The Last Word

For those who feel this movie is propaganda for Mormons, I can understand why you feel that way, but I also understand how Mormons also post to say it's not propaganda and was aimed at a Mormon audience. No doubt it was aimed at a Mormon audience--just look at which theatres it shows in--and no doubt it's perfectly understandable for a Mormon film covering deeply felt Mormon ideas on love and death and faith to reference and depict Mormon ideas and culture. Because the Mormon church is such an active proselytizing church, many are familiar with Mormon missionaries and many are suspicious of Mormon motivations if they have formed a negative view of them. So it's understandable that Mormon film-makers speaking to Mormon people would also hope their film would inspire others who are not Mormon to become interested in Mormons, investigate the church, and then become Mormon.

This hope shouldn't inspire suspicion, I think, because of how universal this hope is among people of various religions. Brett in his posts is more sensitive to this hope, and may experience it as pressure, because [he] has grown up in Salt Lake City around Mormons, and probably has felt this pressure many times sometimes as a kind or appreciative hope, and sometimes as more negative--conditional love--or even manipulative. Like Brett, I'm an "outsider" living in SLC, and know why he might feel this way. He said he's lived in SLC all his life, and I think as he travels and lives in other places he'll find how similar SLC is to other places that have a dominant religion. I've found SLC to be pretty ordinary in this, having lived in various cities in the world that have dominant religions.

Here are two film examples: I recently saw "There Be Dragons" and realized I was watching a biopic of Father Escriva, founder of Opus Dei, a movement in Catholicism. It was easy to see how the film wanted me to admire Escriva and OD and be inspired, and found myself wondering about the veracity of some things depicted. I can imagine that somewhere on IMDB people are talking about it as propaganda, both non-catholics and catholics themselves because OD is controversial. But I can easily understand why OD members would want to depict their movement and its origin in a positive light after the creepy associations around OD shown in the book and film, "Da Vinci Code" and why shouldn't they? I won't be joining OD but I'm glad to see another side of it than Dan Brown's and that will factor into how I see the movement and Escriva and I have done some research since just to confirm issues of the film. I use this example because it's more controversial than "Charly" which only offers a positive version of the small LDS religion, recently in the news because of US politics, whereas "There Be Dragons" wades into hot controversies of the Spanish Civil War (still fractious to talk about all these years since) along with OD and Catholicism, itself recently controversial. In comparison, "Charly" is mild and only seeks to show a positive view of two individuals in love and in faith.

The other example is Chaim Potok's novel and the movie version, "The Chosen." This story shows many of the same issues as "Charly"--love, faith, and struggle--and Potok adds issues related to tradition and freedom that have universal appeal. Potok's novel a classic and a work of art, and not really a good comparison to Jack Weyland's novel "Charly" but the comparison is interesting because nobody thinks Potok is writing propaganda. That's because 1) the jewish tradition is not a proselytizing religion, so at least in the US where people are familiar with Jews and don't think Potok is trying to get them to be Jewish. And 2) because Potok is willing to take such a critical and fearless look at Jewish faith and tradition that the ideas and issues are profound and the novel is compelling to many from many other faith traditions. This fearlessness, seen in Jewish art generally, may be related to the lack of proselytizing. Something for Christians who want to make art to think about ;-)

Mormon art is so young, and the Mormon religion so young, they are still struggling to develop that kind of fearlessness. I think "Charly", the novel and the film, are a good, if heavily flawed, early attempt to make real Mormon art, and they are partly successful, due to limitations of talent and budget and vision. Richard Dutcher's "Brigham City" is a film that goes beyond "Charly." Very different but more fearless, and benefits from and builds on the efforts of earlier Mormon film makers. Mormons may eventually build a significant art tradition but it will take a fearlessness rarely seen in the fledgling Mormon film industry.