In Review: LDSFF '09 Part 3 - Dragon Hunter

I'm glad I finally have a chance to get back to this. Sorry it's taken so long.

Being at the same time as the 24 hour screenings, I didn't think I was going to get to see Steve Shimek's Dragon Hunter. Probably because of popular demand, however, the festival's producers decided to put in in the TBA slot immediately after the 24 hour films. So I stayed.

I have to disclose that I tend to be a sucker for fantasy, and was consequently predisposed to like this film. I was intrigued by it to no end. A Mormon film about hunting dragons? How "Mormon" would it be? Would it be an overwrought morality tale? A complex allegory? Or nothing of the kind? How "big" would the film be? Would it look like a Hollywood fantasy-action movie, complete with realistic CGI monsters and carefully choreographed fight scenes? Would it be more like something you shot in your backyard with sock puppets? The posters certainly didn't look that way. I had a lot of questions and didn't know quite what to expect, but I was excited to see it nonetheless.

Because I'm not very good at summarizing plots, I've pasted the synopsis from the festival site below:

Orphaned as a baby when his parents were killed in a vicious orc attack, Kendrick of Elwood was raised by his elder brother, Darius. Though only nine at the time, Darius devoted his life to Kendrick's care and to purging orcs from their land. As Darius grew into a great warrior, he sheltered Kendrick from all possible harm. Now, after years of absence, a new danger emerges, more lethal than the threat of orcs or men. Reports of dragon attacks spread like wildfire through the panicked land. In memory of his mother's prophesies of a mighty Dragon Hunter in their bloodline, Darius leads Kendrick on a perilous journey to the castle of Ocard - the Dragon Hunter training grounds. Will dragons completely decimate the countryside? Only the Dragon Hunter will decide!

In spite of being patterned after films like The Lord of the Rings, this film, to paraphrase Maclain Nelson, its executive producer and star, was not the most riveting action-adventure movie ever. It was made to make money, Nelson said in his presentation later in the festival. Fantasy, he pointed out, does better in foreign markets than in the U.S., and so, for Americans, does not lend itself to art for art's sake. This, however, does not mean that quality craftsmanship is not involved. In fact, the very first thing I noticed about the film was the stunning cinematography-a-la-T. C. Christensen of the opening sequence in particular. I was surprised later to learn that not only was the script submitted by a student, the film was crewed entirely by students to keep costs down. Nelson and his team essentially said to the BYU media arts department, "We want to do a fantasy film. If you can come up with a script we like, we'll produce it."

This might just be every film student's dream come true - although not necessarily this genre - and I have to applaud Nelson and his associates for making the offer, regardless of other considerations.

Getting back to the film, let me say a few things generally to answer what I imagine some of the surface questions about this film may be.

The special effects were good enough to not be cheesy. The fight sequences were shot in such a manner that I never knew who was hitting whom for all the quick cuts, and motion blur. It was a bit melodramatic and slow-moving, but not unbearably so. Many of the characters could have been taken from any number of other fantasy films (or even video games), notably the orcs and the overdone, heavily painted, scantily clad female elf. Who really goes on a battle quest dressed like that? Honestly. The main protagonists, Kendrick and Darius, were original and well done. I particularly liked the captain of the travelling band the two brothers meet up with, though his name escapes me. The character played by Isaac Singleton, of Pirates of the Caribbean fame is also pretty good. The story has potential, but doesn't always live up to it.

With that out of the way, there are two aspects of Dragon Hunter I'd like to discuss particularly: the language, and the intertwined moral themes, namely courage and the motivation for fighting.

Language

A lot of fantasy films have every character speak in British-like accents in order to get an archaic sound to the words. At the very least, they try to eliminate accents that are clearly modern, such as the distinct speech patterns associated with people from Brooklyn. They also avoid modern slang, contractions, and other linguistic artifacts that might give the piece too contemporary a feel. While the effectiveness of this approach is debatable, it is nevertheless a common creative choice. Although some actors did have (it seemed) native accents, this was not the format of Dragon Hunter, in which the main protagonists noticeably sounded just like everyday Americans - though not crudely so, and I spoke with Nelson individually to ask why.

