"We talk about mainstream Mormons and "the LDS market" as though they were
both expansive and well-defined. I don't think this is true.
Current LDS publishers have done a fine job of identifying and serving one
(and a half?) demographic(s) within the LDS community--Mormon women on the
Wasatch front who generally buy books as gifts (as well as the standard
doctrinal/inspirational core buyer). We have identified, segmented, targeted
and served this core audience quite well, and have several publishers,
distributors and bookstore chains that cater to this segment of the LDS
community.
But there is a *much* larger Mormon audience that hasn't been identified and
targeted by current media outlets. I'm part of that larger audience, and I
think most AML-Listers are as well."....
"....But like cockroaches (or perhaps miracles), where you see one of us
hundreds more remain unseen and unremarked--or so we believe."
These are intelligent thoughts, Scott, but may be spiced with a bit of
wishful thinking. I'm afraid your segment is not as large as you might hope,
which may seem depressing, but I feel it's unfortunately true. Still, I
doubt you would find this discouraging. Rage on, my friend. Frankly, the
LARGEST segment doesn't much care about films or literature at all--at least
not in the way most AML folks do. They put such things in the proper
perspective, which I believe is not too high on the priority list of
necessities to sustain spiritual or physical life. I make my living as an
artist, but I still tend to agree with them. This segment is not any less
intelligent than the rest of us. They just get their "deep thoughts" and
"insights on the universe" from sources other than novels and films and
plays. And I think that's perfectly okay. Most of these other sources are
actually much more nourishing than the one I seem so addicted to, which is
storytelling. Compared to the insight and wisdom gained from service,
scriptures, temple, time with wife and family (and I mean time NOT
necessarily spent at the movies) storytelling in any of its forms probably
withers.
It's true that the primary segment that buys stuff from the LDS bookstores
and outlets is women--even if it's something directed at kids or fathers,
mothers usually buy it. But when that segment is ignored, the LDS
market--particularly the LDS film market--simply cannot sustain itself. No
matter how much you might wish to fight it, you won't change it. Believe it
or not, some artists like to feed their families, and to do it full
time--which is the aspiration of just about every honest artist I've ever
met--sometimes you must think "servant" rather than "dictator." Oh, I
forgot, your creative writing teacher taught you that was "selling out."
What a shame. Because the greatest art is much more readily created when the
person can devote all their waking energies to it.
Hey, here's an idea! Why not combine the best skills and craftmanship of
storytelling--the most profound and moving ideas ever conceived--with
popular sentiment and meeting the demands of your target audience??? Boy,
what a SECRET! Now everyone can make MILLIONS! But alas, it can't be that
simple, right? No way. If it was, one might sacrifice one's status as an
"intellectual," a consumer whose attention can only be captured by
the esoteric, the obtuse, and the marvelously "indefinable." I swear, this
kind of intellectualism is akin to self-gratification, which must be forever
nurtured by things ever more tantalizing and "different." I believe this
frame of mind turns art into one's *vice*. And therefore becomes something
self-destructive rather than uplifting. Those with such sentiments usually
will NEVER even CONSIDER giving up R-rated films. (Oh boy. NOW I've done it.
Stirred up the huns like hornets. Back into the foxhole. Check the
amunition. Good. Still enough and to spare.)
Every argument that I present that tries to emphasize my points about the
state of LDS cinema and the solutions to "curing the patient" get turned
back to a defense of Richard Dutcher, or "I know darn good members who LOVE
Richard Dutcher!" or "Who you callin' not 'mainstream," you punk!?'" I'm
staggered how effectively my point has been ignored in this AML setting.
Most seem far more worried about making sure their own needs are served. Not
about the survival of the marketplace. Don't you get the bigger picture???
If the marketplace survives and can regain the trust and interest of the
"majority" (better word perehaps than "mainstream") of Latter-day Saints,
then Richard Dutcher can eventually still make his movies and YOU can still
cling to them like the life buoys that you feel they are. Maybe it's a
hopeless cause. Maybe the lack of movies that nurture the marketplace rather
than alienate it is simply from a lack of present talent. Ryan Little, one
of the most talented of LDS filmmakers among us, doesn't have much interest
in making strictly LDS audience films. Now Dutcher is apparently fading back
as well. Some folks, I've discerned, have decided "Who cares! Why should
Latter-day Saints make movies strictly for Latter-day Saints anyway?" Thom
Duncan seems keen on this. But on this argument I would be lost me entirely.
