The Work and the Glory
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
The Steed family moves to western New York and becomes involved in the events surrounding the foundation of Mormonism. Much religious angst ensues...Opinion:
"The Work and the Glory" (or, more accurately, "The Work and the Glory: Part 1"—with Parts 2 and 3 already in preparation…) is based on the Gerald N. Lund series of the same name. Unlike some of the other popular Mormon literary works of which I remain willfully ignorant, the W&G series has played a somewhat significant part on my life. The first two volumes were gifts from friends at the time of my baptism (1992), and, in fact, those two (and later volumes) provided much of my early knowledge of Church history—for better or worse. Alas, as the years went on, I only read through Book 5, and never did pick up the remaining volumes…Now, thirteen years later, we have the first movie in the series, which provides a very faithful adaptation of the first W&G book: Pillar of Light. I didn’t review “Pillar” again before my screening of the movie, but to my recollection the movie follows the events in the book very closely, without really changing or adding anything of significance.
As with the Harry Potter movies, such a close relationship to the source material makes analyzing the movie hard to do without analyzing the book at the same time. “Pillar of Light”—the book--is serviceable as historical fiction, but doesn't excel in any one particular area. It also clearly was written to be the first part of the series, and—following suit—the movie adaptation does not seem like a self-contained entity either. It's more like the two-hour pilot of an ongoing TV series—albeit a well-produced one—where you 'tune in next week for more adventures of the Steed family'. (Some of the elements of the novels are a little “soap-opera-ish” and might be better suited to a smaller scale TV mini-series. The likelihood that they’re really going to get through nine movies with theatrical releases seems fairly small…)
This leads to a quandary—since the book is at best a B to B+ quality work, and if the movie never strays far from the content of the book, then the upper limit of what the movie can achieve is almost set in stone from the beginning. W&G the movie has great production values, and a decent, solid cast…yet in the same way doesn't really excel either as a romance, a character study, or an insightful look at the beginning of Mormonism. On the other hand, though, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do—recreate the events of the book effectively and get the W&G series started on the right foot. Is it better to be a mediocre success than an ambitious failure? Hard to say…
Perhaps one of the problems—which, again, it shares with the books—is that the really interesting people of the period—Joseph and Emma Smith, and the other historical Saints—are only supporting characters. The Steeds are always front and center in the action, and—frankly—they just aren’t as compelling. A movie focused entirely on the Smith family and their trials through the early days of the Church would, I think, be a really fascinating movie—but, of course, that movie then wouldn’t be “The Work and the Glory”, would it?
"The Work and the Glory" is what it is…a decent and fairly entertaining period piece with some basic romantic elements and historical significance, but is constrained in its scope by its source material such that it is never able to rise to any level of excellence or
emotional impact. It’s not a great movie…yet (one casting decision aside) it’s hard to think of any way they could have made it better…
It might serve well as an introduction for non-members to some of the
fundamental principles of Mormonism, or as a introduction to Church history
for members--yet will probably never rise to the status of "Mormon
classic"...
Content Analysis: (PG, 0-0-2-2)
A little bit of non-bloody PG violence--and lots of alcohol consumption--but that’s it. It’ll be interesting to see how they deal with the darker, more PG-13 material of later volumes, since the books become increasingly more violent as they go along (as did Church history, of course).In-depth Analysis:
Since, as noted, I am familiar with the characters from the books (and, of course, the historical ones from Church history), let’s take a closer look at how successful each of the individual characters were in terms of casting and performance:The A-list: Joshua Steed, Benjamin Steed, Joseph Smith
The two older Steed men were well portrayed in W&G, with well-realized characters. Joshua is the sullen, rebellious son, but shows enough of a softer side at times to avoid falling completely into stereotype. His father is one of those guys with gruff exteriors who doesn’t share his feelings much, but genuinely cares about his family—and the performance by veteran actor Sam Hennings allows both sides to be seen.
