The R.M. By Kurt Hale Halestorm Entertainment, 2003. Genre: Film
Reviewed by: Eric R. Samuelsen

Okay, I finally saw it. My wife and I decided to see it Friday, so I could comment on it for my paper at AML Saturday.

Here's the thing: I think comedy should be based on Truth, or more accurately, truth. Observed reality, in other words. I think stuff isn't funny if there's no basis in any kind of observed reality. So, Singles Ward was somewhat funny. A lot of people on the List pointed out that they'd seen actual goofinesses among LDS singles similar to those depicted in the film. So, okay, amusement ensues. What I disliked so intensely about SW was not actually the funny stuff, it was those moments when the film tried to get serious. Halestorm calls each film "A Hunter/Hale fireside," so, okay, let's take 'em at their word. What's being preached? Turns out, nothing I could agree with.

RM, at least initially doesn't even have Singles' Ward's tiny, thin connection to truth, however. This gets interesting: Eric D Snider, who I like, points this out in his review of the film at his paper. He didn't think it was that big a problem. I saw it as a bigger problem. I think RM is much much worse than SW. But, of course, I haven't seen itall either, and Eric D did.

For starters, RM commits that common screenwriting 101 mistake I call 'the non-volitional protagonist.' The entire film centers on a character -- a new RM named Jared -- who makes absolutely nothing happen; he is a character to whom things happen. The result is generally a weak protagonist, and I think that happens here too. There's no particular reason subsequently to like the guy or feel anything for him; well, you do feel a little sorry for him. But you don't root for him, because he's not doing anything you can root for him to finish or achieve. The stuff that happens to him is so contrived and idiotic that neither he, nor his problems, are human.

Beyond that, what stuff happens to him? For starters, he comes home from his mission, and his family has moved without telling him, and also forgotten when he's coming home. I mean, seriously? What kind of bizarre sociopathic family does this dude come from? They're not portrayed as bizarrely sociopathic; they're supposed to be normal everyday LDS people. And they forget to tell their missionary that they've moved?

This doesn't happen. It may be the punch line to a joke, and it may be some paranoid fantasy shared by a few kids on missions, but it doesn't happen. And it's not funny. I don't care how many swimming pools Jared falls into, or how many ladders he falls off of. This stuff isn't funny. Nobody in the theater when I saw it laughed at all, nothing, nada, nary a chuckle.

Then Jared's girlfriend, who he thought waited, didn't. She dumps him. His reaction: he's sort of bummed. He goes home, tells mom, and she does the 'that's too bad, dear,' thang I do when one of my kids shows me an owie. So that's Mormonism; a place where a broken engagement has no affect or emotional resonance, where marriage -- temple marriage -- or its disruption is seen as a trivial inconvenience. And where Moms couldn't care less about the pain suffered by their children.

But that's where the film seems to be taking us, thematically. The parents, for example, do some kind of Amway/Nuskin pyramid scam thing. So there you go; that works. The film could be exploring some essential emotional coldness and shallowness within Mormon culture, which consists of people who don't even have friends; just marketing opportunities. Now, I think maybe that's valid. I think that it's possible that these sorts of utterly inhuman interactions may indeed constitute 'friendship' for some Mormons. Get your home/visiting teaching numbers, and meanwhile make a buck off your ward members. But, dang, it's depressing to think about.

So, okay, the only argument I can make for this film is that they're trying some sort of Swiftean Modest Proposal savagery, a blistering satire into the utter emotional bleakness at the heart of Mormondom. If so, they screwed the tone up. The thing needs some bite. It doesn't have any. They're pretty inept in every other way, and it's possible that they're just untalented satirists who nonetheless have a point. But I think not. All this stuff isn't supposed to add up to anything, I think. I think they think they're just riffing, an unconnected series of gags about how loveably kooky Mormons are.

I kept focussing on what an inhuman film this is. It's a film that I found utterly bleak and despairing, and aggressively unfunny. So I ask, can you make fun of utter inhuman emotional bleakness? I mean, just use that subject as the pretext for sight gags? Ha ha, Mormon parents don't love their kids, have no friends, and are sort of jolly fat sociopaths! I think you could, again in a really tough minded satirical way, like something like Dr. Strangelove mocks cold war soldiers and pols. But RM just doesn't have that feel to it.

How does the end solve things? I don't know. I didn't see it. The film projector broke 40 minutes in. The theatre offered my wife and I coupons for another film, and we'll use them. I think we'll go see Chicago, which I heard was good and raunchy. That's good; when you see a film that's as spiritually empty and soul destroying as RM, all that prettified nihilism, then you need to see something good and raunchy, to replace those destructively wholesome images in your mind with something truthful and corrupt, so you can feel the Spirit again.

Two quick addenda. First, I was genuinely looking forward to RM being good. I really was. I wanted to like it. Eric Snider said it was better than SW, and if it had been even a modest improvement, I would have applauded it. I know y'all don't believe me when I say that, but it's true. I went to the theatre hoping for and anticipating an entertaining experience.

But this leads to a really interesting question for me. I like satire, I like comedy, I am a loud and easy laugher. I think there's nothing inappropriate about making fun of LDS culture. Heck, I write for the Sugarbeet, and enjoy it. I write comedy. I've got a comedy playing in a theatre near you, if you live in Orem. But my response to both Halestorm comedies has been tremendously negative.

Why is that? Why do these two films so bother me? I don't know the answer, but watching RM, I have an inkling. I think it's because the humor in it touches on really valuable issues, but then doesn't do much with them. I mean, I'd love a good satirical examination on the success of multi-level marketing schemes among Mormons. I don't get how someone could abuse friendship like that, but it certainly seems a popular thing among my brothers and sisters. Maybe it does indicate some real coldness at the heart of our culture. Whatever, I think it's a really intriguing theme. But the Halestorm approach is just to mention it, get their laugh, and move on. That bothers me. It seems an irresponsible approach to comedy.

I think, along with John Cleese, that comedy is serious, but not solemn. I think Mormon culture is frequently solemn, but actually not serious. Well, Halestorm seems like a version of that; they're silly, and then they get solemn, but they're never serious. Does that work?

Anyway, I've only seen half of RM. I have no intention of seeing the second half. I think, based on what I saw, that it's worse than Singles' Ward. And I really disliked Singles' Ward. But some of y'all liked Singles' Ward, and Eric Snider liked RM better. Interesting, n'est pas?

Eric Samuelsen

One last thing: they have all these jokes about Kirby as a first name, like for parents to name a kid Kirby is just the funniest thing going (this because Jared's girlfriend's fiancee is named Kirby). I'm sitting there going 'what's that about, Kirby's a reasonable enough first name, what's the big deal?' As we leave the theatre, I glance at the poster. The leading actor has the first name Kirby. So this is this huge inside joke, heartily appreciated by, who? The director, the crew? Great. Who cares if the audience is amused; what matters is that we had a good time on the set.