BYU-TV's First Look series

BYU-TV's First Look series is a weekly show that showcases student films in an effort to get them more recognition. The show usually showcases 2 or 3 student films and contains clips from each movie as well as interviews with the filmmakers. I really enjoyed watching this because I have never really had the opportunity to see all the work that goes into making a movie. I could assume it takes a lot of work, but I never really saw the actual process.

For instance, I liked how they showed pre-production and how they have different people in charge of art, story boards, locations, camera, etc.

The first film on this episode was called 285: The Movie. This film I didn't really get. It was basically a film about a film class making a film. The interviewer once asked the filmmakers how it was received at BYU's Final Cut Student Film Festival and they said that not many people there got it either. The interviewer then remarked that perhaps it was "so inside that nobody outside got it." I think that's so true. I felt like one of those "outsiders" and I just didn't get the movie. However, I believe the First Look series did their job in at least getting the film seen. I most likely would never have given this movie a chance had I just watched it without any commentary. The interview and the way they explained certain portions of the movie and the effects they were trying to get got me emotionally invested in the film and kept me watching.

The second student production on this episode was called "Hoagie's." I thought this film had a lot of potential. At the beginning of the interview the filmmaker summarizes the movie and how he thought of the idea. It's based on a website called www.ncmo.com, where people can get on and sign up to meet with someone of the opposite sex at a certain time and place for a...well, you can guess fromt the title. He then says the premise of the movie is to show just what some people are getting themselves into when they sign up for these things. You could get matched up with someone that's...well...repulsive. I became really excited; I thought it would be so funny. However, as I watched the movie I felt like I was watching an amatuer FHE video. Anyone could have made that film. It wasn't extremely clever either. I was a little upset that the filmmaker ruined that much potential.

Overall I think the First Look series put on by BYU is a positive thing for up and coming filmmakers because it gets their films out in the general public, and the commentary gets viewers emotionally invested which keeps them watching.

Missionary Films

Watching God's Army and The Best Two Years in the same night enabled me to see differences that I otherwise might not have seen. These two movies are completely different in their portrayal of missionary life and it made me really think about how I think it should be depicted on screen.

Having never served a mission maybe I'm in no position to judge a films portrayal of it, but I felt like in God's Army they were straining to show every single bad situation a missionary could find himself/herself in. I didn't feel like God's Army was inspirational at all. Sure there were certain isolated inspirational moments and lessons to be learned in the movie. For instance when the senior missionary rips into the missionary who is reading anti-Mormon literature and planting doubt in the greenie. I found myself cheering, "Yah! You tell him! Read OUR stuff for a change!" And when the senior missionary told the greenie that he could choose whether or not he really wanted to believe, and that while he could teach him the rules and what to say, "what gets you up in the morning, talking to strangers, I can't teach you that. That you have to learn on your own." And the story of Benny being healed and then baptized was very touching. However, while these incidents were inspirational, I felt like they were just trying to hold their head above water in a sea of doubt, despair and negativity. I felt like the non-inspirational aspects of the movie overshadowed the inspirational ones. Now, I realize that for a movie to sell it needs a certain dramatic effect, an effect you probably won't capture if you stick to solely the mundane tasks of every day missionary life, however I do wonder how much of and what kind of drama we need. I thought The Best Two Years captured the same rigors of mission life without all the doubting, negativity and sadness.

I felt like The Best Two Years was truly an inspirational story. The part where the wayward, lazy missionary finally realizes that he really does have a testimony was so touching. And I love how they showed that a hard working, even if naive, greenie can change the lives of those around him. I also really liked how they demonstrated that office, status, and numbers isn't everything in life or on in the mission field.

In other words, I think both films have their good points, however if I were to choose which one I would want my 18 year old soon-to-be-missionary to see, I think I would choose The Best Two Years. I agree that you don't want to give future missionaries the impression that missions are a piece of cake and they'll never have any problems, but you still want a mission to be seen as a positive thing rather than a trial of faith in every case.

