Movie Review: Meet the Mormons

I’m sure you’ve heard all about “Meet the Mormons.” It’s been referenced in a BYU Speech by David A. Bednar. It’s been pushed heavily by the LDS Church in their marketing and public affairs. It’s been teased in newspaper articles and reviewed. And from everyday Mormons that I’ve talked to, there’s some confusion. I don’t know if this review is going to clear all of that up, but I’ll also try to approach it from many different angles.

The back-story on this movie is interesting. You may remember the “I’m a Mormon” ads that seemed to be in heavy rotation about 3-5 years ago. This film takes many of those stories and expands upon them, giving you a 73 minute I’m a Mormon spot focusing on 6 different individuals. While this film was originally intended to be in rotation at Temple Square’s Legacy Theater, director Blair Treu pitched the film in 2010 to the LDS First Presidency. producers found that after screenings to non-Mormon test audiences in California, 75% said they would recommend the movie to a friend. Ideally, the church would love to get it on Netflix and Amazon, as a few Public Affairs representatives have told me. A big key to this is having very strong opening-night performances. While I’ve been a bit public with my confusion as to why this movie was being pushed so hard, this makes much more sense. Mormons, by and large, will go see this movie. They will definitely go see if it urged to go see it by leaders, both general authorities and local leaders. And if the ultimate goal is an online streaming site, resulting in wider distribution, this strategy becomes much more understandable. I guess I don’t understand why this information wasn’t more readily available, as I think many more would understand the big push compared to what we currently are hearing. But I digress…

The movie is definitely a high-quality documentary. While my screener was a digital copy, the HD looked great, and the cinematic and production value was emphasized in this film. This isn’t your mother’s hokey “Families are Forever” pass-along video, or a video that was obviously filmed in a back-lot of BYU. This took time, money, and foresight to find the right locations to film, and to get the correct shots. The people come across as very real, their stories authentic, and the vignettes and filming very well done. The film opens with Jenna Kim Jones (funny Mormon and former writer on The Daily Show) asking people around New York City their thoughts on Mormons, and interspersing the responses with pop-culture references to Mormons, including 30 Rock, The Simpsons, and South Park. Yes. You heard me correctly. South Park was on an LDS Film. This lighthearted approach really did a good job of setting the viewer at ease, almost as if Treu and the Church were saying “Yes, we know who we are. We’re not going to take ourselves too seriously.”

From a movie-snob perspective, I try to take off my cap of being a Mormon and look at it purely on the content and production side of things. As a cultural introduction, it’s good. But there has to be the understanding from the audience that this is going to be a film created by the LDS Church, and therefore, will portray the LDS Church (and it’s members) in a very good light. There have been some that feel that this film isn’t a true representation of Mormons and Mormonism because it doesn’t get into some of the “negative” aspects of our religion and culture. While that argument might have merit to some, for the purposes of this film (which were to highlight members of the LDS faith), that would have been an unncessary distraction.

The stories are as follows:

• Jermaine Sullivan, a bishop in an ethnically diverse LDS ward in Atlanta.
• Ken Niumatalolo, head coach of the U.S. Naval Academy’s football team.
• Carolina Muñoz Marin, a mother and amateur kickboxing champ in Costa Rica.
• Gail Halvorsen, the “Candy Bomber,” who distributed chocolate to impoverished German children during the Berlin Airlift after World War II.
• Bishnu Adhikari, an engineer and humanitarian who works to build roads, schools and water systems in villages in his home country, Nepal.
• Dawn Armstrong, a Salt Lake City woman who was once a struggling single mom and now is sending her son Anthony off on his LDS mission.

The stories are quite well done, but part of me wonders if there’s anything uniquely Mormon about them. Perhaps that was the point of the film. For example, while Jermaine Sullivan is a bishop of a diverse ward in Atlanta, the only thing you saw of him being a bishop was speaking from the stand, and people referring to him as such. It might have been difficult, but I think the message of Jermaine’s story would have been powerful if the pressures, burdens, and inspiration that come to bishops would have been illustrated. In a sense, Jermaine’s story seemed to make sense to those of us fellow Mormons watching the film understanding what it means to be an LDS Bishop, but it might not have had that same effect to an audience unfamiliar with Mormon culture. Gail Halvorsen, the “Candy Bomber,” in my opinion had the best story. Part of that is most likely because his is the most dramatic, but again, not something uniquely Mormon. That’s not to say that his role in the Airlift wasn’t an important one, and that’s not to say that his story isn’t inspirational or important, but again, what is the Mormon angle on it? Perhaps that’s the point of the documentary – we’re Mormon, but we’re not that different.

