To the AML list:

Last night, I had the opportunity to attend a preview performance of the new Sesquecentennial musical produced by the Church, Barefoot to Zion. I thought a short review of this production might be of interest to my fellow list members.

Barefoot to Zion was commissioned by the Church, and originally scheduled for production at Promised Valley Playhouse. In fact, just as Promised Valley was commissioned in 1947 to commemorate the pioneer centennial, BTZ was commissioned for the sesquecentennial. Unfortunately, PVP -- the theater building itself -- was discovered to have major structural problems, so the production was moved to the Bountiful regional center. I'd never been there before, but if you plan to go, it's not hard to find; take I-15 to exit 318, turn east off the exit, and then the first right (the first road south) and it's on your right, about 150 yards down the street. (WARNING: I-15 repairs may complicate matters somewhat, although they weren't a problem last night.)

It's a very weird theater. It's huge (probably seats 3000), but has no wing space, no fly space at all. As a result, every scenic unit used the entire show has to be on-stage the entire show. This practically screams out for a very simplified staging, and Rory Scanlon's scenic design is relatively simple; a few scenic units that serve as wagons, a podium, a ship gangway, etc. But instead of a theatricalist staging in which all scene changes were visible to the audience, the director chose to use black-out scene changes, a big mistake IMHO. And the sound system is atrocious; fuzzy enough that I missed a good third of the lyrics.

The script for Barefoot to Zion was credited to Orson Scott Card, with Story Development credited to OSC, Kevin Kelly and Khaliel Kelly. Therein lies a tale: the Kellys, a family from New York, were originally commissioned to write the piece some three years ago. They worked on it for a very long time, finally producing a version that the PVP board didn't like. (There was some GA involvement in the script as well. Elder Ballard oversaw the entire project, and I've heard from the Kelly's daughter, who's a friend of mine, that Elder Holland was also involved somehow.) Anyway, a second writer, Dave Tinney, was hired, and he produced a different script. They had readings of both the Tinney script and the Kelly script, and both were thought inadequate. At that point, OSC was brought in; I understand from cast members that he used the basic storyline from the Kelly script, but that his rewrites were extensive. Tinney, meanwhile, does not have a script credit, but is listed as choreographer and assistant director.

I'd heard all the stories about script problems, and went with decidedly mixed feelings. On the one hand, of course, I wanted it to succeed. The Church put a lot of time and money into this production, and I have many many friends in the cast -- I do not wish either the Church or my friends ill, and I was rooting for a good show. On the other hand, I was expecting a fairly problematic script. Both expectations were more than met. The show was quite successful with the audience. The cast was excellent, and some of the performances were remarkably strong. The audience gave it a standing ovation, and the show will succeed in doing what the Church wants it to do -- provide an uplifting, entertaining evening that will, in Elder Ballard's words "honor the legacy that is ours." My other expectation -- script problems, also came true. It was, in fact, a good deal worse than I'd anticipated, and to me, was one of the more depressing evenings I've ever spent in the theatre. In many ways, it does not honor our pioneer heritage; it dishonors their memory. BTZ is, for me, a script that cops out. It cheats. It studiously avoids every genuine, real trial or adversity that our ancestors really had to overcome, and replaces them with utterly contrived, phony, ersatz conflicts, all of which are resolved in the most simplistic and contrived way possible. Come Come Ye Saints is our greatest hymn because of its aching reality; when the pioneers sang "and should we die before our journey's through," they weren't kidding. This script is kidding. I have an ancestor, a great great grandfather, who was in the first company of pioneers -- a man named Stephen Markham. BTZ is an affront to his memory.

(Members of the AML list would be perfectly justified, IMO,in discounting everything I say about this production. I greatly disliked Legacy, for example, and most members of the list liked it. I certainly felt alienated last night. I urge you to go see this production and decide for yourselves. It could be that my opinion is just me being weird again.)

BTZ essentially tells the story of a pioneer family, Robert and Elizabeth Prescott, and their children, Katie, Will and Tommy. As the play opens, they live in Manchester England, where Robert has become quite wealthy as the owner of a textile mill. Katie is the oldest daughter; she's 18ish. Will is around 12, and Tommy is a small child, perhaps 6 or 7. All are members of the Church, but Elizabeth and the children are more faithful than Robert. Katie is in love with Nathaniel, a poor but stalwart member of the Church, but Robert opposes the match on the grounds that Nathanial is too poor to support them.

