Mobsters and Mormons pre-release rumblings
Film, Goings-on July 20th, 2005If you read clear down somewhere in the middle of this thread at a web board, someone who went to a test screening of Mobsters and Mormons (my first speaking role in a major film) thought it was “a breath of fresh air” and “very funny”. My neighbor heard (somewhere, I don’t know where) that it’s “supposed to be pretty good” (well - everything is always “supposed” to be - I’m just a stickler for that phrase. You get the meaning). And in an email conversation with the director, he told me it’s been very well recieved in test screenings. Someone at this blog is dismissing it with prejudice for its film peers. At least let’s be clear that’s prejudice - they haven’t examined the film at all. Apparently those who have examined it like it. So I’m encouraged.
August 1st, 2005 at 5:48 am
At least let’s be clear that being in the film constitutes a bias of its own. It’s not as though you are an objective reviewer so I don’t really feel badly for groaning at Halestorm machine based on their track record of what I *have* seen.
People like a lot of movies. It doesn’t mean they are all quality films.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:00 pm
You give as counterpoint that I’m not objective; but I never made an objective question. I sought reasons to support my bias for this film: I am openly biased in favor of it. Objectivity was never a question for anyone but you, who wrote conclusions that the film is awful, while showing extremely little investigation relating to the actual film. You didn’t mention any friends who recommend against the film, no reviews you have read - you didn’t even mention the trailer! And from your stance of uninformed conclusion you dismiss the three positive references I do cite!
If you were only saying you believed or were afraid this film would be awful, I wouldn’t be so pointed - I’d just try to pursuade otherwise. Maybe you don’t want Mormondom mocked or embarrased with what you may see as art run afoul. Me neither. But I’ve found reason to believe this one won’t be that; for that matter I’ve liked several Mormon comedies.
And I think Mormons often miss the point of comedies about them. We constipate ourselves with scriptures; really what we need is a laxative. Process it, but enough with the stoppage. The whole point of comedy is that we are all fools. And sometimes sinful. Or culturally deplorable.
Your own logic can be used against you:
People don’t like a lot of Mormon movies. It doesn’t mean they are all trash.
My character in the film is based on ignorance and fear. Face the fear with me: I’ll give you a ticket to the premiere with my wife and parents; if I can get an extra one for you (which I may be able to).
I more hope and believe the movie will succeed.
September 3rd, 2005 at 9:18 am
I’ve had the opinion that many of Halestorm’s productions have been decent (R.M. and Singles Ward) to awful (Hometeachers).
I’ve also felt most of mormondom’s entertainment (movies and novels especially) has been the feel-good, lovey-dovey stuff that would appeal to simpletons with no real concept of character or plot-development, and total thrills to see mormon references in a positive light. Those who eat up the stories that say that everything will be okay in all ways as long as you pay your tithing and go to church every week. Or that those who really get to know members of the church will be baptized.
I felt mobsters and mormons would be the same way, little real development, plenty of references to mormon culture, and a predictable family baptism at the end. But, I had a night with not to much going on, and one of my friends offered to get me a ticket, paid back of course, to the premiere. I figured I wouldn’t have to much going on, and it’d only be $3, so what the hey.
I was very pleased with this film. I would have to say it’s Halestorm’s best comedy to date. There is character development, a couple nice, and believable, subplots, and very little “It’s funny because It’s true” material that had been so prevalent in the other Halestorm movies. But most of all- IT IS FUNNY!! It has some moments of sharp humor and cutting insults. It has good situation comdedy, and jokes you would not expect. It does hold onto some subpar sophomoric humor that doesn’t do it any favors, but those are in the minority by far.
I give it a B-plus. Like I said it’s not perfect, holds some uneven material, and some will likely be put off by some of the humor, saying it’s inappropriate, and they are “shocked and appalled” that a movie with the church’s name can contain such things. For those with a sense of humor, though, it is worth it’s price to go see.
Support this, send a message that this is the type of Mormon comedy we would like to see. And pray that you can survive some of the other movies they are preparing to give us (after you see the previews, you will know what I’m talking about, or maybe you will see a poster for God’s Army 2- the Conversion of Cash).
September 3rd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I don’t myself comment on Halestorm in a negative light, ‘cuz hey, these folks gave me some lines in Mobsters and Mormons!
plus I know the thing to be semi-autobiographical of the film’s writer - who penned every film you mentioned, and now Mobsters and Mormons which is also his directing debut.
As a tangent I will say that I was moved by the main character’s moments of self-realization in The Singles Ward. .. I cried, in fact, though I am an easy audience
That aside, I would suggest observations on a culture that, um, can potentially produce art with, um, shallow character development and pat tales on everything turning out right etc., as you say.
I think Mormons - no differently from wider American culture or even the human race - want to see only the best of themselves represented in art. The trouble (and I may have said this elsewhere in this blog) is that to understand and truly represent a height, you must also represent a depth. And mormons, despite our so oft arrogant presumption otherwise, are one and the same with humanity, so that we have the exact same capacity for sin and ignorance as everyone else. Then if we claim knowledge of how to rise higher above the fall, it must be because we more fully understand what goes on in the depths of the fall. But to demand art that denies our falls is not to demand anything representative of reality - it is to demand a picture of an imagined, forgotten Eden, not our present exile into the wilderness. Of course the point is that we may return by grace to the innocence of Eden, but we are going to navigate a whole mess of sin in the process. Moreover, denying our fall ironically binds us further into it, cutting off the grace where we would “stand up” and dust off.
I think another problem with representing sin in art is the line between showing sin as unfavorable through context and consequence versus glamorizing or encouraging it. My frank opinion is that many mormons have a hypersensitive reaction to all representations of evil as encouraging it. This may be a defensive mechanism for the repeated betrayals of bad art truly glamorizing sin. But when art does not glamorize sin, and presents it as a warning and a byword against sin, how much do we lose by dismissing both art and warning? Where we are so hasty to condemn art for a fear we were never asked to have, are we really just subjugating our inborn ability to judge right and wrong to an imagined standard?
Returning to the point - art that denies sin actually gives sin more power over us. Then the way to show we do not want our demons (and to exorcise them) is to acknowledge them, relying on God’s desire to “snatch us free” for our salvation.