Like Jesus, the role of Joseph Smith depends more on proper casting than other less significant roles. You want someone who really looks credible in the part, with acting ability being somewhat secondary. Jonathan Scarfe (who, coincidently enough, played Jesus in a TV movie last year) has the boyish innocence and charisma that Joseph must have had, yet also demonstrates the weariness he also must have felt with the great burdens on his shoulders. While his performance may be a little on the solemn side (I think Joseph might have been more cheerful and outgoing in the happier moments of his life), Jonathan Scarfe looks and acts the part as well as about anyone you could imagine, and hopefully he’ll be around for future sequels.
The B-list: Nathan Steed, MaryAnn Steed, Will Murdock, Jessica Roundy
Nathan is very likeable and good-natured in the book and the movie Nathan hits the right notes in bringing his character to life. He doesn’t have the depth that his older brother does, but that's undoubtedly the fault of the source material, not the actor portraying him.
His mom, MaryAnn, is also portrayed effectively, and whose only failing is, like Nathan, she’s not really one of the more interesting characters in W&G. (MaryAnn is played by Brenda Strong who—tangent alert--looked so familiar, it frustrated me throughout the entire movie trying to remember where I could have seen her before. I had to research it online before I found the answer: she played “Candy Bar Queen” Sue-Ellen Mishkie on Seinfeld…)
Will Murdock is a shallow, villainous caricature to be sure, but at least in the movie he exudes a tangible aura of danger and villainy, which is all you really want from a movie bad guy anyway…
Jessica (who I’m not sure was even named) had only a small part in this movie, but which will become more significant as the series goes on. In her few scenes, she had the right feel for a girl with a dirt-poor upbringing, somewhat low self-esteem, yet filled with a small but meaningful amount of inner strength and hope for the future.
The C-list: Melissa Steed, the rest of the younger Steed children, the McBride parents
Of the younger Steed children, only Melissa had any major part in the movie, and her way of speaking seemed a little...unnatural. Her narration in the beginning and the end of the movie was unnecessary, too…
The McBrides were, in a way, shallow caricatures as well—but then that’s how they are in the source material too. Lydia’s father will get a chance to be a little more well-rounded in future volumes…
The D-list: Lydia McBride
I don’t mean to demean someone who’s probably a really nice person in real life, but the movie Lydia had absolutely no screen presence at all. There’s nothing about her that would inspire a guy to want to spend more than five minutes in her presence, let alone two guys coming to blows over her. Frankly, if I were Nathan, I wouldn’t have thought twice about whether to leave her in favor of Joseph Smith and the restored church. Maybe not even after she converted…
It’s not necessarily an acting problem per se—Tiffany Dupont is adequate as an actor—only her Lydia has no charisma, no passion, nothing in her personality that demands--as the book Lydia did--that guys pay attention to her. She has the requisite beauty (albeit in a generic, unremarkable way), but I can’t help wonder whether a more ‘fiery’ actress (say, Rachel McAdams of Mean Girls and The Notebook) would have made the movie Lydia more compelling. Since the majority of the movie (including the ending) is centered upon Lydia’s relationship with Nathan and Joshua, her blandness serves as W&G one major flaw. Fortunately, it appears Ms. Dupont has already been replaced as Lydia for the next two movies in the series…
Incomplete: Hyrum Smith, Emma Smith, Martin Harris
These were all compelling characters (as in real life, undoubtedly), but played very little part in the movie so it’s hard to pass judgment. As noted above, this unfortunately is a problem with the series in general. Hopefully we’ll see more of them as the series goes on.
Random Notes & Comments:
(1)The scene with Joseph telling the story of the First Vision to Nathan is fine, although I disagree with the exact use of the words from the current scriptural account in Joseph Smith: History. (This is in common with the book, too...) It's well known that the official version now in the LDS canon wasn't written until many years later, and while it is not a fatal flaw, I think it would have been less distracting if Joseph had described it using different words in this instance...(2) Notice how Joshua's beard gets bigger the more rebellious and 'wicked' he becomes? Yeah, that's subtle...
