Despite the fact that he spells his first name wrong, Kieth Merrill has to be one of my heroes. In a recent Deseret News article he said the following:
“We must embrace the virtues and values (of the LDS Church) as LDS filmmakers,” he said. “We can’t walk with one foot in both worlds. I have tried to walk that fine line as an LDS filmmaker.”
Kieth has started a project discussed here and here called Audience Alliance Motion Picture Studios to promote good movies that support traditional values.
Now, the bloggernacle being what it is, people like Kieth are certain to receive scorn here.
I love movies. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have hundreds and hundreds of titles in my personal DVD collection. But unfortunately the quality of movies has deteriorated over time. Filmmakers feel like they need to add sex and gore to get audiences.
Interestingly, there have been several recent movies that avoid the basest things of the world — “Invincible” and “Night at the Museum” are two recent examples — and they do pretty well at the box office. So, people like Kieth and myself are not alone.
If you’re part of what I believe is the silent majority, I encourage you to vote with your pocketbook and avoid the worst Hollywood has to offer. You may want to join Audience Alliance — Kieth makes a pretty good pitch in one of the links above. Anything that will bring more family-friendly movies to the marketplace is, in my opinion, a wonderful thing.
Geoff B,
I’m with you if by “more family-friendly movies” you mean “more _quality_ family-friendly movies.” Unfortunately, in my experience, by “family-friendly,” people often mean cheap, cheesey, and inferior. Which it doesn’t have to, based on observing Pixar and any number of new, Brooklyn-based children’s music out there. But I think that poorly-thought-out and poorly-executed (but FAMILY-FRIENDLY) in the end hurts the chances that studios will pay to produce good family-friendly movies.
I have enjoyed some of the LDS movies that Merrill has made for the church, but his recent interview in Meridian Magazine disappointed me. He basically said that belief in Darwinism and natural selection is a pervasive evil in our society and diametrically opposed to a testimony of the Gospel. I guess that anathematizes all the staff in the BYU Biology department, and many forward-thinking Latter-day Saints. I wish we could move beyond these provincial arguments and recognize that it is not necessary to reject scientific advances to be faithful Latter-day Saints. Unfortunately there is a strong fundamentalist bent in today’s church that makes Merrill’s stance a common one. Whether or not it is fully sanctioned by the leadership, there is at least a general acceptance and tacit approval of those who hold this position.
Sam, I agree that there have been some pretty bad “family friendly” movies. This has been the case every since movies began to be made — for every “Casablanca” you get 100 B movies. Every movie can’t be a classic. But some of them can be clean entertainment for children. I think a lot of good, uplifting “family friendly” movies have been made lately. I’ll give you a few examples:
“Invincible” — despite being filmed primarily in a working-class bar, never a swear word and a good, uplifting story. Rated PG
“Night at the Museum” — a fun, imaginative story for the whole family. Rated PG.
“The Nativity Story” — I loved it. Rated PG.
“One Night with the King” — my kids loved this take on the story of Queen Esther. Rated PG.
“Flicka” — a well-done family movie. Rated PG
“Eragon” — a fun adventure/fantasy movie. Rated PG
“I am David” — a wonderful movie about a boy born in a concentration camp trying to find out who he is. Rated PG
“Holes” — a great movie about a teenager who has to go to a reform camp with bad kids, but never a swear word is heard. Rated PG
“Secondhand Lions” — a great movie about two uncles and their relationship with their nephew. Rated PG
I could go on an on. There are lots of good movies out there that are family friendly.
But more than that, there are literally dozens of movies every year that could be family friendly with a few small changes in the script that would give them PG ratings. I’m thinking about movies like “About Schmidt,” which are very interesting R-rated movies because of less than 30 seconds of on-air time that could easily be cut without affecting the story.
Carl, you’re certainly entitled to your opinions about Kieth, but the subject of this thread is not his views on Darwinism, it is his views on movies. I would like to please ask commenters to keep to the subject at hand. Thanks.
Oh, in terms of good, uplifting, family-friendly movies to see in 2007, I would like to mention “Amazing Grace,” the story of William Wilberforce, who because of religious convictions led a crusade for Britain to abolish slavery. Pres. Hinckley apparently went to a pre-screen recently.
