What Is The Consensus On "The Witnesses" Film?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

What are your thoughts?

[_Gadianton]

It's looking more and more like to the degree the film proves successful, it will come across to most viewers as a postmodern exploration into a community of storytellers in the fashion of the storyteller itself. It will leave the viewer feeling as if the protagonists are justified in the narratives they stand by, but it will not leave the viewer feeling as if the event must have physically taken place in reality. The viewer will see the divine within the experiences, independent of whether the experiences really happened. The community of the participants will be seen to transcend the literalness of the objects of their faith. The underlying message the viewer will take away, is that Book of Mormon historicity doesn't really matter. A fictional Book of Mormon among believing members shall be more welcome than prior to the films release.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A key question that will help all of us (and I do mean *all* of us) to think about the impending release of the film is: Who is the intended audience? It's okay for movies to simply "assert" themselves--they don't have to openly admit who they're trying to reach. But of course, there is a very different audience for The Avengers: Endgame as compared to, say, the Saw films. Likewise, I am guessing that not everyone saw (or will see) Us, just as there was a wide swath of people who didn't bother to see Meet the Mormons (or, perhaps, Won't You Be My Neighbor?--the Mister Rogers documentary).

But audience is important: the films (and culture) that a given group participates in will say something about that group. (And, of course, audiences will overlap: I'm sure, for example, that there were at least some hardcore TBM Mormons who saw Us.) Likewise, most savvy producers have a "core" audience in mind. Who would that audience be for this "witnesses" film? Are the Mopologists really so ambitious that they are aiming for a national, non-denominational audience? (I.e., the "Hey! We're glad for anyone to watch the film!" sort of approach?) Or are they aiming it primarily at Mopologetic supporters, or at TBMs more broadly? Or, even more specifically, just at readers of Dan Peterson's blog? (A suggestion that would strongly support the speculation that this is a money-making venture....)

My guess, at the moment, is that they don't really know. They are just going to make this movie--folly be damned!--and they don't care who the audience is. I'm wagering that they've embraced the romantic notion that they are faith-motivated "artists," and by golly, they've listened to "The Muse," and this is the product of that holy inspiration. It's sort of fun to imagine that the project is devoid of guile, isn't it?

And it may very well be! If that's true, it both makes me laugh and makes me feel kind of sad. If they are truly sincere and earnest in their making of this, then it is going to be a depressing slog indeed, and, ultimately, an embarrassment--an embarrassment of the "God! I tried so hard and yet I still failed!" variety. This would hold true even if they are intending this only for faithful LDS (because it will show exactly what they think of those "rubes"). *But*, it is not as if the Mopologists aren't known for their duplicity and (usually lousy) craftiness. They may have some ulterior motive here that we're not seeing. Maybe there will be devastating smears of Rodney Meldrum, for example. Maybe the thing will be a vehicle for Ralph Hancock's "radical" political views. Maybe it will be a veiled attack on the new MI.

All of which is to say that I'm simply repeating myself: I very much hope the film gets made, and I could not be more curious to see how and in what ways it is a disaster. I feel as though I am looking forward to the sophomore effort from, e.g., Tommy Wiseau. Maybe things will come together! But, we've seen how things have gone in the past, and it is okay to want a repeat of that unique brand of awfulness. Maybe if we stir up enough hype, it will spur on the producers to complete the film?

[_Gadianton]

A key question that will help all of us (and I do mean *all* of us) to think about the impending release of the film is: Who is the intended audience? It's okay for movies to simply "assert" themselves--they don't have to openly admit who they're trying to reach. But of course, there is a very different audience for The Avengers: Endgame as compared to, say, the Saw films. Likewise, I am guessing that not everyone saw (or will see) Us, just as there was a wide swath of people who didn't bother to see Meet the Mormons (or, perhaps, Won't You Be My Neighbor?--the Mister Rogers documentary).

But audience is important: the films (and culture) that a given group participates in will say something about that group. (And, of course, audiences will overlap: I'm sure, for example, that there were at least some hardcore TBM Mormons who saw Us.) Likewise, most savvy producers have a "core" audience in mind. Who would that audience be for this "witnesses" film? Are the Mopologists really so ambitious that they are aiming for a national, non-denominational audience? (I.e., the "Hey! We're glad for anyone to watch the film!" sort of approach?) Or are they aiming it primarily at Mopologetic supporters, or at TBMs more broadly? Or, even more specifically, just at readers of Dan Peterson's blog? (A suggestion that would strongly support the speculation that this is a money-making venture....)

My guess, at the moment, is that they don't really know. They are just going to make this movie--folly be damned!--and they don't care who the audience is. I'm wagering that they've embraced the romantic notion that they are faith-motivated "artists," and by golly, they've listened to "The Muse," and this is the product of that holy inspiration. It's sort of fun to imagine that the project is devoid of guile, isn't it?

