Witnesses Trailer a Triumph

[Kishkumen]

So, I have to apologize for dropping the ball here, but I finally got around to watching the trailer for the much-anticipated Witnesses movie. It is really thanks to our good Doctor Scratch, who included the trailer in his wonderfully informative and guffaw-inducing yearly Top Ten of Mopologetics that I became aware that this trailer had dropped. I was expecting the trailer, because of the way I found out about it, to be a goofball caper of a flop.

Here it is for those who have not seen it: https://witnessesfilm.com

Well, I could not have been more mistaken. This trailer is a stunning success! I don't care who you are; if you have an open mind, yes, even an unbelieving open mind, you are going to want to see this movie, judging from this trailer. I think a person has to squint pretty hard to blur their vision into one that is unfavorable toward what we are seeing here. If Interpreter has done nothing else, and personally I think it has done a number of cool things, THIS tops the list as the coolest thing thus far.

Why am I so enthusiastic? Because this is as much about religious experience as it is about the Book of Mormon, its discovery, and its witnesses, and Mormonism. It invites its readers to contemplate exactly what the plates claim is and what is at stake. It explores what it means to believe or disbelieve. It allows frankly outsider views such as that of the highly distinguished Religious Studies professor Ann Taves. I'm sorry, but the fact that Taves is in the trailer is, for an LDS production, gutsy in the extreme. Consider all of the gatekeeping that happens in the LDS-sphere, and my jaw drops to hear her say the things she says in this trailer.

If this is propaganda, and doubtless there is a strong element of advocacy for the cause in this, it is mixed with a strong dose of genuine searching and questioning. What does the Book of Mormon, as an artifact that was witnessed but is now missing, really mean? What do the witnesses mean? What does the fact that their testimonies mix together the physical and the spiritual mean? In the latter question, one cannot help but detect the plates' (as an event and object) strong consistency with the rest of Joseph Smith's theological vision.

I really want to see this movie, and I recommend that everyone else see it too. This movie looks like a very good thing, perhaps the best thing that has ever come out of the world of LDS apologetics. We'll see if the movie itself lives up to the trailer, but I cannot see many people, including critics, who are genuinely interested in the foundations of Mormonism not wanting to see this film at least once. Before I saw this trailer I was anticipating I would want to see the movie, and I am in no way disappointed by what I have seen in the trailer. To the contrary, I am bursting with enthusiasm.

Shout out to friend of the board, Don Bradley, who puts in an appearance in the trailer. I enjoyed his brief comments and I hope we see more of him in the film.

[IHAQ]

In the trailer Susan Easton Black "Critics today have started saying that the witnesses saw the plates with, quote "spiritual eyes"..."
Really Susan? Why would critics just suddenly start saying that?

Perhaps she should be more concerned that Interpreter and FAIR are working on the case for a ghost committee...or will she pretend that critics made that up for themselves too?

[Kishkumen]

In the trailer Susan Easton Black "Critics today have started saying that the witnesses saw the plates with, quote "spiritual eyes"..."
Really Susan? Why would critics just suddenly start saying that?

Perhaps she should be more concerned that Interpreter and FAIR are working on the case for a ghost committee...or will she pretend that critics made that up for themselves too?

Yes, and this is what is so fascinating about that. We know now about how desperately conventional Susan Easton Black has been as of late in her review of Ben Park's Nauvoo book. To place her against Ann Taves is absolutely remarkable. The full story of course is that it was the words of some of the witnesses themselves that leads to these critics' claims (as you know and allude to), and it would be conventionally apologetic to let Susan Easton Black's statement stand on its own, in denial of the other option. Ann Taves shows that there is another way to look at the issue that gets around Black's more two-dimensional insistence that there is no way you could reduce the experience of the witnesses to something spiritual.

It is not that Black is completely wrong about that. The existence of some object that was seen and touched by others as Joseph Smith's "gold plates," does indeed mean that the whole thing can't be merely immaterial and a work of imagination. Something was there. Then the question becomes one of what it was. And that is where it gets interesting. The Black clip seems to suggest she thinks the object itself means the gold plates simply were real and ancient. Taves says, "Hold on a minute; there was a real object, sure, but that does not mean it was ancient in a conventional archaeological sense."