Saturday's Warrior

I recently watched the Mormon musical Saturday's Warrior for the first time in probably 10 years and I must say it was a very interesting experience. What most intrigued me was how aggressively opposed to the movie EVERYONE was. When I told my roommates I was watching Saturday's Warrior I immediately found myself having to quickly explain that it was for a class (implying that there was no way I would choose to watch it on my own). Also, I hoped to watch it in the safe, privacy of my own apartment, assured that no one would walk in on me watching it. However, I don't have a VCR in my apartment so I had to ask my brother if I could watch it at his. He said yes but it was obvious he was a little embarrassed about it. While watching it at my brothers place with some of my friends (who assured me that they were only watching it with me to keep me company and to be good friends) I witnessed a lot of negativity towards the film. For instance, one of his roommates walked in halfway through the movie and immediately said, "What are you doing? That's my VCR you're playing that on!" Another of his roommates walked in and started belting the songs (that was the nicest response I got, although who knows if he was being sardonic or not). My roommates also took every opportunity to make fun of the movie.

This hostility really intrigued me. Why do members of the church hate this movie SO much? I'll admit the movie is totally cheesy and bad, but in my opinion so is every other musical. For instance, my roommate made fun of the scene where Julie is reading her letter from Wally and starts singing, by saying in a very sarcastic tone, "ya, because I always sing while reading letters." At that point I turned to her and said, "Are you kidding me? That's what they do in every musical. They always bust out in song at random times."

Another observation I made was that everyone made fun of the songs, yet they all knew every word of them. I thought maybe no one likes them because they're really catchy and get stuck in your head (in fact I still have them stuck in my head and I watched it on Sunday). To tell the absolute truth, I actually kind of liked a lot of the songs, especially when compared to other cheesy musicals, which brings me to another observation. On the way home from Logan on Saturday my friends were listening to the soundtrack to Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. I've never seen the movie or the play so perhaps I shouldn't pass judgement, but man those songs were terrible and totally cheesy! Yet the same friends who were making fun of Saturday's Warrior said they absolutely LOVED Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Huh? What's the difference? Is it Mormonism that we are embarrassed to have depicted in a musical? Is it because it's so dear to us? Or are we just embarrassed about our own culture? Because let's face it, Saturday's Warrior does a pretty good job of showing different aspects of Mormon culture as well as some of the difficulties and challenges we face in life. Big families, a wayward child, coping with death, missionary life, Dear John's, wedding plans, peer pressure, finding "the one," and pre-earth life. These things are very much a part of culture and are still topics of "Mormon films"today. So why is this one so hated?

In talking to some friends about this phenomena I got a couple of possible answers. One older woman who loved the play in the 1970s suggested that they just should have kept it as a play and never made a movie out of it. This would have endeared it in the hearts of members as a work of art and the next generation would have never had occasion to pass judgment on the movie by comparing it to other film musicals. We also compared it to the way they made The Phantom of the Opera into a movie recently. It was a huge success, mostly because it is a great story with great music, but I think it also has to do with the fact that they didn't try to give the movie the appearance of a play. Saturday's Warrior looks like they just filmed one showing of the play, because every scene is filmed on a the set of a play. It may have been a little better had they used more technology and made a movie instead of a filmed play.



Another complaint I have heard on more than one occasion is that the film has introduced many misconceptions into LDS theology. For example, the idea that a person in pre-earth life would be interacting with someone in post-earth life has caused many to think that, for instance, our grandparents who have passed on are talking to our future children right now, etc. Another one popular among young single adults is the attempt to find and marry "the one" that you knew in the pre-earth life. And their attempt to show the passing through the veil is pretty funny, but who knows what it's really like. I don't. Anyway, to these arguments I would say that while I wish they could have been a little more doctrinally accurate, it's just a musical, made for fun. If I'm looking for something that's doctrinally sound, I'm not going to go to a musical to find it. The nightly news also introduces misconceptions in people's minds about what's going on in the world, does that mean we shouldn't watch it? It all comes down to doing our own research rather than relying on media and entertainment to provide us with knowledge about the world, our religion, etc.

The hard thing about this post is, I still haven't really come to a conclusion regarding whether I like Saturday's Warrior or not. Part of me wants to be different and say, "It's not that bad, and I kinda like some of the songs." But in Mormon culture today it's seems to not be very kosher to admit such a blasphemy. I want to be cool, and you can't be cool and still like Saturday's Warrior. I still don't think I would be caught dead purchasing the movie. But who knows, maybe one of these days I'll man up and go against the grain of acceptable Mormon entertainment.

World Wide Leadership Training Meeting

This years World Wide Leadership Training Meeting was much different than in years past. For starters, the meeting is published on the church's website for all to see time and again rather than being shown to a select few in a one-time meeting. To me this shows how important the council being given is to every member of the church.