He said that he didn't feel such language lends any extra credibility to a fantasy film. Indeed, my linguist sister-in-law once told me that people in medieval times probably sounded more like Americans than Britons, although popular perception is the reverse. Nelson didn't think the choice hurt the film at all, and I, after getting into it, agreed. But I do remember being surprised by it, nonetheless. For the first several minutes, the world created effectively by cinematography, costuming, and sets, was made less believable by the sound and content of some of the lines. In many cases, good or fairly good acting made up for what I considered somewhat weak dialogue.

And yet, aside from being occasionally forced, the primary reasons I considered it weak go back to this same concept of setting and perception. I don't think the accents would have thrown me as much if the words being spoken had sounded less modern. With the conglomeration of voices and speaking styles in the film, the return to everyday English felt out of place at times, especially since the characters who did this did not do it consistently. Some lines, in content and delivery, sounded tailor made for a big fantasy action film. Others sounded like they were written for a suburban sitcom. This is probably a realistic reflection of life, and it ended up being a minor issue, but it was harder for me to commit to the film because of the language.

Courage and Fighting

Here I want to shift gears a little bit. While I want to discuss these themes as they apply to the film, I want to also discuss them as they apply to the LDS filmmaker.

Dragon Hunter opens and closes by making assertions about the relationship between courage and fear. In the beginning, Kendrick admires Darius' bravery, but Darius claims to have none. Instead, he claims that his will to fight comes from the fear of what will happen if he doesn't fight. In many cases, this means that he simply fight to stay alive and to kill his attacker. In fact, he's devoted his life to hunting orcs for this reason. His primary motive in life is the fear of dying at the hands of an orc. Therefore, he becomes an orc hunter. The topic of his daring deeds and those of others comes up repeatedly in conversations throughout the film.

In almost every case, the person in question denies fighting out of valor or some sense of right or righteousness, and instead cites fear, vengeance, hatred, or plain necessity as the driving motivation. Regarding fear, I want to make it clear that this is not fear for the welfare of others, but simply an (arguably) utterly selfish concern for one's own life. In the end, when Kendrick becomes the legendary Dragon Hunter and devotes his life to bringing about their extinction, he monologues the same reason Darius gave. He chases down and confronts dragons because he is mortally afraid of them.

So how does this apply to LDS filmmakers? I wonder if sometimes we have these same motivations for creating our art.

For example, no one is surprised to hear an LDS filmmaker express a desire to combat the immorality common in Hollywood films, or at least provide an alternative. We tend to applaud and encourage these desires because we want more beauty and goodness in the world. But how many LDS filmmakers (or viewers, for that matter) are motivated by fear of the influence of immorality in their own lives or the lives of others? Do we combat these things to avoid being destroyed by them? Is that an appropriate motivation?

Similarly, like a masked vigilante, do we harbor a deep hatred of filthy entertainment and want to see it eradicated? Do we view the battle as inevitable or the alternative to fighting as unacceptable? Have we or a loved one been hurt by it so that we desire vengeance? This may not be common, but I doubt it's impossible.

Further, how do we define the dragon?

I don't propose to answer these questions for anyone, but I think we would do well to ask ourselves why we make films and why our audiences want them. Are any of these motives at the core? If so, is this appropriate from a personal or gospel perspective?

Closing Note - including spoiler, in case you care.

Dragon Hunter provides, if nothing else, a lot to think about. Let me say one other thing really quickly. I often have a hard time with seeing LDS actors who have been in official Church films playing roles in worldly movies. In Dragon Hunter, the villainous "wizard" who tries to control the dragon and gets eaten - a topic which might make for a good post another time - is played by (I'm terribly with actors' names) the same guy who plays one of the apostles in Finding Faith in Christ. For some reason, I couldn't take him seriously as a demented, bloodthirsty maniac. He always seemed like an apostle in costume. However, if I had seen the two films in reverse order, I have a hunch I may have felt differently. What do you think about that? Does acting in Church films limit an actor's credibility in other roles?