As the play opens, Brigham Young is concluding a mission in England, and taking some of the Saints back with him to Zion (Nauvoo). In a short scene with Robert, he tries in vain to persuade Robert to come to Zion too. Robert says he'd rather "build Zion in England." (No British accents were attempted in this production BTW, a choice that's both understandable and kind of a shame).

Meanwhile Will, a most enthusiastic young missionary, proselytes and "converts" another couple, Matilda and Stanley Gains, a pair of con artists, who pretend to join in order to fleece the Saints.

When the Prescotts learn of Joseph's martyrdom, tensions in the family come to a head. Elizabeth and the children want to gather to Zion immediately. Robert is even more adamently opposed to it. Katie turns down a marriage proposal from Nathanial, her boyfriend -- the scene was utterly incoherent, but has something to do with the fact that he, in proposing, pointed out that he had saved enough money for them to emigrate. I never did get it, but anyway Katie decides she's going to save enough money for passage on her own, and gets a job working at her father's textiles mill. (Could have been interesting, there, to show how her father's wealth came from brutally exploited workers at one of what Blake called "England's dark satanic mills." But no, the script cops out here too.)

And Will decides to run away from home. He has a little money, and he heads for Liverpool. There he meets the Gains, Stanley and Matilda, who he converted and trusts, and who steal all his money. (Stanley and Matilda were clearly meant to function as comic relief -- they sing a couple of bippy comic-relief-type numbers. Their effectiveness in this role is somewhat limited by the fact that they never, over the entire play, say or do anything remotely amusing). However, just at the point where something resembling a real conflict threatens to break out, a kindly sea captain is taken with the plucky lad, and offers him a job as cabin boy.

And so Will heads to America.

Robert and Elizabeth and Tommy, the young one, look for Will, and arrive in Liverpool just too late to catch him. They have a discussion, and Robert is persuaded, against his better judgement, to emigrate. They decide that Elizabeth and Tommy will go across immediately, in the next ship, and that Robert will go back to Manchester, fetch Katie, sell the factory, and head over themselves in a few weeks.

And I began some very heavy duty squirming in my seat.

Sea journeys, across the Atlantic, in the 1840's, were tremendously arduous and dangerous affairs. A great many of our pioneer ancestors didn't survive it. For an unaccompanied woman to take a six year old child would have been an exceedingly difficult and life-threatening venture. Instead it's treated like: "I'll catch the early flight, and meet you at the airport in Denver." That level of concern and forethought. And she has no reason not to wait for her husband to go with her. They know Will will be heading to Nauvoo, and they're no more likely to catch up with him in New York if they go immediately or wait a month. And if she waits, she'll have plenty of money. And she makes no plans to meet her husband, no rendezvous point, no contingency plans. She just heads off. I don't believe it, I don't buy it, I don't understand it.

What's worse, I don't see the necessity for it dramatically. Crossing the sea, buying a wagon, crossing the plains were all exceedingly difficult, dangerous activities. There's plenty of real conflict inherent in the situation. None of its ever dealt with. Instead this stupid, implausible, contrived situation, with the family divided into three teams -- Will on his own, Elizabeth with a child, Robert and Katie following -- provides the closest thing to a conflict the piece has.

Meanwhile, Nathanial, Katie's erstwhile boyfriend, has gotten engaged to another woman, and they're on the same wagon train with Robert and Katie. And Stanley and Matilda Gains are there too, dodging English police by joining the Saints.

Elizabeth and Tommy (the child) have somehow beaten Will to Nauvoo, and she fits out a wagon and heads to Winter Quarters. She has a friend too, a former slave woman named Martha, who she protects from her master. (When Elizabeth asks Martha to join her, Martha, looking downcast, says "I'll be honored to be your servant, ma'am." And Elizabeth replies "not as my servant, Martha. As my teacher." I found it a badly written, sentimental scene, but it worked, because Susan Alexander Boren, as Elizabeth, and Tracy Thompson, as Martha, made it work. Both were superb in this play.)