And it may very well be! If that's true, it both makes me laugh and makes me feel kind of sad. If they are truly sincere and earnest in their making of this, then it is going to be a depressing slog indeed, and, ultimately, an embarrassment--an embarrassment of the "God! I tried so hard and yet I still failed!" variety. This would hold true even if they are intending this only for faithful LDS (because it will show exactly what they think of those "rubes"). *But*, it is not as if the Mopologists aren't known for their duplicity and (usually lousy) craftiness. They may have some ulterior motive here that we're not seeing. Maybe there will be devastating smears of Rodney Meldrum, for example. Maybe the thing will be a vehicle for Ralph Hancock's "radical" political views. Maybe it will be a veiled attack on the new MI.

All of which is to say that I'm simply repeating myself: I very much hope the film gets made, and I could not be more curious to see how and in what ways it is a disaster. I feel as though I am looking forward to the sophomore effort from, e.g., Tommy Wiseau. Maybe things will come together! But, we've seen how things have gone in the past, and it is okay to want a repeat of that unique brand of awfulness. Maybe if we stir up enough hype, it will spur on the producers to complete the film?

You know, I'm wondering if this thing is really just going to "get made". I wonder if now, the evidence is pointing to your original assessment that the guys running the film will just go with infomercial 101, and splice whatever material they have together with some stock footage to fill the gaps and get it released. they probably have reams of material and ideas and in the end all those questions -- what are they trying to do? well, bottom line is get it done, get the real corporate pro in and boil it down and put it on the shelf.

[_lostindc]

I am guessing the purpose is financial and a little bit of gaining some sort of Mormon fame.

The money won’t be from the sale of the film, that’s a laughable idea. The money will be from those funding the film and into the pockets of those making the film. Just another side project for the top tier of LDS apologists. These side projects nicely round out the annual income. Between tour tips/free trips, journal wages, films, consulting, etc. I imagine the lucre is alright.

[_moksha]

This documentary stands a chance of becoming the main attraction at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building.

Rave Reviews

"We were called upon by one of the Brethren to produce this marvelous work."
-- Professor Louis Midgley

"Dan has really outdone himself this time."
-- William Hamblin

"If asked, I will write a scathing article against any who dare criticize this work."
-- Dr. Greg Smith

"You can't prove that this isn't a good video."
--Scott Lloyd

[_lostindc]

Moksha those are some incredible reviews. Below are more reviews recently published in Deseret News.

"We find multiple chiasmus throughout The Witnesses proving the truthiness of the restoration."
--John W. Welch

"What's so great about The Witnesses is that we have a wonderful upcoming tour highlighting many of the sites you see in the film. You can book this tour through Bountiful Travel starting at $2,300 per person with tips not included for our tour guides. We outline appropriate tipping expectations in a flyer prior to the tour."
--Bountiful Travel and BYU faculty

"The Witnesses film is just the beginning of a large expansive collection of Mormon literature. Of course we have operating expenses so we ask that you select the 'Donate' link and consider contributing to the defense of the Lord's church and His chosen defenders."
--DCP

[_kairos]

I believe this should be a "rescue" film primarily and a testimony strengthening film as a close second priority. There should be no attempt to address issues that anti's bring up imho.
Pitched to potential donors, the rescue of those ready to jump the fake ship Mormon and the rescue of doubters and the strengthening of testimonies of primarily younger Mormons should be strong motivators to bring enough, and maybe church money, to the get the film completed.
If I were DCP as executive producer ( i bet he loves that title), my goal would be for those in the categories above to say after watching the film and getting up from their seats and walking out the door- "there is no doubt that these 11 witnesses connected spiritually in their encounters with the plates and physically touched as well as saw with their physical eyes the actual gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was written and i believe their stories to be true and i strongly believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, Joseph Smith to be a prophet and the church is truly God's church on the earth today". DCP must make a film that gets that response or at least 90% of that response or he will have failed!
So the film i envision is not an apologetic but a "rescue" the sheep one. To make that film will require portraying all of the 11 witnesses and the scenarios in which they encounter the plates to be highly emotional with the cinematography and the music especially to push at the heartstrings of the viewers - the goal would be to have every viewer teary eyed and emotionally "well up" from beginning to end. by the way Mel Gibson accomplished this to as great a degree as can be done especially for believing evangelicals as they viewed "The Passion of the Christ" particularly the scourging of Jesus scene. Also no one was eating popcorn during that movie!

The Witnesses movie will probably fail as rescue movie but if i were DCP that would be how I would pitch it to the donors and church leaders.

just musin'
k

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think this will be any more or less interesting than other LDS films. Well, maybe less. The only one that I found mildly interesting was about that guy Vincenzo Di Francesca who said, "I will not burn the book!"

[_kairos]

Truthfully I do not know much about the witnesses but it will incumbent on the filmmakers to squeeze as much credibility as they can for each one- honesty, solid citizen, good father and husband, faithful seeker of truth, not a dupe- you get the picture!
Beats me if those characteristics are in the set of the 11 witnesses and because there are some witnesses who "turned" later on, that aspect must be downplayed and sold to the viewer that "so Peter went off the rails later in life , as a witness he was a strong as an oak!

Continue to muse about the Witnesses to be or not to be Mormon
Film of the century!

K