The problems with "The Book of Mormon Movie" start with the title--I mean, who puts both Book and Movie in a title?
('Well, what else are you going to call it', you ask? How about something like "Tales from the Book of Mormon: Volume 1"--nothing wrong with that...)
The "Book of Mormon Movie" is the first in a proposed series of seven or eight films to cover the entire Book of Mormon text (this one covers 1st Nephi and the beginning of 2nd Nephi). "The Book of Mormon Movie" (hereafter BOMM) is obviously a labor of love for writer/director Gary Rogers, who has stated it is his way of fulfilling President Ezra Taft Benson's vision of "artists putting into film, drama, literature, music, and paintings great themes and characters from the Book of Mormon." Rogers hopes the movie will provide a spiritual experience to all and bring people closer to Christ.
Does the movie work, though? Setting aside the low budget and production values, there isn't much of a cohesive story, the pacing is bad, and the spiritual elements have a hard time making themselves felt. Basically, no, it doesn't.
Part of the problem is the Book of Mormon is meant to be scripture first and a narrative record second. By design, it's not supposed to have a coherent plot with a traditional introduction-setup-climax-resolution structure or a variety of interesting characters who interact in meaningful ways. Granted, 1st Nephi is, comparatively, one of the more 'story-like' parts of the Book of Mormon, but even then there are many gaps and unexplained details. We should recall that 1st and 2nd Nephi come from the 'small plates' of Nephi, that were meant to be a record of prophecy and doctrine first with any recorded details of their journey from Jerusalem being almost an afterthought.
This concept undoubtedly led to a difficult decision for Rogers and the other filmmakers--stay faithful to the text even though the limitations of 1st Nephi as a 'screenplay' become very obvious, or take some 'liberties' in terms of structure and organization in order to create a more cinematic experience. Thinking, perhaps, that the target audience would be less forgiving for taking such cinematic 'liberties' from a text they consider to be scripture--even if it resulted in a more positive movie-going experience--Rogers has remained very faithful to the structure and events of the text, almost to a fault. Unfortunately, this decision, while avoiding 'offending' Church members, hurts the movie as a whole.
And while you can't blame Gary Rogers for only having 1/100th of the budget of a Hollywood production, you also can't escape the fact that the movie looks like it was shot on...well, 1/100th of a Hollywood budget. The opening titles--in a plain white font--are extremely uninspired to say the least, and the sets, costumes, and other production tricks (like the 'tree of life' vision, or the boat ride) are serviceable, but never remarkable.
(Careful viewers will notice Lehi's tent contains many large baskets and urns which are conspicuously absent from their camels when they are travelling. Also, in a later scene, the party 'swims' ashore from their boat to the promised land and miraculously winds up on the beach without their clothes being wet...)
Dialogue is another issue: Nephi's record was short on conversations (since he wasn't writing a screenplay, remember) so the majority of the movie's dialogue had to be invented. The movie doesn't seem to ever make up its mind, though, whether it wants to use archaic scripture language ('thee', 'thou' and the like) or modern English ("How do I look?" "Like an idiot!") and alternates between both continuously. The actors try their best, but some lines can't help but sound cheesy--written on a primary child level with no subtlety or complexity.
While the movie doesn't stray far from the actual Book of Mormon text as far as the major events, there is a lot of room for minor additions and changes to the scriptural text, a few of which deserve discussion:
Readers have complained for a while about the lack of female participation in Nephi's record (which isn't really his fault, remember--scripture first, story second). This is remedied somewhat in the BOMM with larger roles for the women accompanying Lehi's expedition--Nephi's wife and sisters, in particular. True, 'larger roles' often means just a line or two of dialogue but at least they have names now.
[Side note: Much research has been done on the original (non-Biblical) names in the Book of Mormon--including an analysis of their Egyptian and Hebrew roots. An interesting project would be to analyze the new names given to Nephi's sisters and Ismael's children (presumably thought up specifically for the film by the writers) and see if the filmmakers did a better or worse job 'making up' authentic-sounding names that conform to actual Hebrew roots than Joseph Smith supposedly did in the first place, considering the filmmakers had (1) lots more education than Joseph Smith, and (2) had all of Joseph's Book of Mormon names as a reference to pick 'similar sounding' ones...]
The filmmakers interpretation of Nephi deserves mention also. For the most part, the movie Nephi is just like the scripture Nephi--bold, righteous, and dependable. Yet the movie Nephi also has a certain...untapped rage within him which is unique to this version. Nephi's excellence in being an example of diligence and faithfulness in his calling is matched by his being fairly dull and uninteresting as a person--the "Pete Sampras" of the prophets, if you will. (It's hard to identify with someone whose biggest mistake was breaking his bow--and that was by accident...)