The format of this meeting was different than anything I've ever seen put out by the church. For one, the bulk of the meeting was centered around a round table discussion with Dallin H. Oaks (representing the Q of the 12), Julie B. Beck (representing the Relief Society), Susan W. Tanner (representing the YW), and Cheryl Lant (representing the Primary) and Jeffrey R. Holland, who was serving as the mediator for the discussion. I thought this was a great way to hold this meeting because it made the viewer feel like they were apart of the discussion. It was very formal yet casual in that those participating had notes but were not reading from a script but were literally having a discussion. The meeting was held in a very simple room with dim lighting, inviting a relaxed and casual feeling.

I also thought the topic of discussion for the meeting was different than I was expecting. I expected a leadership training meeting would be more geared to church leaders and discuss organizational issues, how to teach better, how to encourage missionaries, etc. Instead they made the meeting applicable to everyone in every stage of life and focused almost entirely on the family and life's decisions from dating to bearing children to the challenges of old age. Throughout the meeting I kept wondering, "how is this a leadership training meeting?" But then I realized that I think what they are trying to drive home is that we are all important in the church, we are all leaders, and that the family is the most important thing in this world.

Overall, I think this meeting was a great step in the church's use of film to include every member of the church in leadership discussions and training.

Together Forever vs. Truth Restored

Last week we watched the film Together Forever which depicts couples and family's who have struggled with some of life's greatest questions such as: where do I go when I die? Can I have my family with me in the next life? What can I do to love my spouse and help our marriage? How do I turn my life around? These and other questions were answered in the film by showing these people tell "their stories" and how the gospel of Jesus Christ has helped them. This is all well and good, however it is quite clear that they are using professional actors and making up the stories. For instance, they had the man behind the camera asking the actor questions. To me that just screams "I am reading from a script! This is all made up!" It doesn't even leave room in my mind to believe it is real and therefore I don't take it seriously.

Prof. Burton posed to us this question, "What are the moral implications of films that employ manipulative measures to achieve noble means?" I think this film has a noble purpose which is to aid in proclaiming the gospel and show how the teachings of Jesus Christ can help us in life's struggles. However, I think it accomplishes this purpose in a manipulative way. I know that my heart strings were pulled while watching the film, and it was only after reflection on the discussion before the film, and knowing they were just actors playing a part, that I realized it was only my emotions being touched, not the spirit. For me the problem with the film is that it is pulling emotional strings and disguising it as the spirit for those who don't know the difference.



I think the film could have been much more effective had they used real people telling real life experiences. This is why I have chosen to contrast Together Forever with the new commercial spots done by the church entitled "Truth Restored." These short clips are in simple black and white (not employing strategic use of color as was done in Together Forever) and show normal people telling their stories. The church experimented with these spots in certain states to test responses by people in order to determine if they should proceed to show them nationwide. To me these clips have a greater sense of legitimacy to them than anything shown in Together Forever. I wonder if that is simply because I know there are no actors or scripts? Had I not been told that there were actors in Together Forever would I have been more impressed with it?

Again I think the problem with Together Forever is that it is pulling emotional strings and disguising it as the spirit for those who don't know the difference. In a way they're making it too easy. They're taking a shortcut in sharing the gospel by telling a touching story, pulling at people's heart strings and having them believe they're feeling the spirit. On the other hand, who knows? Maybe they are feeling the spirit. And I'm sure there are countless stories of those who were led to investigate the church after watching Together Forever. I'm simply saying that I think "Truth Restored" has a better approach, especially if people know that those telling the stories are not actors, but real people.

Click here to watch a spot of "Truth Restored": http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/exhibit#Sandy_adversity

Accuracy in Children's Films: A Problem?

I have grown up watching the Animated Stories from the Book of Mormon, The Greatest Adventure Series, and other similar films and think they are amazing learning tools for children. However, I have heard it argued that such films can be problematic and even detrimental to a child’s learning because they are not completely “accurate.” I have heard one person point out that once a child in her ward bore his testimony about something or someone that was in the movie but not in the scriptures. Such people believe these films can be confusing to children and therefore shouldn't be watched.