There were very good parts about the film. Personally, I really liked all of the vignettes. I really liked the beginning portions on the street. The music was very well done, setting a great mood for the movie (something that is very important with a documentary). My wife commented that the big David Archuletta song “Glorious” was stuck in her head the next day, and she loved re-listening to it. The individuals come across as personable and relatable, even with some of the dramatic stories. This is important, because there is a tendency with some documentary filmmakers to over-dramatise the stories in an entertainment effort, and I didn’t feel this happened too much. This is a film that will make Mormons proud, and a film that I believe will definitely do a lot of good to improve how people view the Church (and Mormons) if one stumbles upon it on Netflix or Amazon Prime (if it makes it there).

All movies do have their downsides, or things that I think could have been done better. For example, while Jenna was a great lead-in for the movie, there were a few times that her voice (and over-peppiness) seemed to distract me from the movie. For a lighthearted approach in the beginning, she was a perfect lead-in. I’m not sure who (or what kind of voice) I would have used to replace her during the film, but I did find that it was jarring a few scenes to be reminded “Oh, this is Jenna narrating again.” The group I viewed the film with noted that Darius Grey (famed black Mormon, founder of the Genesis Group in Salt Lake City, and featured in Bishop Sullivan’s feature) would have been a great voice. I agree with them. I know why they did it – Jones has a very easy voice on the ears, she embodies Mormon peppiness and happiness, but at the same time I do wonder if her presence would have been better felt in the beginning and end of the film instead of narrating the stories.

Secondly, and one of the harder things to avoid, was the push felt in the film for acceptance of Mormons and of the Church. I’d be intrigued to talk to more non-Mormons who see this film (and have little-to-no contact with Mormons) to see if they picked up on that vibe, or if it was my “Mo-Dar,” my Mormon Radar going off. I think it’s natural to want that feeling, to show people that Mormons really aren’t that different from everyone else, but it also seemed like their stories had to follow a formula, instead of allowing their stories to play out. It also gave off the impression that there were some definite themes that were being reached for in the film, and that was apparent in a few of the interviews. It’s not that those themes were bad – for example, everyone mentioned how important their family was to them – but it felt that by the 4th story, I could pick out when the “I love my family” lines were going to come up. Again, not that a theme like that is a bad thing, but it became obvious that each of the interviewees talking about their family was going to happen. Whether this is a bit of coaching from the filmmakers, or the interviewees saying what they think wants to be said, I’m not sure, but I think it is always more powerful when you get those very raw human moments. That’s not to say this film doesn’t have it – in a few spots, I definitely felt the Spirit, an inspiring feeling of being uplifted. But there were a few times I did feel like it was a point that the filmmakers wanted to reinforce very bluntly in a few parts.

I was watching the film with a very small group, and one of the members of this group was a recently baptised member of the Church. She had only been a member for about a month, but had done a thorough job of investigating the church prior to joining. I was very intrigued with her perspective on the film, because she shares the very unique perspective of being an “insider” while still being able to understand the “outsider’s” perspective, something that should be on more Mormon’s radars. I was very interested in her take-away of the film, and while she thoroughly enjoyed the film, there were a few things that stood out to her. First, she mentioned that gender roles were very defined and very traditional. From her vantage point, she would have liked to have seen the experience of a family that didn’t have children, or the vantage point of a single mother, or perhaps switching some of the roles and having a professional working mother, and how she manages her family, her career, and her faith. She found it to be well done as well, with high production value, but again wondered the same question that many of us wonder: “Who is going to go see this film?”

So for the movie, I’d recommend it, but recommend it with caution. Not that it’s bad – I found it to be quite good, and something that I’m going to want to track success and reception. But if you’re a believing Mormon, you’re going to walk out with warm fuzzies knowing that your religion and people were portrayed in a very good light, and done very well. If you’re a non-believing Mormon, you’re going to be frustrated that they didn’t cover X, Y, and Z and that “this isn’t the real Mormonism.” This movie won’t be for you.

The more interesting question is going to revolve around non-Mormons. Are non-Mormons going to see this film? I saw this question posed online, and one person responded in a very interesting way: “Would you go see a film called ‘Meet the Catholics’? What about ‘Meet the Protestants’, or ‘Meet the Seventh-day Adventists’, or ‘Meet the Scientologists’?” I’m the wrong person to ask, because I’m fascinated with the sociology of religion, but even still, I’m not sure I would go to a movie theater to see it. However, if I was bouncing around on Netflix? Absolutely. It will be very interesting to track to progress and future of this film.