The BOMM changes Nephi just slightly by depicting some of the latent frustration he undoubtedly must have felt as he tries to do the Lord's will, but his brothers keep trying to kill him. The movie Nephi raises his voice more often and expresses more emotion than you might gather from the actual scriptural record (where he seems to be nothing but calm and patient in his afflictions). I believe this is a good decision: these pent-up emotions don't detract from Nephi's righteousness, but do give him a more human side, which is one area in which the BOMM is successful.
The faithful retelling of Book of Mormon text, however, presents other opportunities for the filmmakers to 'reinterpret' scripture for the screen, and some of their decisions (defensible as they are from the text) aren't as successful. Some of the interpretations are small and subtle, but often conspire to create a different impression of the event described in the text than I think is warranted based on my reading of the source text. Let's go through a few of these:
(1) 1 Nephi 4--Nephi slays Laban: The Book of Mormon text emphasizes that the main purpose of Nephi being constrained to kill Laban is that his family obtaining the brass plates and sustaining belief was more important than one person's life. Significantly, the actual Book of Mormon text doesn't mention Nephi wearing Laban's clothes--a necessary step towards Nephi getting the plates by pretending to be Laban--until after Laban is killed.
The movie turns this around, though, having Nephi already taking and wearing Laban's clothes before he kills him. This is a small, but important decision that, I believe, weakens the assertion that Nephi getting the plates was the reason for Laban's death because Nephi was already prepared to get the plates without having to kill him. (Laban, being drunk and passed out, was in no position to oppose him...) If he already had the clothes (and soon the plates) why then was it still necessary for Laban to die?
This is inherently a difficult passage to absorb in the original text (although 1st Nephi takes place in "Law of Moses" times--where the Lord commanded His people to kill wicked people frequently--see the Old Testament), but the movie makes it more difficult to understand (and less defensible) by removing some of Nephi's primary justification in the first place. (More dialogue from the "Spirit" explaining why Laban had to die might have been helpful here). If I were a non-member seeing this film, I wouldn't understand at all why Nephi killed Laban...
(2) When Nephi has grabbed the fleeing Zoram and is trying to convince him to stay with them--the movie is faithful to the text in spirit, but phrases things much differently. The BOM text reads:
32 And it came to pass that I spake with him, that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life. 33 And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us. (1 Nephi 4:32-33.)
The movie Nephi, though, phrases it more along the lines of 'join us or die', adding that he could be a 'free man'...if he promises to do everything that Nephi says. (?) I suppose you can get to 'do what I say' from 'if he would hearken unto our words', but the movie's interpretation shows Nephi to be somewhat of a mean guy with a peculiar definition of free agency who uses threats of violence to get what he wants, rather than what a relatively softer interpretation would have shown.
[Note that after Zoram joins Nephi's party in this scene, he's never seen or mentioned again throughout the rest of the movie. Obviously, this scene was included because they wanted to be totally faithful to the text--but if they weren't going to do anything else with his character the rest of the movie--even show him getting married to Ismael's oldest daughter--then why bring him in at all? This is another example of where slavish adherence to the text may have hurt the movie narratively in the long run...]
(3) After Nephi's brothers have attempted to kill him (again), Nephi uses the Lord's earthquake power to 'shake them up'. Here, the Book of Mormon text indicates that there was a span of a few days between the first attempt on Nephi's life and the 'shocking'. The text does not say whether the 'shocking' was in response to another attempt on his life or just a carry-over effect from the first attempt.
The movie makes the assumption that Laman and company were not trying to kill Nephi again at the time, but in fact were just peacefully minding their own business when Nephi (and the Lord) apparently made a 'preemptive strike' on them. This interpretation has some justification in the source text due to the apparent time separation, but it still comes across wrong on screen. You would not normally consider the Lord to be 'spiteful' and there's really no reason for the use of miraculous power in this instance when Nephi's life was not directly in danger. The argument that the Lord foresaw future events and the use of force was justified as a deterrent--ostensibly to prevent future violence and suffering for Nephi and others--is mitigated by the obvious fact that Laman and company still tried again later in the movie.
Interpreting the 'shocking' coming as a result of another (unwritten) attempt on Nephi's life may be just an assumption made by me, but in the case of the text not specifying the context of the event, it would seem to make more sense. Certainly the scene playing that way would seem more reasonable, and less mean-spirited (not to mention pointless).
In summary, I can't really recommend "The Book of Mormon Movie" to anyone. There's nothing really 'added' to the scriptural and spiritual content of the text for Church members to get something out of the movie (versus cracking open their copies of the Book of Mormon themselves), and I don't think non-members who see it will be inclined to want to learn more about the Book of Mormon or the Church either. For non-members, I say just go read the book. And for members...um, well, read the book again.