My 24 Hour Film

Note: I just noticed that something funny is going on with the frame size here - it's getting cut off.. If you want to see the full frame, watch it here.

This is pretty lousy, especially compared to many other films in the competition, but then...

Nevertheless, my cast and crew of more-or-less first-timers made a heroic effort.

You should know that I suffered a severe hardware failure shortly after the festival, so I lost some of the content from the original. I was able to recover it, however I tweaked a few things to include in a demo video to a prospective client. This is the new version, but it's almost exactly the same as the old, just with lower thirds added and the (nasty) keying improved very slightly (barely perceptibly at this size, really). I also had to redo one of the (terrible) effects shots. Other than that, it's identical frame for frame. Can you tell I'm nervous about posting this?




Hi, now that you all know what I look and sound like in "real" life. Nice to meet you. Needless to say, we didn't win anything. I'd love your feedback, though.

In Review: LDSFF'09 Part 2 - The 24hr. Films

The first event I was privileged to take part in at the LDS Film Festival this year was the 24 Hour Film Making Marathon. I've written about my experience as an entrant elsewhere, so I'll not bore you with those details here. Suffice to say that I learned a lot about myself as a filmmaker and a person. Instead, I want to deal with the competition in general.

For those unfamiliar with it, the Marathon starts the Friday before the festival screenings begin with a registration meeting. Teams of filmmakers (no more than five people per team, cast and crew) meet to sign up and find out a theme, an object, and a line of dialogue that must be included in the film. This year, the theme was sacrifice, the object was a match, and the line was, "Let me be your..." From the time the meeting ends, the teams have 24 hours to produce a completely original three-minute short film based on the criteria. Anything over three minutes is disqualified, but a film can be shorter.

41 films were turned in this year.

An interesting side note: at the opening meeting, the question arose as to whether a person could be on more than one team. The issue was put to a vote, which came down in the affirmative. I noticed several people in multiple films at the screenings the next Thursday.

Speaking of screenings, I had no idea what to expect from the films when I showed up for them, but I was amazed by what I saw. Filmmaking of the highest quality was represented there. Many films were so polished that they easily could have been competition shorts. The creativity with which the theme, object, and line were used was vast.

I saw there a friend of mine, Todd Smith, whose films have won audience choice awards in past festivals. We grew up in the same ward, and I hadn't seen him for some time, which made the encounter more enjoyable.

One thought I had going into the competition was that it would be easy for filmmakers to take a comic approach, seeing how tightly regulated the competition was. I thought comedy would be a crutch for many groups, because it could help to mask flaws created by the tight schedule. While a lot of the films were funny, I was impressed by how few seemed immaturely so. On the other hand, many of the films dealt with subjets seriously and well. I was surprised, pleasantly, to see that a ridiculously tight production schedule and inflexible content guidelines (the three required elements) did not seem to stifle either creativity or quality. In some cases, the opposite may have been true.

Some of the films included There's Waldo (Todd's group), a sort of "Where are they now?" film about the red-and-white-striped cartoon icon; 'Fice: the Musical (parts 1 and 2); The Infinipede Space Monster from Outer Space, a spoof on the original Star Trek and sci-fi in general; Gold is Not Enough, another musical with a spy themel; Malaroli, a personal favorite of mine; and many more.

It's hard to review any one of these films independently, since they were all so much a part of each other. The 24 Hour Filmmaking Marathon represented the entire range of LDS work: from first-time filmmakers to experts, from comedy to drama, from narrative to documentary, from traditional to experimental. Although there were a few moments that I personally felt were in poor taste, none of it was bad. In fact, it produced some real gems, as good as anything else that played all week, and in some cases more meaningful.