Similarly I know people who will not watch such movies as The Patriot or Pearl Harbor because they aren’t totally "accurate." As a history major, and therefore one who is almost obsessed with facts and checking and re-checking sources, I still believe that as long as they don’t blatantly change the story or change the doctrine…WHO CARES. If movies like The Patriot and Pearl Harbor inspire me to love my country and honor those who gave their lives in battle I think the movie has done its job. Similarly, if animated scripture stories instill in me a positive outlook on and a love of the scriptures (rather than thinking they are boring as many children probably do) I believe they have accomplished their mission. Recently in class we watched the film "A Time for Sowing" in which parents were charged with the responsibility of teaching their children gospel principles rather than relying solely on church and other auxiliaries. This is nothing new. Leaders of the church have always placed this responsibility on parents. So also we should not rely on a film to teach our children what is in the scriptures. It is a parent's duty to make sure children can distinguish between the cartoon and the actual scriptures. Although I don't see much that would have to be distinguished in the first place. why are we expecting a 5 year old, or even a 10 year old, to be an expert on the scriptures and what is accurate and inaccurate?

I also know these videos can be powerful missionary tools because I have seen it first hand. For example, my former cross country coach in Las Vegas recently bought the Bible movies for his 6 year old son because he saw how much he knew about the Bible simply from watching the videos with his friends.

With these videos children begin learning the scriptures at a much younger age than they otherwise would have because they make learning fun by using mediums children enjoy. If these films can instill in my future children a love of the scriptures and of learning (which I believe they can) then I will make sure I have them in my home.

Is media needed/useful for gospel instruction and propagation?

Last week we began the fourth wave of Mormon Cinema which has been characterized as the "Mass Media Era." One of the films we watched, and the one which will serve as the catalyst for the topic of my post, was "Where Jesus Walked." This film was produced by the BYU Motion Picture Studio in 1978. Its production was the crowning event of the long film career of Director Scott Whitaker. It was filmed on location at such places as Jerusalem, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee, and others. As the film goes to each location a narrator gives gives insights into the life of Jesus Christ and reads scriptures associated with each site. Paintings by Harry Anderson are also strategically used in the film to continually bring the readers mind back to the days of Jesus and picture him walking in the modern places being shown.

This brings me to the discussion we had in class and which I would like to further discuss here. The question was raised, "Is it necessary to have a film about the life of Jesus? Does it help us better understand the scriptures? What about all those people in earlier days who understood the scriptures just fine without film? It has been said that film is the language we speak today. People in all ages of the world have had a need to understand the world around them, and they used whatever means available to do so. Film is one of the mediums we use to understand our world today. Films can connect us to the past, present, and future by transporting our thoughts to something/somewhere other than our present situation. Films such as "Where Jesus Walked" can in some ways connect us to the life of Jesus and make the stories we read more meaningful. I think seeing the scenes discussed in the New Testament on screen can be helpful in my study of the gospel. For instance seeing the Sea of Galilee in a low valley with choppy waves makes the story of the disciples waking Jesus to save them from the brutal waves all the more believable.

Also, I believe the church recognizes the importance of using different mediums to help spread the message of the restored gospel. They seem to always be in the forefront of new media technologies. This is evidenced by the fact that BYU was one of the first universities to establish a motion picture studio, second only to USC. Also, they recognized immediately the success of Walt Disney studios and traveled to their headquarters to learn their techniques. Just recently at the BYU-Hawaii campus M. Russell Ballard asked students to use new media such as blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and others to participate in a worldwide conversation about the church. Many think that because the leaders of the church are often older men they don't know what's going on, well they do and they know that the media can be a powerful tool in spreading the gospel.




We also watched a 1970 film from a series entitled, "The Church in Action," a film reminiscent of the church's "World News Report" of today. The film showed members of the church from around the world, gave statistics on church membership, and introduced the viewer to new and old leaders of the church and their respective duties. The church has grown rapidly since the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. No longer is ours a Utah church with most of its members living in the Western United States. My great-grandfather has a couple of books given to him (and apparently the entire church) for Christmas that were signed by the First Presidency. Such a gesture would be impossible today, with membership numbering over 12 million. Today there are more members outside the United States than in and a person can go their entire life without ever seeing the prophet in person. As the church spreads and its members potentially become more disconnected than in times past, films such as "The Church in Action" can serve an important purpose in re-establishing ties with members in distant lands. It's a way for members to get to know the leaders of the church as well as be informed of the church's activities and growth. Because film is the language we speak today I think it will and must be continually used as a means for gospel instruction as well as a means to connect members of the church.