I am really taken with these discussions of religious relics and how they come to take on the importance assigned to them. I always have been. Years ago I read Umberto Eco's Baudolino, which did much to explain, in an imaginatively fictional way, how a young charlatan of sorts could create the Holy Grail. His fictional account was so compelling and sympathetic that, in humanistic terms, you could not help but be drawn in. Not long ago I read Diana Pasulka's work on the UFO phenomenon wherein she describes the importance of alien tech relics in UFOlogy circles. There are people out there who truly believe they have alien tech and they show these objects to a very small circle of fellow UFOlogists. This led me to dig deeper into the work of Jeff Kripal and his discussion of epiphanies, either UFO or religious. In short, the fascinating thing is that people have these sensory experiences with objects and beings they believe are evidence of other times and worlds that give a special urgency and substance to their beliefs. The Book of Mormon plates belong to this category of phenomena, and it is truly engrossing to think about what it all means, if only in a scholarly sense.

[Tom]

Kishkumen, I have constructed a draft timeline that I hope will be expanded upon and become the standard reference for forthcoming histories of the film and documentary project.

February 6, 2019: the Witnesses co-executive producer announces the launch of a film website featuring a link titled "Play Trailer." He writes:

I need to explain something, though:

The current “sizzle reel,” as film people call it, is a temporary placeholder. That is, it isn’t yet really a “trailer,” strictly speaking. The interviews that are featured represent some of the material that we have recently developed for this project. The dramatic scenes and the music, though, are borrowed from an earlier film created essentially by this same crew.

February 27, 2020: the Witnesses co-executive producer publishes a blog post titled "New 'Witnesses' trailer available!" He writes:

I’m pleased that a modified film trailer is now available on the website of the Witnesses project, combining footage from both the forthcoming Witnesses theatrical film and the documentary that will be produced to accompany it. I encourage you to take a look at the revised trailer.

Reaction to the "revised trailer" at Mormon Discussions is largely negative. Viewers fault, among other things, a bizarre "Street Fighter"-inspired sound effect when the actor playing Joseph Smith inexplicably smacks a ruffian in the face with the sacred gold plates.

February 27-February 28, 2020: the "Street Fighter"-inspired sound effect in the "revised trailer" is replaced.

February 29, 2020: the Witnesses co-executive producer attributes the changed sound effect to "sound smoothing -- or whatever the technical name for the process is."

Lemmie points out that the trailer "contains 'borrowed' scenes from a previous film."

March 20, 2020: the co-executive producer of Witnesses responds to a commenter who makes reference to "your trailer" by stating that "[o]ur trailer hasn't been made yet."

August 5-7, 2020: FairMormon 2020 conference attendees are treated to a "commercial" featuring a provisional trailer for the Witnesses theatrical film.

August 18, 2020: the co-executive producer of Witnesses shows several clips from the film to a captive audience of Stanford institute students during a Zoom fireside.

November 28, 2020: citing a note from the teenager who works part-time operating the ICEE machine at Megaplex Theatres in Payson, Utah, the Interpreter Foundation announces:

Megaplex has given us incredibly prominent placement for the poster and the trailer. It will not only be in front of The Forgotten Carols as the last trailer before the film starts. It will also be in the rotation of their hallway digital posters cases and their hallway digital trailer monitors.

A day earlier, the co-executive producer writes:

Some of you, in fact, may be headed out to theaters tonight or tomorrow to see The Forgotten Carols. If you are (I cannot), would you please return and report?

It's currently unknown whether any SeN readers threw caution to the wind with regard to COVID-19 and accepted the co-executive producer's invitation. However, I understand that The Forgotten Carols grossed approximately $67,000 total last Friday and Saturday.