It would mean that the genre Dutcher created is doomed to die. I've
sometimes heard the suggestion (from a very uninspired segment, I feel)
that, "Maybe there's just not enough stories that could cater *just* to
Latter-day Saints." This is completely untrue. No question. Our unique
religious worldview is more fertile than any other venue I've ever explored
for the creative mind. Or I've heard others suggest, "Making movies that
expand outside our religious niche is a perhaps a more noble cause." Eugene
Woodbuy might favor this. But on this I passionately disagree as well. I'm
not saying serving the general market is any LESS noble, and those who feel
so compelled--go for it! But don't you understand? Such arguments entirely
change the subject. We're all welcome to our own point of view on good art
and bad art, *ad naseaum*, but for those artists who wish to help sponsor
the survival of LDS cinema, I kindly suggest you come to grips the
problem--maybe even support or espouse some solutions--not just wish
everybody else would change to match your personal tastes or sentiments.
But alas, most simply like to talk. And who can fight that? Evolution of the
marketplace is certainly inevitable, and history usually takes care of
itself. But, at the risk of sounding childish or self-promotional, I truly
hope my little film can reignite some interest in LDS cinema. More than
that, I hope it can reignite some CONFIDENCE on the part of investors and
fellow artists. Money does make the world go around--darn it. Artists have
always been beholden to their patrons and customers. I wish I could invite
you all to a personal screening of "Passage to Zarahemla." Maybe someday
before it officially opens, I'll do just that. Yes, it's aimed at
"mainstream" Church membership. But I swear on my biggest toe, this does not
mean that I had to ignore the most sophisticated techniques of storytelling.
Nor that some of its themes are not "edgy" and highly personal. My talents
at executing such techniques and craftmanship in film are admittedly still
unproven. I've given you all my list of favorite LDS films. And I sincerely
believe this film can stand side by side with the best. But, okay, the
writer/director is never the one who should spout such things. He's wayyy
too close and therefore traditionally the worst judge. But every now and
then I try to stand back, stand outside myself and...well...Maybe I'm just
given to self-delusions. Some here would probably applaud that. :)
Chris Heimerdinger
PS.
Clark Goble said:
"Indeed I'd say that the group who gets *offended*
by Dutcher probably makes up a minority of the Church. (And I bet
some of those being offended just thought they needed to act offended)"
You are a unique one, Clark. Yet another "conspiracy theory." You really
think so many can be so shallow as to *pretend* offense just to keep up
appearances? I just don't relate to your world. But feel free to keep
hatching.
CH
On 9/15/06, Clark Goble <clark@???> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Scott Parkin wrote:
>
> > Which is why people bristle when told that Dutcher is inherently
> > offensive to mainstream Mormons. Yes, he's offensive to one set of
> > Mormons. But we (largely ignored) Mormons consider ourselves just
> > as Mormon and worthy of attention as that group over there. We're
> > mainstream, too.
>
> I think that fair. Indeed I'd say that the group who gets *offended*
> by Dutcher probably makes up a minority of the Church. (And I bet
> some of those being offended just thought they needed to act offended)
>
> However having said that when you have such a tiny market as LDS film
> makers, especially when you are primarily marketing only to those who
> are "clumped together" (i.e. Utah, S. Idaho, Arizona, parts of
> California) alienating such a minority is unwise.
>
> If you want to make money and still focus primarily on this one
> subgroup (Mormons) then you really owe it to your investors to try
> and reach as wide a group of that niche as you can.
>
>
> BTW - I'm curious. What Mormon related movies are coming out the
> next while? There is Chris' film which we've been discussing the
> past few days. There is that Elvis on the Book of Mormon movie.
> Ryan Little of Saints and Soldiers fame has a film on Butch Cassidy
> that I know nothing about that is supposed to be in post-production.
> Any others?
>
> Clark Goble
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You can subscribe or unsubscribe at
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
>
> AML-List a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature
> <http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html>
> AML-List@???
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aml-list
>
