I've read all the comments about this film on AML-List, noticing in particular the ones critical of the miracle and the voice over summary. Tonight I finally went and saw the film with great anticipation. My reaction -- what are these critics talking about?

I would be hard put to figure out how to make Dutcher's presentation more balanced or more honest -- given of course that it's a story told by a Mormon to other Mormons. Nobody is given a pass, nobody is kowtowed to, no emotion is manipulatively pried out of the viewers.

For his Mormon audience, Dutcher will not sweep reality under the rug lest he offend. The missionaries are young men with young men's foibles, trying to rise above their own inadequacies to accomplish a marvelous work. The main character reaches a crisis of faith, because he's bearing witness to things he's not sure of; guaranteeing Moroni's promise when he hasn't put it to the test himself. One missionary tries to go home, but is encouraged to stay and does. Another tries to go home, and all the encouragement in the world can't stop him. The existence of anti-Mormon literature is acknowledged matter-of-factly. The issue of blacks is raised in an open, unfiltered, and deeply personal way and is never neatly resolved.

To his non-Mormon audience, Dutcher will not defer. He stands courageously before them and says, miracles do occur on missions, and I'm going to show one. People experience conversions by the spirit, and my characters will experience them too.

Dutcher says, I'm going to tell a story about missionaries, and I'm going to tell it like it is, if it hairlips the boogerman (paraphrased, I'm sure). If you don't like it, tell it to the hand cause the head ain't listening.

Could the miracle have been foreshadowed? There's only one piece of foreshadowing that might have been appropriate, and it's a tiny piece. In the blessing, Elder Dalton mentions that the recipient has prayed often for this miracle -- yet it's is the first time we've heard about that (although it's not hard to imagine the character doing such a thing). A single -- emphasis on single -- allusion to this earlier in the film (the baptismal interview would have been an excellent spot) probably would have been a good idea. But any more than that -- if Dutcher had foreshadowed the heck out of the miracle so, when it came, it wouldn't jar the sensibilities of the cynical -- THAT would have made the miracle scene maudlin.

And to say the miracle doesn't arise out of the story? I don't even get that one. Under the circumstances, it would have been dishonest NOT to have it occur.

Nor do I understand the objection to the scene where the voice over tells us about each character's destiny. By then we care very much about these characters and want to know. It's nothing that hasn't been done in Hollywood many times over. Had I not been sensitized to the scene by the discussion on the List, I doubt I would have had any conscious awareness of the device at all.

If there was anything gimmicky about the film it was the marriage at the end -- just about as cliche Hollywood as you can get: two people who didn't like each other at first introduction fall in love and marry by closing credits. Better to have set us up for that cliche, then twist it and have him marry -- her sister or something.

The production value was only a hint under par -- blown up 16mm? -- but the slight lack of crispness in the image disappears from your awareness in literally seconds as Dutcher enchants you with the skill of a tenth level magic user. Many critics have praised the film for its bold steps into a new, untapped genre -- in spite of its shortcomings. I say, every LDS filmmaker with dreams of following in Dutcher's footsteps ought to be trembling in their mocassins right now, because God's Army will be a tough act to follow.

-- 
D. Michael Martindale
dmichael@wwno.com
Worlds Without Number
http://www.wwno.com