Brigham Young

Darryl F. Zanuck's Brigham Young was originally released on September 27, 1940. This film is arguably the most important film in Mormon history. Just 18 short years earlier the film Trapped by the Mormons was released, which negatively depicted the Mormons. And just 11 years before that A Victim of the Mormons, the first anti-Mormon film, was shown to large audiences. Because of these films and other popular culture it was only natural that people associate Mormons with polygamy, Utah, missionaries, and violence . To many, Mormonism represented all that was evil in the world.

Then in 1930 the Hays Production Code was passed which, among other things, provided that "Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains," and " No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith" (http://prodcode.dhwritings.com/index.php). All of the sudden depictions of Mormons in film took a 180 degree turn for the better. No longer were Mormons subject to scorn and ridicule, but in fact held up for praise as the embodiment of true patriotism and frontier courage and optimism. Members of the church were so encouraged by their new public image that they came from far and wide to view the film on opening night in Salt Lake City. 7 theaters were filled to capacity, smashing records for movie premiers.


(Vincent Price as Joseph Smith)

In general the movie respected the culture and religion it depicted. A Mormon would be hard-pressed to find anything in the movie that should have been excluded. However, in hindsight some may look at the film and wish the writers had chosen to include certain aspects of the Mormon religion and culture. Things such as baptism, the Book of Mormon, priesthood, apostles, and main points of doctrine are major themes of Mormonism that were obviously left out. Others may wish the film would have shown things a little differently, such as Brigham Young's struggle with doubts regarding his call as a prophet.

In my opinion "beggars can't be choosers." In light of the previous depictions of Mormonism, members of the church were (and should have been) grateful for simply being treated fairly and honestly in a film. Members of the church have the same dilemma today. We want to be taken seriously as a religious group and to be thought of as important enough to be the subject of documentaries and films, yet when we are we feel like we have to fight every little point they get wrong. It would be a hard thing to find a completely objective director who would be able to portray Mormonism in the exact way every Mormon would like themselves portrayed while at the same time making his film understandable to a larger audience. Such a task is virtually impossible.


(Tyrone Power as Jonathan Kent and Linda Darnell as Zina Webb)

Therefore I conclude that we can't have it both ways, and Darryl Zanuck's Brigham Young fulfilled what I think was it's purpose, which was to reverse the negative image of the Mormons and replace it with a depiction of Mormons as courageous, faithful, pioneering men and women with a clear vision of their mission in life.

Emma Smith: My Story

Last Saturday at the LDS Film Festival I had the opportunity to watch "Emma Smith: My Story." I had heard from various graduate students in my Mormon History class (students who know their LDS history) that this film was very good and fairly accurate. So I decided this was one of the movies I wanted to see. I was not disappointed.

The movie was made by the Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Hale Smith Historical Society and therefore there was considerable research done to ensure as much accuracy as possible. A couple of descendants of Emma and Joseph were also involved in the movie making process including Gracia Jones (well known author on the subject) and Michael Kennedy (President of the JS Jr. and ES Historical Society). One aspect of the film that I was particularly pleased with was the use of the same actors as those in the Temple Square film "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration." I thought these actors did an amazing job and was glad to have them back for this film on Emma.



The film is narrated by Joseph and Emma's adopted daughter, Julia Murdock Smith, who begins by recounting the marriage of her mother to Major Lewis C. Bidamon one year after Joseph Smith's death. She tells the story of Bidamon's unfaithfulness to Emma when he had an illegitimate child named Charlie with a young woman named Nancy Abercrombie. Nancy could not care for Charlie so Emma took him in as one of her own. She even employed Nancy in her home so she could be close to her child. Upon her deathbed, Emma encouraged Bidamon to marry Nancy so that Charlie could be raised by his true mother and father. This story shows the heart of Emma Smith, and is one not often told to members of the church. It was from this moment I knew they were going to attempt to tell the whole of Emma's story, holding nothing back.

