The Work and the Glory: American Zion
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
Part 2 of the "Work and Glory" series based on the novels by Gerald N. Lund, which focuses on the 1830-1834 years of Church history. Much trials and tribulations ensue...Opinion:
Following in the footsteps of "States of Grace" (i.e. God's Army II), "American Zion" was released and promoted with its 'sequelness' minimized in an effort to attract a larger nationwide audience. (To this end, the opening of "American Zion" fills in most of the necessary details from Part I such that a viewer who hasn't seen it won't be totally lost) Broader appeal has always been the goal of LDS cinema, but it must be viewed as a failure in this case considering that, despite the wider marketing scope, "American Zion" actually ended up with less box-office than the original (2 million vs. 3.3 million gross for Part 1). Part 3 in the series (filmed at the same time as 2) is due to be released later in 2006, but barring an extremely unlikely box office success, that will surely be the end to the Work & Glory movie series. Movies that do not make back even half of their operating budgets are clearly unsustainable ventures...
I'm not sure the Work and Glory series deserves to continue, either...at least in the theatrical format. (Remember, I've read most of the books...and enjoyed them) While "American Zion" improves upon W&G Part 1 in a few key areas, my foremost feeling after finishing Part 2 is that the W&G series is simply not suitable for the big screen. None of the nine books in the series were written to be self-contained--rather, they consist of a continuous flow of characters and events from one book to the next. If that doesn't scream "TV mini-series", especially given the budget constraints, I don't know what does... The lack of 'ending' in both Parts 1 and 2 play into this as well--it's one thing to only wait a day or a week for the next installment, but quite another to pay $5-$10 for a ticket to something that just ends abruptly with many plot threads left unresolved (Note: applies only to non-Lord of the Rings movies...).
A few random notes from the good and bad of "American Zion":
Visual Style: A strength of the first movie, and even better here. Good cinematography, and a little more dynamic camera movement as well... This is certainly a new high in production quality for an LDS film.
Pacing: The first movie was somewhat slow, and the pace has been picked up a little in this installment, probably due mostly to the new director. This is different, but not necessarily an improvement... Whether due to directing or editing, the events of AZ sometimes go by too fast, such that it's hard to tell what's going on.
- We see the tar but not the feathers in Joseph Smith's "tar and feathering", for example, and the scene cuts to after his recovery so quickly a viewer who isn't aware of the history will have no clue what just happened...
- Later, the printing press and the printed copies of the Book of Commandments are shown to be burned by the mob, but there's no mention of the important complementary story--included in the book--about the young girls who saved many copies of the text from the burning building. (A viewer unfamiliar with the history might ask how it is the Book of Commandments--aka the "Doctrine & Covenants"--still exists today since all copies in the movie were all apparently burned...)
In addition, the movie switches from 1831 to 1834 very quickly, and many story details are passed over with barely a mention (Melissa's engagement, Ben's deciding to move to Kirtland, etc...) Had the filmmakers gone for a more 'epic' approach (say, a two and a half hour running length or so) "American Zion" might have been better, with more details to enrich the movie experience (and cut down on the confusion). Considering the scope of Church history it covers, American Zion seems to be cut too short to deal with the material appropriately.
Target Audience: The filmmakers may have wanted a larger audience, but I don't see how the finished product was going to find one. This, like most Church related releases, is a "Mormon movie" (as compared to a "Movie about Mormons") that is highly biased in favor of the 'home team'. (Discussed more in-depth below...) There's no evidence that the movie was designed to appeal to non-member viewers at all. The history isn't comprehensive enough, and the characterizations are too one-sided...
Joseph Smith: The most compelling character of the movie should also be the most compelling character of the historical period--that's Joseph Smith himself. Part 2 upgrades Joseph Smith from 'supporting' to 'main' character, and the performance is up to the task. We see Joseph coming to terms with his calling, and trying to lead the group of early Saints to find peace and security while having--in many cases--absolutely no idea how to do it. An interesting scene shows Joseph showing genuine amazement at how much faith other people have in him--one wonders if he had that much faith in himself at that point. Unfortunately, having Joseph Smith in a larger role only emphasizes the fact that his personal story is so much more compelling than that of the Steed family, which still remains the primary emphasis of the narrative. In novel form, you can spend appropriate time with both parties, but in the abridged movie form it's still obvious on screen that W&G would be much stronger if it was first and foremost about Joseph Smith, without having a fictional family and their soap opera-style problems grafted on.
