[This is part 5 of my response to the LDS Film Festival 2008, cross-posted from my blog at http://gideonburton.typepad.com/gideon_burtons_blog/2008/01/lds-film-fest-4.html]

The Errand of Angels is the first film entirely about female Mormon missionaries, and director Christian Vuissa--founder of the LDS Film Festival--gets the sub-genre off to a vigorous start with a visually stunning and thoroughly engaging tale of sister missionaries at work in Austria.

Giving authenticity to the film is co-producer Heidi Johnson, whose own missionary experiences were the basis of the film. Mormon cinema fans will recognize the talents of Erin Chambers (The Singles 2nd Ward) and Rachel Emmers (States of Grace), both of whom put a beautiful face on sister missionary work with their vivacity and earnestness.

Co-starring with Chambers and Emmers is the country of Austria, rendered so picturesque and peaceful that one wonders how a world war ever could have begun there. The film positively glows with saturated hues, green panoramas, and stunning European architecture. The baptism scene at the end is a poetic postcard--sunset shimmering on a slow river. Everything's aglow--even the musical score by Robert Allen Elliott.

Of course such romanticizing has its dangers, and I worried about the glamorizing of missionary work. But the lead character, Sister Taylor (Chambers), certainly experiences some of the difficult realities of European missionary work (people who are kind but only intellectually interested, etc.) and the film is realistic about the sometimes vertiginous alternation missionaries experience between hope and despair as various prospects encourage and disappoint them.

The major trial that Sister Taylor faces is not a crisis of faith (as principal characters face in Elder-oriented missionary films like The Best Two Years or God's Army), but the trial of learning to love a fellow missionary (played by Austrian actress Bettina Schwarz, a plump and severe woman who insists on always speaking German and seems to embody Teutonic intolerance). Through experiences and the tutoring of a sister she spends a week with in another city (Emmers), Sister Taylor learns charity and ends up embracing and appreciating her erstwhile unloveable companion.

At first I balked at this being the major crisis to be resolved. Is that it? While the Elders wrestle against principalities and powers and the rulers of darkness of this world, sister missionaries whine about a nasty roomie? I felt the script underplayed the seriousness of spiritual issues faced by sister missionaries. But then I recalled the three most humbling months of my own mission. All my Christian principles were put to the test when I was companioned with a man from Newfoundland who might as well have been from Neptune. I still wake up with night sweats in remembering those days, and I do count a high point of my mission learning first to tolerate and then appreciate that one-time villain, my comp. Martin Luther said marriage is the school of love, and missionary companionships are similar in that respect, so the film should be applauded for spending real time with a real issue for missionaries: learning to love their closest neighbor, their companion.

My favorite scene took place in a Jewish cemetery that the sisters were maintaining as a service project. Sister Taylor, feeling particularly low because of her unfeeling roomate, separates herself from the others among the tall tombstones and kneels to pray. She collapses in tears, only to be surprised by a middle-aged Austrian woman who comes across the weeping missionary and mistakenly believes she is mourning a dead relative. Despite the mistake, the gentle foreigner genuinely reassures Sister Taylor and ultimately proves an answer to the prayer. The scene is reminiscent of the scene from States of Grace when two non-members are shown praying for a Mormon missionary in crisis, and I think that it is only to the good when Mormons are depicted needing spiritual aid and getting it from outside the faith. Among the more potent lessons of missionary services is being humbled at the sincere spirituality of those not of the Mormon faith.

Especially noteworthy about The Errand of Angels was the modest size of its production given its quality and feature length. At the festival Christian Vuissa announced that they shot in two weeks' time with a crew of about 11 at a total cost of about $175,000. As far as production values go (how good the film looks), this film compares to The Other Side of Heaven, whose budget was $7,000,000. How on earth can monster budgets be justified when the end product is not appreciably different and the latter 40 times the cost of the former? Mormon movie investors, take heed! Christian's film will not only succeed with Mormon audiences, but I predict it will more than repay its investors.

I believe this to be more than a strictly economic issue. Modesty should be a value embraced by Mormon filmmakers just as it is embraced in our ideas about dress and behavior. The bigger the cost, the more that investors will insist upon the film following genre and formulas and the more filmmaking must be subject to secular demands often inconsistent with Mormonism. Somtimes, to make it big, you have to make it little.

And that is what Christian Vuissa does so well, both in his own films and within the LDS Film Festival where he promotes small films and works with new and emerging filmmakers using his own experience as a successful example. He has a small vision, and that is huge to me.

I predict this film will prove a big hit among LDS audiences, and this ought to turn more attention to Christian's other films which are heart-felt, thoughtful, and inspiring. Some of these are not Mormon specific but convey a strong sense of Christian belief (such as his two short films from last year's festival, The Letter Writer and The Reunion). Christian, who is Austrian, has also innovated representing the non-English LDS experience (30% of The Errand of Angels was in German and subtitled), best represented in his half-hour conversion drama entirely in Spanish with English subtitles, Roots and Wings.