As Christian Vuissa said of it, one of the most important things about this competition is that it gets filmmakers making films. It strips away all the traditional excuses. No one expects an appreciable budget or big-name actors. Few actors were widely known, even within the LDS community. No one I knew of expected to win based on prestige. I would bet that few expected to win at all. I don't want to get into too many disclaimers about how I don't know what other people were thinking and feeling, but, as far as I know, the only things anyone expected were to have fun, be friends, work towards perfecting their crafts, and create something good. And while there was certainly an air of competition, that is exactly what happened.

Read about the winners here.

In Review: LDSFF '09 Part 1 - General Observations

I have no idea how many parts there will be to this series, but probably a lot. It should keep me busy for some time. So, to it!

The 8th annual LDS Film Festival concluded last Saturday at about 11:30 PM. The only exception to that is the script workshop, which is this weekend. Since I won't be attending that, I'm ready to start reviewing. I thought it would be appropriate, before delving into the specifics of what happened there, to offer some general observations about the festival this year that made my experience memorable. First and foremost for me was the difference from last year, specifically in how I felt while there.

Let me give you a bit of history. I've said often to my wife that going to the festival last year was the best thing I'd ever done for my career from a spiritual and professional perspective. The reasons for that are many, but I won't go into them here. It was at that festival that I first heard of this blog. I started following it and when Trevor asked for contributors a bit later, I jumped right in. My life has changed dramatically as a result.

So I might have been expecting a similarly inspirational experience this year. I got it, but not until the awards ceremony. Most of it came as I talked over the phone to my sweet wife on the drive home. And it was not at all what I was thinking of. Instead, most of this year's festival felt like what it was - a business conference. I've run A/V equipment at countless events for many companies and industries in the past five years. This festival was only different from those in that I had a personal stake in it. That made it more interesting, but not always more exciting. While it wasn't drudgery by any stretch of the imagination, I found myself thinking and feeling with less uncorked enthusiasm and more quiet staying power. It was a good feeling, but one that required a certain degree of tenacity.

One of the first things I noticed in looking over the schedule was that there seemed to be far fewer films this year that were built around a specifically LDS, spiritual theme. There were exceptions, of course, such as the flagship film, Christian Vuissa's Father in Israel. My biggest regret of the week is that I didn't get to see that one. There was also One Man's Treasure, (a missionary film), Mario's Conviction, (a film version of From Mobster to Mormon), and Dianatha's Crossing (set during the "invasion" of Salt Lake City by Johnston's army). But the majority of the feature-length films were either non-specific in their spirituality or simply secular. To be fair, several of the special screenings (too long to be competitive shorts, to short to be features) did have LDS content, and in rich supply.

Let me admit at this point that I didn't see most of the features and special screenings, since I was attending the filmmaker presentations. I did see some. But these are the impressions I got from looking and listening and talking to people. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I also want to say that I think that's something I'll do differently next year. Although I was eager to hear the presentations, I don't think I got as much out of them this year as last. Maybe it was the subject matter, but I don't think so. I think next time I would like to see more of the work of my associates there, and hear less, if necessary, of their commentary.

Speaking of which, that was another difference: I had associates there. Last year, the only person I knew was Brandon Smith, who was the first director I ever screen acted for. He works on Christian's films now. This time, before I even walked in the door Thursday night, a member of my 24 hour film making group told me that someone was there who wanted to meet me. I was stunned. It turned out to be Brent Leavitt, who I've interacted with online, but never met until then. He does excellent work on his Sun Swing Studies, and was a volunteer that night. In fact, an intermittent conversation I had with him throughout Saturday was possibly the single most inspirational event of the weekend for me. I also had the opportunity to see Brandon again (always a nice thing) and meet and speak to people like Maclain Nelson (actor and executive producer), Christian Vuissa (filmmaker and festival founder), Russ Whitelock (composer), Arlen Card (composer), and others whose names I didn't get.

More genres were represented as well, from teen-mystery to political activism to high fantasy/adventure. The short films were as stunning in their variety as they were in their quality. They were easily my favorite. Even the 24 hour films, of which there were 41, including my first-ever festival entry, showed incredible talent, skill, and creativity. That's not a description of mine, by the way, which was among the dimmest candles of the evening.

