestions of violence, sex, nudity or profanity do not keep a copy of an nonbowdlerized Bible (or works of Shakespeare either) at home where children can read them. When my wife taught Old Testament in seminary, she told me that more than once the students would come to class and say "Do you know what is in those chapters? Do my parents know I am reading this?"

[smac97]

I don't know what you mean. I know alot of Mormons men who enjoy looking at attractive scantily clad women. Come to think of it, other than you and a few others here, I can't think of any heterosexual Mormon men I know who don't find such images appealing.

Is there a point to your feigning ignorance as to LDS standards of modesty and decorum, Jaybear (besides making yourself look silly, I mean)?

I know church members who find alcohol and drug consumption "appealing." Does that take away from or justify the reality that these folks are not adhering to the Word of Wisdom?

-Smac

[LifeOnaPlate]

You bet! Respinning classic stories through changing the setting and adding characters, etc. is an age old technique. Even Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was taken from an older story. Shakespeare just did it funnier, more cleverly and more tragically.

Weren't practically all of Shakespeare's plays taken from previous stories?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I hope those offended by suggestions of violence, sex, nudity or profanity do not keep a copy of an nonbowdlerized Bible (or works of Shakespeare either) at home where children can read them. When my wife taught Old Testament in seminary, she told me that more than once the students would come to class and say "Do you know what is in those chapters? Do my parents know I am reading this?"

Haha I remember one of my senior companions rising from his morning study one day and saying "The Old Testament: A family story but not for families." Or something like that.

[smac97]

I hope those offended by suggestions of violence, sex, nudity or profanity do not keep a copy of an nonbowdlerized Bible (or works of Shakespeare either) at home where children can read them. When my wife taught Old Testament in seminary, she told me that more than once the students would come to class and say "Do you know what is in those chapters? Do my parents know I am reading this?"

I've been talking about on-screen depictions in movies.

-Smac

[katherine the great]

Well, not exactly. I was commenting on what the trailer portends. It shows the female lead taking her clothes off. Twice. In an 85-second trailer. And one of these appears to be during a sex scene. The other depicts a male character spying on her as she is disrobing. Charming. And so Mormon-friendly!

This is why they are sometimes called "teasers". Maybe he was "spying" on her or maybe he was just walking around the corner and "oops" there she was! Heck! I've seen trailers that knit two completely unrelated scenes together just to play with your mind! At any rate, the director doesn't generally do the trailer anyway. Do you happen to know if this director is also producing this movie? Powerful directors usually call most of the shots and have almost full artistic control--except for editing. Many directors though, are kind of at the mercy of the producers. I feel kind of bad for LDS people who try to make a living as a director or actor because there are so few productions that contain absolutely nothing questionable. It would almost be like trying to be a defense attorney who never represents someone who actually committed a crime.

[Jason]

Weren't practically all of Shakespeare's plays taken from previous stories?

Yes. Very few were original, and even they tended to have borrowed elements.

[katherine the great]

Weren't practically all of Shakespeare's plays taken from previous stories?

Probably. At least his most popular ones. His genius didn't seem to be in original ideas but in great storytelling and basically perfect dialogue.

[frankenstein]

what movies is original? what movie isn't a retelling of story?

chick flicks all pretty much have the same story

sports movies all pretty much have the same story

the vast majority of the rest of the movies are "saviour" movies.

as for Age of Dragons, I like the idea of retelling the story for something more interesting.

[Jason]

what movies is original? what movie isn't a retelling of story?

Back to the Future was pretty original. Yeah, movies have had time machines in them before, but I think this is the first time a teenager met his parents when they were the same age.