---

Gideon Burton
4155 JFSB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-3525

Gideon Burton's Blog

(This is a message by Christian Vuissa that appeared on an LDS film email list. I thought it was an interesting discussion of the economics of LDS film. He is writing in replay to Markus, a fellow Austrian, who complimented Christian on his film, but thought that the budget was too small to proberly reward the crew.)

I think it's worth responding to Markus' comments regarding the budget of
"The Errand of Angels." Because I know Markus, I know that his comments
are well meant. I do however think that he based his comments on a wrong
assumption.

That assumption is that we didn't pay our crew enough and that's why the budget
is lower than other productions. This is not correct. My guess is that we
probably paid better than at least half of the LDS-themed films that were
released to date. I would say that over 70% of our budget (without travel costs
it would be over 90%) went into paying cast and crew.

Our production model, which at this point is quite unique, is different for two
reasons. First, we cut the production days to 15 days. That's up to 50% less
than several of the productions made for less than $1 Mio. Second, we cut our
crew down to 10 people, which is 70-85% less than most productions in the genre.
This is only possible by selecting a very good crew and paying them enough to
make them happy.

The real economic problem with LDS-themed films is that most of them make not
enough money to satisfy the investors. Most of them don't make their money back
and therefore investors are unwilling/unable to reinvest in other LDS-themed
films. Larry Miller is probably the best example. He is done with investing in
film based on his experience with The Work and the Glory series. What a loss!
Just think how beneficial these $20 Mio. could have been if he would have
reinvested them over and over again after seeing a modest return on his
investment. That money is now gone.

You have to remember that our films are privately funded. In Austria, which has
8 Million citizens (more than 2 Million more than LDS in the United States),
the government funds more than 90% of a film production and therefore allows
filmmakers to make films that nobody wants to see. When I mentioned how many
DVDs the moderately successful "Baptists at Our Barbecue" has sold to
date, Austrian filmmakers looked at me with envy. That shows how well the LDS
market actually functions, but because there is no government putting up the
money for these films, it's still a very difficult task for any filmmaker
trying to make a film for this audience.

Basic economics suggests that investor satisfaction brings more money into the
pool and more films can be made as a result, which in turn translate into more
work and more money for people working in the local film industry. There has
not been one financially successful LDS film in the last 3-4 years. That
creates creative problems as well. If you look at the LDS filmmakers that tried
their hand with LDS-themed films, only a few are returning filmmakers (Ryan Little,
Richard Dutcher, Kurt Hale, and all three have probably turned their back to
LDS-themed films). The rest still struggles to get their next project off the
ground. A first-time filmmaker will almost certainly improve if given another
chance, but if the investors don't see their money back, it will be very
difficult for these filmmakers to try again. As a result, the overall quality
of LDS-themed films suffers.

What you see now is exactly the result of that. The pool of investment money
has dried up and investors are wary to invest in LDS-themed films. The result
is exactly the opposite of what you're proposing, Markus. Because the investors
are not satisfied, there is less work for actors and crew in the local film
industry. To jump start the local film industry, successful films are
necessary. Successful films are films that make money for the investors. To
make money for the investors, the budget has to come down to $200,000 or less.
Otherwise the risk is too high.

The problem with that is that low budgets usually make for lower-quality films,
and as a result they will be less successful in the marketplace. With Mirror
Films I tried to avoid this dilemma by making sure that a few key
"ingredients" are in place, like a good script (without any fancy or
costly extravaganzas), good actors, good locations, and a good cinematographer.
I also looked for very talented people that could use the film for their
resume. For example, my composer, Rob Elliott, didn't get paid as much as he is
worth, but he will definitely get opportunities that pay better than anything
he has done to date solely based on his work on this film. So, for him it's an
investment that will pay off just as much as it will pay off for the investors.

My strategy is already paying off. Because the investors of "The Errand of
Angels" are satisfied quickly, they are willing to reinvest in my new film
project. Other investors are also coming on board based on the success story
that I can share with them. If this model proves successful, other LDS
filmmakers will try to do the same thing and as a result, (hopefully) we once
again have a thriving filmmaking community that creates work for cast and crew,
quality entertainment for the audience, and decent returns for the investors.

I hope that the budget for an LDS-themed film can at some point be much higher.
That's what we're working on and for. Make better films for the leanest budgets
possible and build trust with an LDS audience, so that one day we can double or
triple our budget for a film and still secure a decent return for the
investors. But unless the government or the Church creates a fund that finances
these films, we have to work with what we have, and right now it's not very
much.

Christian Vuissa

P.S. A film for $7 Mio. for an LDS audience is comparable to Hollywood
spending $700 Mio. on a film. Even Hollywood
knows that this is a recipe for failure. The highest big-budget Hollywood
films are still made for a 1/3 of that. This is as plain economics as it can
get.