All in all, I saw 65 of the 100+ films that screened there and attended 9 hours of presentations in less than three days. I think the most important thing about the festival is that it shows that film making in the LDS community is alive and well. People are producing, and they're producing quality films.

The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement, as one professor of mine says, but Latter-day Saints in this field are showing their drive to be productive - even prolific - and to strive for the same progression in their art that they strive for in their souls. More thoughts on this will come out in subsequent posts, but I think I'm safe in saying that the gloom and doom predicted by some for the LDS film movement couldn't be less accurate. I think we're going through a period of introspection, experimentation, and maybe even captivity of sorts, but we will emerge stronger than before. Why do I think this? Because if the festival impacted others the way it did me, then LDS filmmakers are more determined than ever.

A Question For You

So, the festival is underway and I'm enjoying it far too much. But I have a slight problem. You see, the two most attractive presentations (in my opinion) are scheduled at the same time. One is the LDS Film Forum, which will be about what the LDSFF '09 tells us about ourselves and our art. The other is a presentation from a non-LDS filmmaker with similar values to most LDS filmmakers. He will be giving an outside perspective on the LDS film movement.

I don't want to miss either, but I obviously have to choose. I can't. So I'm asking you. Because I'm inevitably going to end up writing about whichever I go to, I want to know

LDSFF '09

Just a quick reminder, the LDS Film Festival gets underway Friday the 16that 10:00 AM with the 24hr. film making marathon. Starting this coming Monday, you'll be able to see a schedule of events and get other information here. The festival officially runs from the 21st through the 24th. I hope to be there for most of it, and I'm sure there will be lots of interesting things to discuss, wherever those discussions take place.

Not Very Good, but Who Cares?

I guess someone was bound to post on this movie here eventually. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing it yet, but that's part of why I'm writing this now. Everyone I've talked to about Twilight and many comments I've read have all had the same thing to say: the movie wasn't that great, but people liked it anyway. And not just teenage people. I've heard strong positives from elderly women and middle-aged men as well.

What an interesting phenomenon for a movie - especially one with strong Mormon ties! A lot of people have argued that poor production values have been a major downfall of LDS cinema. While Twilight may not fall under narrower definitions of that term, it certainly has a place in the history of the movement, and it may be a significant one. Regardless of how well the film or its characters or the book it's based on represent Mormonism, its doctrines, or its adherents, this is a film about a debut book by an obscure Mormon author who, in a startlingly short time, was transformed into a popular sensation. This film defies the idea that a person needs the most expensive, the most experienced, and the best of everything to reach a whole herd of people - to make it in spectacular fashion. This seems to me to be a very Christian idea - the weak and simple, as it were. Almost all I hear about this movie is 'the special effects were lousy, the acting wasn't great, and there were a host of other flaws, but I loved it.' So here's the question: why? What makes this film's flaws so ultimately forgivable?

And here's another: if Twilight can have such influence without superior acting, technical excellence, or a huge budget, how much do these things matter? How does this change our perspective on where the LDS film movement should go? Do we all want the kind of exposure that Stephenie Meyer has gotten? It's interesting that, as far as I know, the majority of the attention generated by the movie is turning to her - the author of the books. Some of it is bound to fall on the Church and other Mormon artists.

So what do you need to make an influential movie? A story with a good soul? A flock of teenage hyper-fans? Or do you just need vampires?

Of What Fold Are We?

Let me be upfront about this. This post is not intended as a condemnation, condescension, or any other con you can think of towards anything. It's an honest thought with a question attached. Please read it in that light.

I've been wondering. We hear a lot from the brethren and from members of the Church in general about media as the showcase of wickedness. We hear from a lot of producers of LDS films (and other arts) about their good intentions. We hear a lot about film and how good ones challenge us. We also probably say a lot about these things. I know I do.

There's a constant banter about ratings, standards, and other measures for determining what is good to consume and what should be avoided and under what circumstances. Some want rock-solid statements by which to judge every time. Some want the kind of flexibility that takes each work individually as it comes. Both have good arguments. We all want to know how we should approach what's out there and how much of it we should let in here and how to get our product out there in an appropriate fashion.