See more on the movie here:
http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/
Response to Carl Youngblood. I assume you are referring to the following comment in Meridian Magazine;”To understand why God and godliness has gone missing from so many movies we need only to understand that the people who make the movies that are offensive by any traditional standard, and way out of touch with your values, in most cases embrace “a religion” that is fundamentally opposed to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our paths of virtues and values diverged — not recently and not in the yellow woods of Robert Frost — but in the slime of primordial mud as we slithered from the sea or in the after-glow of Cherubim and the flaming sword as we left the Garden of Eden… The essence of the great divide between the values of Hollywood and the values of main street USA begins with the question of where we came from — the primordial slime or the afterglow of Cherubim and the flaming sword as we left the Garden of Eden” In the enthusiasm for my prose I confess “slihtered from the sea” and reference to “primordial slime” was a bit over the top in castigating those who deny God in the origins of man. Whether or not God used evolution as a tool of creation or not I have no idea. Science has certainly accumulated persuasive information that he may have. I’m not only fine with that, am wide open to every advancement and studied dinosaurs enough to know we grossly oversimplify “creation.” My point — poorly made apparently — was simple intended to be that difference between a belief in the divine nature of man vs a belief that man is nothing more than a biology consequence of evolution from a lower species make an enormous difference in how one views morality, responsibility and that politically incorrect notion of “sin.” We need bright and thinking people as part of Audience Alliance. Join us.
Kieth:
Any chance that you all are going to publish a list of properties you are considering making/adapting? It’s kind of hard to know if one wants to shell out money for such an endeavor without knowing what you actually plan on making.
Also: What is Audience Alliance’s stance on Mormon-themed works? Will you be making any films that feature LDS characters/stories?
The reason there aren’t good “family-friendly” films is because adults generally, liberal and conservative, religious and godless alike, ALL think that children are stupid and won’t “get it.”
Until people get over this strange need to patronize and talk down to children, there will never be a lot of good family films.
William Morris, let me give you a quick answer: you can go to the project’s web site and sign up for a free 7-day membership and see the several movies they have in the works. The one that is closest to production is a movie called “Christmas Jar,” and the screenplay, written by Kieth, is on-line after you sign up.
Here’s the web site again: http://www.audiencealliance.com
As for Mormon-themed movies, my understanding from Kieth is that is trying to keep this project completely “religion neutral,” which means there may or may not be Mormon movies but that certainly is not the focus. He can certainly expand on this if he chooses.
Seth R, you make a good point. I try to take my kids to challenging but clean movies like “I Am David” that make them think. We will also see “Amazing Grace” as soon as it comes out.
Thanks, Geoff. I’ll check it out. I do think it’s a fascinating idea and hope it works — I’m all for artists communicating openly with audiences and even enlisting there help. As I said on A Motley Vision about the Bookwise project, this is getting us back to the roots of publishing where you’d go out and find an audience (through subscriptions) and then use the funding to publish the works you’ve promised them. I think it’s a great model and one that should be viable in the era of digital film and the Internet.
Naturally, my interest is dampened by the religion neutral thing. I don’t dislike the idea and totally understand it in terms of marketing needs, but doesn’t really float my boat.
Thanks for the polite clarification Kieth. That really helps me to understand your position better. I think we can definitely agree that many people have mistakenly viewed scientific discoveries as justifying all sort of absurd behavior. I think more than anything this demonstrates that moral advances in society haven’t always kept pace with technological ones. Like you say, just because the methods God uses to accomplish his purposes may be different than we expect doesn’t mean we need to abandon our faith.
Sorry for the divergence Geoff.
Filmmakers feel like they need to add sex and gore to get audiences.
Geoff,
This may be true for a small minority of films but to characterize all films with such content like that is both dishonest and untrue. Filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) are interested in telling stories. Most filmmakers don’t hold the same values as we do, therefore showing a sex act or some blood aren’t any different than a conversation and a car chase. It is plot advancement, their interpretation of how to make a compelling story. Our sensitivities have conditioned us to see those scenes separately from the story whereas for them it’s advancing the story.
Rusty, good point. I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s time we had some different filmmakers with different values making different films.