[Analytics]

I am really taken with these discussions of religious relics and how they come to take on the importance assigned to them. I always have been. Years ago I read Umberto Eco's Baudolino, which did much to explain, in an imaginatively fictional way, how a young charlatan of sorts could create the Holy Grail. His fictional account was so compelling and sympathetic that, in humanistic terms, you could not help but be drawn in. Not long ago I read Diana Pasulka's work on the UFO phenomenon wherein she describes the importance of alien tech relics in UFOlogy circles. There are people out there who truly believe they have alien tech and they show these objects to a very small circle of fellow UFOlogists. This led me to dig deeper into the work of Jeff Kripal and his discussion of epiphanies, either UFO or religious. In short, the fascinating thing is that people have these sensory experiences with objects and beings they believe are evidence of other times and worlds that give a special urgency and substance to their beliefs. The Book of Mormon plates belong to this category of phenomena, and it is truly engrossing to think about what it all means, if only in a scholarly sense.

A documentary that gives a serious summary of the parallels you just noted would be amazing. Daniel Peterson is on record of saying that his movie "candidly examines all substantial arguments, pro and con." Do you think there is any chance that you'll walk away from the movie agreeing that's what it does? I'm doubtful, but would love to be proven wrong.

[Kishkumen]

Wonderful work as usual, Tom. Clearly there have been hiccups along the way. It is regrettable that we are enduring one of the worst, if not the worst, health crisis in half a century or more. No doubt this has not worked in favor of the success of Witnesses. Still, I am hopeful. I would like to see it succeed, but they are definitely on a steep incline here. The trailer I saw, sans interesting sound effects, was I thought extremely promising.

[Kishkumen]

A documentary that gives a serious summary of the parallels you just noted would be amazing. Daniel Peterson is on record of saying that his movie "candidly examines all substantial arguments, pro and con." Do you think there is any chance that you'll walk away from the movie agreeing that's what it does? I'm doubtful, but would love to be proven wrong.

Honestly, my expectations are reasonable, I hope. I think the inclusion of Taves in this trailer is already a huge accomplishment. If this trailer is at all representative of the range of opinions in the film, it will be so much better than anything ever produced by LDS people on the topic of the origins of the Mormon faith that I will be more than satisfied. I will be very pleased.

But do I think it will satisfy many critics? No. I suppose we will lament how tilted this will be in the direction of promoting a believing perspective. But this is where I think having reasonable expectations is important. I don't think Interpreter could have solicited so much support for this film if it had cast a very unflattering light on the Mormon faith.

[Dr Exiled]

I'll see the movie, probably when it goes to video but I'll see it. The trailer looks professional, but the release date needs to be changed on it as it says October, 2020 at the end. Also, I thought I saw the electronic box on the back of one of the actors still.

Anyway, putting Taves in the trailer saying that she thinks there weren't any ancient plates and therefore really saying that whatever was inside the cloth was a mere prop, was a great step in the right direction toward a little objectivity. I'm sure the 10 plus other "experts" will drown her out as planned. However, it still is a good development.

[Kishkumen]

Anyway, putting Taves in the trailer saying that she thinks there weren't any ancient plates and therefore really saying that whatever was inside the cloth was a mere prop, was a great step in the right direction toward a little objectivity. I'm sure the 10 plus other "experts" will drown her out as planned. However, it still is a good development.

That's likely the case. It will be interesting to see. And, as you say, it would still be a good development if that is true.

[kairos]

i do not believe the Taves comments will make it into the final cut if an apostle views the actual film- actually i do not believe the film will make it to video perhaps to some clips for religious ed. by the way who is the movie for- TBM's, walk aways, apostates, investigators, those on the fence or pushing boundaries on belief non-belief, GA's, anti-Mormons ( hate that label). Does Peterson ever say? and who besides Taves else is on "Joseph Smith concocted the plates as a prop" ; maybe Dan Vogel's calendar can be cleared to get a 2 minute take on the movie- of course that would be devasting. who is portrayed in the trailer a believer? perhaps an apostle or Russell M. Nelson himself will weigh in in the movie or we will we get "the opinions expressed are by individuals who do not represent the church". i believe that disclaimer will show up at the end or maybe the beginning.

k