The movie was different from any church movie about the restoration I had seen before. Rather than having Joseph at the forefront, it showed the events of the restoration through her eyes. The many persecutions suffered by Emma and Joseph including the loss of 6 of their 11 children in infancy, Joseph's frequent incarcerations which left Emma alone, and her difficulty explaining her love for Joseph and the religion he restored to her family are all powerfully shown in the film. These powerful portrayals of her courage and perseverance magnificently led up to my favorite part in the film. Emma is shown talking to the now grown Julia (who is experiencing troubles of her own in her health as well as her marriage) who asks her about plural marriage. Emma states that she just doesn't like to talk about it because it was such a hard time in her life. She also tells the story of Joseph's attempt to escape incarceration in Carthage by going Westward, and how she wrote him a letter asking him to come back. In recounting these two events the film shows Emma saying she regrets that sometimes she let her pride and the desires of her own heart get in the way of what she knew was right and good. Then in response to Julia's question that if she could change anything about her life what would it be, Emma replies "Me." I thought this was very powerful because so many members of the church (including myself at times) believe that Emma did not live up to her calling or that she is somehow in trouble with the Lord because she did not go West with the main body of the Saints or because she struggled with the idea of plural marriage. In the film, by having her say that in hindsight if she could go back she would change only herself, it made me re-think my ideas of her. What if she just made a mistake? Is she not allowed to have feelings of possessiveness over Joseph and his time with her? How many times in my own life to I let my pride or the things that I want get in the way of making correct choices? The scene was especially powerful because for the previous hour I had been shown all the many sacrifices and loneliness she had to endure. I believe Emma Smith was an amazing lady who perhaps made mistakes just like the rest of us do.

I am very excited for this movie to come out in April 2008!

Trapped by the Mormons

The 1922 silent film "Trapped by the Mormons" is a classic example of the kind of fear surrounding the infant Mormon Church. The above authentic advertisement depicts a six-armed, devilish looking Mormon man gripping unsuspecting women in each hand. The flames in the background give the poster a fiery, hellish tone. Above the title are a series of newspapers with dramatic headlines such as "Slave Women of Utah" and "Clear Out the Mormons." As stated above this illustration was actually used in the 1922 promotion of the film and demonstrates actual fears of the time.

The movie is set in London, England where Isoldi Keene, a Mormon missionary, uses his hypnotic powers and charm to lure young Nora Prescott into his church, after which he plans to marry her as a polygamous wife and whisk her away to isolated Utah where she will have no chance of escape. Her family and former boyfriend do everything they can to save her from the grips of the Mormons and the inevitable fate that awaits her if she is taken to Utah. I'll leave my summary at that rather than spoil the ending.

In many ways I think a silent film requires more acting skills as well as creativity with the camera. Well, maybe not more skill, but a different kind of skill. For instance, the actors have to be much more dramatic in showing their emotions than movies with sound. When writing descriptively you are encouraged to "show don't tell" when describing a situation, and a silent film forces the actors to show how they feel. Also, it would have been much easier to show Isoldi's hypnotic powers in a film today than it was in 1922. Play some soothing music and thrown in a couple spellbinding words from Isoldi and the viewer knows exactly what's going on. However, without such luxuries in this film the cameraman showed creativity by zooming in on Isoldi's eyes while also showing Nora in a blank stare and subsequently doing whatever Isoldi desires.

When it comes to accuracy about the LDS faith this film misses the mark. It is based on the fictional novel by Winifred Graham entitled "Love Story of a Mormon." This novel and many others like it were written by authors who had clearly never visited Utah or had much contact with Mormon people. This is evidenced by statements made in the movie such as the idea that Mormons take women up to the top of the temple and then throw them off into the Great Salt Lake. A simple look at geography is sufficient evidence that this is not possible.

However I do believe that the filmmakers were able to capture actual, real fears people had about the Mormons and their practices. At the time the movie was made the LDS Church had renounced its practice of plural marriage, yet it was still the practice that Mormons were best known for (and perhaps most feared for). The idea that unsuspecting young women were duped into following Mormon missionaries back to Utah where they were forced to live in polygamy was a real fear for many. Another religious group that was suffering some suspicion at this time was the Catholic church. Many believed Catholics would disregard the law in order to be loyal to the Pope. This was a fear extended to the Mormons. The connection between Catholics and Mormons was often made in the movie, such as the scene where Isoldi and his fellow missionaries are preparing to baptize 3 young women. The missionaries are wearing garments that clearly resemble the priestly robes of the Catholic faith.

In conclusion, I believe that "Trapped by the Mormons" successfully captured many fears of the day regarding the Mormon faith. I think the movie was simply a result of the fear of the unknown that is still prevalent in Mormon/non-Mormon relations today. Although at the time the movie was made it was meant to be a serious showing of the peculiarities and cunningness of the Mormons, today it is seen as comedic. It is so clearly over the top that it is unintentionally funny.


(Nora Prescott)


(Mormon missionaries outside the movies' premier in England)

Meghan's rating: This is a must see for any Latter-day Saint ready for a good laugh about early perceptions of their religion.