Final Grade: C-
Analysis and Other Comments (possible spoilers):
(1) "The Book of Mormon Movie" got a PG-13 rating when it was released in theaters, apparently because of Nephi beheading Laban even though (a) it doesn't show anything, and (b) Star Wars movies have heads and limbs getting hacked off by light-sabers all the time and they still get PGs. The DVD we rented said PG, though, so I don't know if the filmmakers appealed the original rating or made some edits before release on DVD that gave it a different rating. (I seem to remember reading there was some blood in the Nephi/Laban scene, but I didn't notice any in the DVD version). In any case, you won't find anything in the movie objectionable...unless you happen to find the Book of Mormon text itself objectionable.
Originally, the rating issue would have probably have caused some controversy among Church members, since there are quite a few who don't watch PG-13 movies, and it would have been interesting to see whether they made an exception for this one. However, within a month of The Book of Mormon Movie's release, "The Passion of the Christ" came out and, of course, any 'controversy' about Church members seeing a light PG-13 movie based on scripture became laughable...
(2) Several prophets throughout Church history have expressed wishes that the stories in the Book of Mormon be made into movies. The "Book of Mormon Movie" doesn't really work--but (in an effort to provide some constructive criticism) let's discuss what would it take to make a good movie based on the Book of Mormon.
It's not a given that better production values (meaning a bigger budget, of course) would have resulted in a better movie in this case (although better acting and dialogue, and a faster pace would have helped). As noted above, I think there is something inherently flawed in attempting to dramatize, chapter by chapter, large sections of scripture, literally--simply because, as discussed, the purpose and structure of scripture isn't a natural fit into the narrative flow of a movie. A screenwriter must of necessity use 'creative license' in creating a movie based on scripture, because there will always be many gaps in the scripture record which for the sake of movie continuity must be filled in with original (read: made up) material. It is the content of this 'new' material that makes the difference between a church reference video you break out to watch sections of in a Sunday School class (like the BOMM is now) and an actual movie. I believe in order to be effective, filmmakers must have a certain boldness to 'reinterpret' scripture (or the meanings that they believe those scriptures hold) and base the movie narrative on that interpretation, even at the risk of offending purists.
One suggestion: Approach the material from a different, more creative, angle. BOMM tries to cover so much of the Book of Mormon text material extremely faithfully that there's no room for any kind of 'unique angle'. Church members who have read the Book of Mormon will probably be bored, since what's on the screen is pretty much the same as the 1st Nephi they've always read. The 'additional material' in BOMM is limited to little things here and there (a little bit more 'romance' between Nephi and Ismael's daughter, for example) but there's no room to develop it because they have so many things from the text to get in before the movie's end.
What would be a 'different angle' to use? Why not do the same thing that's done with Shakespeare plays--set an originally ancient text in modern times. You could create a movie about a modern day family who decides to leave the big city (say, Los Angeles) and move to the 'wilderness' (say, a small town in Montana) and the struggles that followed between the rebellious kids who didn't want to move, and a younger son who believes in the goals his father is trying to accomplish. You couldn't include parallels to every 1st Nephi occurrence (beheading someone might be a little difficult to get away with...) but the primary story would be similar to what we read in the scriptures. The scriptures are supposed to be 'likened unto ourselves', so why not take a scriptural story and see how the exact same principles (faith, obedience, love) can apply to a modern-day family?
Another idea that I think would be interesting is to portray the exact same events in the Book of Mormon but from someone else's perspective...say, Laman. The current text has everything from Nephi's perspective (obviously, since he wrote it) but I think Laman is a more complex character than you might surmise from just the text. Why not make Laman the main character of the movie since he's a direct participant in just about all the events of 1st Nephi just as much as Nephi himself is. Make Laman the focus and explore more into what makes him tick. BOMM takes a step in this direction in an opening scene (not from the Book of Mormon text) where Laman and Lemuel step in and defend Nephi from some other guys who want to hurt him. Laman's sense of family responsibility (note that although he complains about things, he still ends up doing whatever his father tells him to...) makes him more of a complex character--you can't just push him into the 'evil' category. (Well, okay...he does try to murder Nephi an awful lot) The filmmakers in this case would have to create more dialogue and scenes that were Laman-centered, but the results could be inspirational as well as enlightening as to what kind of person Laman was and to what extent Church members today have 'Laman-and-Lemuel' attitudes.
Neither of these ideas are guarantees of a good movie of course, but I think they'd have potential. The BOMM needed something to carry it above the level of a Church video you see in Sunday School. Something a little more imaginative and daring... Otherwise, exactly why would you watch the movie if it doesn't add anything above just reading the scriptural record again?
(3) Cheating! The film cheats in the scene where Nephi uses 'the voice of Laban' to talk to Zoram, it's the voice of the actor that plays Laban--not Nephi's.