DVDizzy Forum

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

XXX!

First off, it is not a "Disney" movie in the sense that "Marry Poppins" or "Pirates of the Caribbean" are. It was a piece of LDS cinema that for some reason, Disney decided to buy the distribution rights for. As a member of the LDS church myself, I can say it really surprised me when I discovered that that is what happened.

Second, it is not a "propaganda" film as you say, but rather a true story based on the life of John H. Groberg, who is a leader in the church and based on the book, "In the Eye of the Storm," which he wrote.

The film makers tried to not discuss the LDS ideology much in the film, but rather focus on the life of this LDS missionary and the trials and adventures he had. As one who has served a LDS mission, I can tell you there are not for the faint of heart. Add to the fact that this was set in the 1950's on the island of Tonga, and one does not need to get into religious ideology much to be able to appreciate the story of this young man's adventure. Maybe that is why Disney bought the rights, they felt it was a good coming of age story with some romance and adventure mixed in?

Some facts about the film:

- Disney only has distribution rights in the US.

- Anne Hathaway worked on this literally right before "The Princess Diaries," so it was a really young Anne Hathaway. She also did all of her work on this film at the very end of production.

- The Producer, Gerald R. Molen, who is also LDS, has worked on the films "The Color Purple," "Rain Man" and the first "Jurassic Park" sequel.

For me, I honestly feel "The Avengers" will be more Disney then this film. It barley qualifies really. I have personally had the chance to briefly meet the real John H. Groberg. Great guy. I also don't think Disney would put their name on anything that was blatantly seeped in religious ideology of any faith. The closet they ever got to that I think was "Hunchback," and even that missed a lot of marks. Further, my church had nothing to do with this film. Despite a number of the crew who worked on it being LDS, it was not made by the church. While my church does make films for use in missionary work, I'd hardly call them "propaganda" movies. But, even if you do, again, this film was not one they had anything to do with. Point being? It's a fun family film even people not interested in Mormons can enjoy. It is a coming of age story meant to convey the difficulties one young man endured in the name of his faith. The way they made the film, you easily could have changed a few things and made it about anyone promoting any faith. Hope that clears things up.

Anne Hathaway is an outspoken proponent of gay rights, so I doubt she would knowingly participate in a film that was pure Mormon propaganda.

carolinakid wrote:Anne Hathaway is an outspoken proponent of gay rights, so I doubt she would knowingly participate in a film that was pure Mormon propaganda.

Yeah, she left the Catholic church when she found out they did not support her brother, who is gay.

Though a character in a movie is fictional, I also doubt she would agree to play in a movie that would promote the church of LDS. As far as I can tell from reviews and other sites like IMDB and RT, it's a 'mormon family movie'. It's probably a movie aimed at mormons. You know, Hollywood trying to make money off a specific target demo. Wouldn't be the first time.

PatrickvD wrote:

carolinakid wrote:Anne Hathaway is an outspoken proponent of gay rights, so I doubt she would knowingly participate in a film that was pure Mormon propaganda.

Yeah, she left the Catholic church when she found out they did not support her brother, who is gay.

Though a character in a movie is fictional, I also doubt she would agree to play in a movie that would promote the church of LDS. As far as I can tell from reviews and other sites like IMDB and RT, it's a 'mormon family movie'. It's probably a movie aimed at mormons. You know, Hollywood trying to make money off a specific target demo. Wouldn't be the first time.

Actually, Hollywood had little to do with it. There are a number of film makers in the Utah area that have either no ties to Hollywood, or work on projects outside of Hollywood from time to time that are aimed at the LDS demographic. Folks not part of the faith or living in Utah probably have no idea about any of this, but there are films branded with the term "Mormon Cinema" that are often seen as an alternative to films coming out of Hollywood.

This movie is a bit odd becuase instead of staying within that circle that most LDS cinema films do, Disney somehow got involved and shoehorned it into the Disney family of films. As for Miss. Hathaway's involvements, keep in mind a few things. This literally was her first movie that she worked on. Despite any feeling she may have for the LDS church and it's people or visa versa, it was her first gig before anyone knew who she was. I highly doubt a decade later she'd do a film like this again, but I also can't see LDS film makers wanting to do a film with her ever again, so it is a two way street.

But, for the sake of this thread, it does need to be noted that films for for the LDS demographic are made by LDS film makers all the time. Movies like "The Home Teachers" or "Singles Ward" that people not of the faith would never get that many LDS homes will have at least a copy of. There is a very strong interest in film making and film itself. This is why there are so many from the LDS community that try their hand working in Hollywood, why most of the fights Hollywood has had over "family edited films" have come from the LDS community, and why there is a very strong, LDS film industry pumping at a number of new films every year. Personally, I'm actually not the biggest fan of LDS films despite being very strong in that faith. But, I am at least aware of how immensely popular these films are and continue to be as time goes on.

But, that does not mean there are not LDS Cinema films that every now and again some how find their way out of LDS and Utah circles and into the general public eye, mostly by soften the LDSness for lack of a better word. These films, like "The Other Side of Heaven" or "Napoleon Dynamite" are made so that general audience can enjoy them as well.

I watched the movie when it first made its way to Blockbuster, and I didn't think it was Mormon propaganda. It portrays Mormons in a favorable light, but that's not the same thing as trying to brainwash you. If my memory serves me right, it is a good enough film, but not very memorable. Also, Anne Hathaway's character is in the US while the main character is in the South Pacific. So, she doesn't get tons of screentime. Hope that helps.

milojthatch wrote:I highly doubt a decade later she'd do a film like this again, but I also can't see LDS film makers wanting to do a film with her ever again, so it is a two way street.

That must be why I've rarely seen a LDS film, if they're turning down good actors like Hathaway.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

milojthatch wrote:I highly doubt a decade later she'd do a film like this again, but I also can't see LDS film makers wanting to do a film with her ever again, so it is a two way street.

That must be why I've rarely seen a LDS film, if they're turning down good actors like Hathaway.

I don't know about that. "Church Ball" sported the talents of Gary Coleman, Fred Willard and Clint Howard.

But you have to remember, these films are not trying to be Oscar films. If anything, the kinds of people that would love these movie probably don't watch "Oscar" type films, or at least modern ones anyway. For the audience they try to target, they are spot on.

The film makers are more interested in wholesome family values and actors that can fit that mold, at least normally ("Church Ball" being an exception sort of). Anne, back in her early career, was exactly what they are looking for in an actor. Now, not so much. You can agree or disagree, but at the end of the day, it is what it is. Watch, don't watch, like any kind of film, the ones made as part of LDS Cinema are not for everyone anymore then any movie is. Again, it is what it is. But, I have no idea why this one got Disney's attention, it still baffles me to this day. But again, I'd hardly call it "propaganda."

milojthatch wrote: You can agree or disagree, but at the end of the day, it is what it is.

I just wonder how some people are not "wholesome" enough, considering they are acting a part, not playing themselves. I'm guessing there are no black people in these films?

I've watched the movie, I'm not Morman, and I didn't find it to be a propaganda flick. It's a movie about someone's life, just like any other inspirational movie, like The Rookie, and The Greatest Game Ever Played.

Should we consider Mulan, Pocahontus, The Princess and the Frog, etc. as attempts to spread propaganda of i.e. - eastern beliefs, pantheism, black magic, etc.?

LOL Mormons.....