Casting: The weak link from Part 1 (Lydia McBride-Steed) has been recast in Part 2, and the new Lydia is an improvement...I think. She's only in the film for maybe 60 seconds and six words of dialogue, so it's hard to tell... Emma Smith has been recast as well, and I prefer the Part 1 version--although she doesn't have a large enough part in Part 2 to make an impression, either...
Some books just don't work as movies... Reading historical fiction based on the early days of the Church may be more intriguing than just reading a textbook, but on the big screen there just isn't enough time to tell the potentially compelling stories from the LDS Church founding while bogging it down with TV-movie quality family issues. As it stands, the movie is not focused enough either on Joseph Smith as a biography nor portraying a comprehensive view of Church history to give either non-members or members a good learning opportunity. (As it is, you almost have to have someone familiar with Church history sitting beside you while watching the movie to fully explain what is going on, since many important details are skipped over...) It remains to be seen whether "Work & Glory" Part 3, the (almost certainly) last cinematic feature later this year can improve on any of these fundamental flaws.
Content Analysis: (PG-13, 0-0-3-1 on the Baron's PSVD scale)
As is the trend in recent movie series (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc...) Work & Glory also makes the jump to PG-13 in this installment, almost entirely due to the violent content. It is restrained--similar to the also-PG-13 Brigham City--but not for very young kids.
In-depth Analysis:
In seemingly a 'left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing' fashion, the marketing for "American Zion", which attempted to find a non-LDS/Utah audience for the film, seemed to be at odds with the filmmakers who didn't appear to be making a movie with a non-LDS audience in mind.
Or, if they did, they did not do a very good job...
The two sides (the Mormons and everyone else) are drawn a little too broadly in good/bad terms. All the Saints in the movie are--literally--saints. Not a bad vice to be found. The non-members (Ben Steed excluded) tend to be almost exclusively drawn as villains. True, the majority of non-member portrayals in "American Zion" happen to be from the Missouri mob, but it's hard to think any objective viewer isn't going to roll their eyes at the broad, simplistic characterizations. (Anyone can see this and know it was written and produced by Church members...) This may be a characteristic of the book as well, but if the filmmakers had genuinely intended to create a objective look at LDS history for a non-LDS audience this area is lacking.
The movie's one instance of nuance in this category is a brief scene where one of the new LDS settlers of Jackson County informs his non-member neighbors in calm, yet confident terms that the Mormons would be coming to Zion, and there wasn't anything anyone could do to stop them. A more well-rounded portrayal would have gone further in this regard--showing how the Mormon settlers were wronged by the violent mobs that developed, but also explored further the fears and concerns that created the mob in the first place, as well as the actions and attitudes of the settlers that opened themselves up for the conflict to begin. I believe an objective viewpoint would still have shown the mob to be clearly in the wrong whether they were goaded on by the early settlers to any extent or not, and it would have been nice if "American Zion" had tried harder to achieve it.
The portrayal of Zion's Camp is also problematic in its bias. The march to Zion portrayed in the movie shows no contention within the ranks of the Saints, even though that is clearly a matter of historical record (and dealt with at length in the book itself). Almost immediately upon departing, many of the men openly questioned Joseph Smith's leadership, and fought amongst one another on matters both trivial and major. While it's not clear the Saints would have been successful in redeeming Zion from the mobs even if they were 'of one heart and one mind' from the beginning, it is obvious that many of the Saints' inability to commit themselves humbly to the venture and to Joseph's leadership, avoiding contention, was a key factor in their ultimate failure. "American Zion", the movie, shows no contention amongst the Saints, which makes the march of Zion's Camp to Missouri seem even more of a failure, since the unrighteousness of the Saints was no longer presented as a mitigating factor. Why, as Nathan asks, would the Lord send the men to Missouri only for them to fail? Ignoring one of the primary reasons for this failure presents an incomplete portrait of the problem to the viewer...
Random Notes & Comments:
(1) It had about as much chance of happening as her calling me up and asking me to co-star in a romantic comedy with her, but (as mentioned as an aside in my article on Part I) I couldn't help fantasize about having Rachel McAdams in Lydia's role. True, this would have required a complete rewrite of the screenplay to give Ms. "Mean Girl" more than 60 seconds of screen-time, but it would have been worth it... Early Church leaders sent missionaries to Canada to convert and bring back people to design the Kirtland temple. Anyone interested in going to Canada to convert and bring back quality actresses to star in Church movies?
Click Here for Reader Comments