Then, after Elizabeth has left with her wagon company, Robert and Katie and Nathanial and his fiancee meet up with Will in Nauvoo, and Robert outfits another wagon train to take them to Winter Quarters too. Or he tries to -- despite Will's warnings, he entrusts all his money to Stanley and Matilda, who steal it. Again, we're on the cusp of another conflict -- Robert, a wealthy man, is now poor, and somehow needs to come up with supplies for the trek west. It's sort of vaguely plausible, I guess, but this script has a real genius for avoiding any kind of reality -- a whole bunch of characters we've never seen before show up and provide Robert with all the supplies he needs, because they heard he was having problems. (He had paid for the passage of a great many saints in England, and if they had all heard of his plight and chipped in for him, a la It's A Wonderful Life, I might have believed it. But no, just a bunch of strangers, helping out.)

Much is made, by the way, of the love triangle situation, Katie and Nathanial and Fiancee. What is it about love triangles? Legacy had a love triangle. Utah! had a love triangle. Why are Mormons so enamoured of love triangles? The most tired of Hollywood/romantic cliches, and we use it over and over and over. (I have to say, I've never been in a love triangle, and I don't know anyone personally who has. The pattern I see is that you date someone, it either works out or not, if not you get over it and date someone else.) And in this play, it's really unnecessary. I mean, the nasty imp in my head kept saying: "Hey, you've got one guy and two girls, you're in Nauvoo and it's 1850. What's the problem? Easy solution here, folks!" No, what actually happens is that, on the trail to Winter Quarters, Fiancee says to Nathanial "I know you're really in love with Katie. That's okay. I release you from our engagement." So that one's solved. Good thing too; it was threatening to become a real conflict.

Okay, Elizabeth is on the trail with Tommy and Martha, Robert is just behind on the same trail with Katie, Nathanial and Will. Tommy gets sick. He's feverish, he's dying. The company that Elizabeth is with is forced to leave her behind to take care of Tommy. Nathanial, bummed over the triangle, goes for a walk and finds Elizabeth. He rushes back and gets Robert, so that Robert can see his son one last time before he dies. On their way back to Elizabeth, Robert and Will and Nathanial run across Matilda and Stanley; Stanley is likewise dying. Robert is persuaded (he keeps saying "I am not a spiritual man, " but Will says "I have faith in you, father!") to give Tommy a blessing. He then gives Stanley a blessing. Stanley has a deathbed repentence and dies. And Tommy is healed.

This is where I started to feel totally alienated and unworthy and cynical. I mean, I believe in the power of the priesthood. I believe in the miracle of healing. I know that a great many children were buried on the pioneer trail, but I also am convinced that a great many more became sick and were healed by faith and the priesthood. I should have found Tommy's healing to be as moving and spiritual and powerfully dramatic as everyone else in the audience clearly found it to be. But I didn't. It felt like yet another cop-out, like the worst sort of deus es machina.

I think it's the context. The play had avoided all other real conflicts, and so this one felt contrived, phony. It's the climax of the play and the song that they sing here is quite a nice tune. And I was clearly in a very tiny minority in being bothered by it. But I was. And I am.

I didn't like Legacy much, and said so on the list. But I have to say that Legacy does not cop out and it does not take the easy way out anywhere near to the degree that BTZ does. (The title, by the way, comes from Will deciding, for no apparent reason, that he won't wear shoes on the trail, that he'll give them away and go barefoot. I didn't believe that moment either). Legacy does not insult the memory of my ancestors; it just puts their story into a Hollywood epic formula that I find distasteful. And BTZ uses entirely LDS performers, and they kind of save the show. Susan Boren as Elizabeth was terrific, Frank Brasile was wonderful as Robert, Amy and Dave Barrus charming as Katie and Nathanial. But BTZ left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. And a bitter feeling of alienation from my brothers and sisters. Because the audience clearly liked a show I despised. And so I don't know what's worse. The fact that BTZ is garbage. Or that it doesn't matter that it's garbage.

Depressingly yours
Eric Samuelsen