My questions are these: why are we so eager to partake of (and sometimes emulate) the world's every offering? When we readily admit that popular films in general are getting more edgy, when we acknowledge that the people who make them do not share our standards, when we even suspect some of them of having unholy agendas, why do we rush to see what kind of fare they have created? I am not implying that there is no good answer to these questions. There may well be one or more good reasons to do this. I can see cases on either side. But I ask the question because I think it is legitimate. When we have prophetic counsel to be very guarded in what influences to allow in our lives, can we go long without asking these or similar questions?

It may be a testament to the value neutral nature of artistic and technical knowledge that some of our best and brightest are seeking education at the same institutions that train some of those who would make things even worse and calling their learning excellent. It may be a deterrent to maintenance of a spiritual perspective on film. It may be an attempt to raise the bar or bridge a gap for LDS cinema. It may verify the claim that truth, wherever it lies, should be sought out. It may describe a need: namely, a supply of high caliber, LDS or LDS-values-friendly film schools.

Perhaps one reason we are struggling to improve LDS cinema is that we are learning primarily from Gospel-incompatible sources. If so, perhaps something should be done to change that.

That's what I've been wondering about. What do you think?

Reflections on Reflections of Christ

I'm sure many if not all of you have heard of this remarkable photographic achievement of Mark Mabry's. If not, look here. The site is being redesigned, so this link will only work for a limited time.

My brother directed me to a Mormon Times article about this exhibit that got me thinking about what we try to do here. In it, Mabry expresses some interesting thoughts that I think would be good for all LDS artists to consider. Reading it will give you context on what I'm about to say.

I think of chief interest to me in this article is the concept of worthiness that Mabry outlines. He talks about appropriate subject matter. He discusses giving up harmful influences. He talks about singleness of purpose. He says that if he fails to remain faithful in his testimony, his work will lose its power, even though it's already been completed.

I realize that the purpose of Reflections of Christ differs from that of much of LDS art, particularly cinema perhaps. But I still think that the worthiness of the artist has to do with the quality and impact of the art. This must be especially true where the work in question is a testimonial piece. Whatever the intent or scope of our art, however, I imagine we all seek divine assistance. I know I do.

I wonder what this article and this exhibit have to say that we can benefit from.

Iron Man and Lancelot

In the spirit of Benjamin's posts on lessons from cinema, I want to talk about some things I'm learning from the joint venture of watching the recently released DVD of Iron Man and reading T.H. White's The Once and Future King, which is about King Arthur.

Redemption. That's the word (repeated in many reviews you may have read) that convinced me to watch this movie, and I'm glad I did. The way the main character, Tony Stark, goes from careless playboy genius to conscientious superhero genius is both moving and representative of real repentance which, as my little girls say, is "changing to be good." The thing that impresses me the most about it is his total change of heart and aggressive action to correct not a bad social situation like Batman, but the consequences of his wrong choices. Iron man doesn't become, at least in this movie, a vigilante crusader against all things evil. He has a specific mission to remedy the harm he has caused by not caring about the right things.

So where does King Arthur come in? He doesn't. But Lancelot does. In The Once and Future King, White describes Lancelot as a man who does so many good works because of his own dark nature. He enjoys hurting people and is filled with lust and envy. To combat these things, he establishes for himself a rigorous code of conduct that prevents him from acting on any of his base impulses.

These two ideas combined and came to a head in the first scene in Iron Man in which the title character takes action in his new cause. I have rarely had a more powerful experience with film, but I don't think everyone would have the same kind of feeling I did in that moment. To me, it represented a moment of decision, in which past transgressions and the natural man were overcome by the sheer force of will. I was going to say "human will," but that would be wrong. While the decision to repent and change is ours, Stark acknowledges later in the film that he would not be living if not for a higher purpose than his own. He cites his knowledge of this as his motivation for his new life. I think we can learn from that.