Rusty,
I think it is evident that filmmaking–especially the Hollywood brand–has become incredibly formulaic. While this doesn’t mean that those who hold to such conventions are necessarily bad people, there is a problem with filmmakers losing touch with their artistic sensibilities in their efforts to make “good” movies (i.e., a movie that does well at the box office). And so, “getting audiences” is conflated with succesfully creating great work, which leads filmmakers down the formulaic path (i.e., a film must have “such” and “such” in it to be succesful).
Geoff,
I fully agree.
Jack,
I fully agree.
“Silent Majority”
Did you grow up in the 1970s? Is this the new “Moral Majority”?
I suspect that the “Silent Majority” is, like the “Moral Majority” of the 1970s, neither.
Its certainly not silent. I hear calls for “family friendly fare” all the time. What’s clear is that this is NOT what a majority of moview goers want.
Now, I’m NOT saying that there isn’t a place for “family friendly” films. Nor am I saying that there shouldn’t be more of them, or that the majority of films made today are moral or even good films.
I agree that we should support good films, “family friendly” films that are well made and free of gratuitous sex and violence.
But let’s not kid ourselves. There isn’t a majority that feels that movies free of gratuitous sex and violence is more important than that the movie is entertaining. There probably isn’t even a majority looking for family friendly films that are good!
Fortunately, the minority looking for family friendly fare is not silent. Nor should it be.
Kent,
I think the point is that the vast majority of viewers will go for wholesome stuff if it’s well done. They don’t have to see sex and violence on the screen to want to return to the theater. So, in a certain sense, there really is a “silent majority.” It’s just that most of them don’t know they’re a part of it.
Filmmakers feel like they need to add sex and gore to get audiences.
Of course, they’re not the first artists to do it. Did you ever read Anna Karenina or War and Peace?
Both great books. The first was sex. The second, gore.
I’ll join Audience Alliance as soon as I have a handle on all of my student loans. ^_^
There are usually three big categories of movies that I’m interested in — movies aimed at kids but containing enough grown-up content that I don’t want to kill myself while watching (exhibit “A”: Pixar,) movies that are aimed at a general audience with a very small amount of objectionable content (exhibit “B”: Star Wars,) and movies which were done in a mildly to very problematic way but have a topic or themes I would love to watch more of (exhibits “C” through “F”: Gladiator, The Matrix, Schindler’s List, Titanic…) The first and third categories seem to be getting stronger, but the middle type is I think the most endangered, in part because I don’t think the “general” audience concept is as strong as it used to be. I think that the Matrix sequels (which I generally refrain from remembering) had gratuitous sex and violence just because they could get away with it, and because a PG-13/R rating serves as a signal to viewers, especially guys under 30, that the content of the movie is something they’re more likely to enjoy. I think if the Wizard of Oz were done today (without the 1939 to reference,) they’d either aim for the PG-13 (probably going for the scary stuff; even the 1939 had extra scary scenes filmed but not screened) or play up the goofiness factor of the Oz residents (including the Wicked Witch) to the point that it would be considered a “kid’s movie.”
I’ll be late for church soon, or I’d back up my argument with more examples. ^_^
(and Anna Karenina and War & Peace were a) books and b) didn’t have nearly the sexual content or violence of your average modern PG-13 film. They don’t even have the graphic sex and violence found in your average Stephen King or trashy romance novel.)
I think we can agree that there is a difference between a book/movie that deals with the topic of sex and violence and a book/movie that graphically shows and glorifies sex and violence. Sex and violence are principal themes in the Bible and BoM, for example, but except for SoS we don’t get that many graphic/salacious descriptions (although I will admit there are a few).
I think reasonable people can agree that most of literature throughout history has dealt with the issue of sex and violence. This issue is whether you glorify it or not. As an example, I am constantly brought back to the fact that movies were made for the first 60 years without nudity, swear words and bloody chaos. In the 1960s, that all began to change. I prefer the first 60 years, personally.
KBYU, BYU’s public television unit, puts out classic movies on Friday nights. My wife and I have found that watching these are so much more exciting and worth while to watch than most of what is newly released today. It seems like they could take an issue and do a wonderful job in creating powerful cinematic art, creating emotions within that uplift your spirits or endear you to a worthy plot. Very few movies do that to me today. Movies this month, Lilies of the Field, Guys and Dolls, The Little Foxes – All sound exhilerating to me!