Attempting to film a nine-volume series of books is, to say the least, an ambitious endeavor. Even with Hollywood’s constant fascination with creating sequels, there have been only two series in movie history that have reached nine films (Friday the 13th and James Bond—neither of which require much narrative continuity between films anyway…) It was unlikely from the beginning that the struggling LDS film industry was genuinely going to support nine films with theatrical releases, so in the end the Work & Glory series of films are probably going to be remembered as ambitious failures.
Still, if this was going to be the last movie in the series, I’m happy to say that “Work & Glory: A House Divided” is probably the best movie possible given the circumstances—the best in the series, certainly—and one that at least ends “Work & Glory’s” movie run on a high note.
Not that there aren’t problems with the film. There are major ones, in fact--mostly stemming from the fact that the third film is not any more a self-contained entity than any of the others. Many characters have scenes that are clearly setups for later films in the series…but since those movies won’t ever exist, those scenes end up not going anywhere. There are a LOT of loose ends in “House Divided”—and viewers will likely be struck by how many unresolved plot threads are left hanging when the credits roll.
Ironically, the filmmakers compounded this problem by making a film *good* enough such that those unresolved plot strands matter. Three films in, we have at least reached the point where you genuinely care about the main characters, and want to know what happens next in their lives—and feel disappointed that (unless you start picking up the books instead) you won’t find out.
(One can argue, certainly, that the filmmakers didn’t really have much of a choice. They couldn’t very well have departed drastically from the source text to try to have things ‘wrap up neatly’ at the end of film three, especially since the historical element of LDS history entwined in the narrative most certainly did NOT ‘wrap up neatly’ within the time period depicted. What were they supposed to do: move up Joseph Smith’s death—the only proper conclusion to the LDS history segment—eight years before the fact? Even the book series went on for three volumes past Joseph Smith’s martyrdom. This difficulty is just another one of the signs that adapting the Work & Glory series to the big screen may have been too ambitious by half…)
“A House Divided” improves upon the first two films by avoiding slow, dull stretches (as in the first film), but also avoiding moving the pace too quickly for viewers to understand what just happened (as in the second). Part III—in actuality the shortest film in the series—does this by choosing historical events within Church history selectively such that proper attention can be given to them within the running time, while still keeping the pace moving fairly briskly.
(True, the Church issues remain unresolved by the time the credits roll as many of the problems which arose in the Kirtland Safety Society period would haunt Joseph Smith and the early Saints for years to come, but they feel ‘complete’ enough within the context of the film…yet compelling enough that you want to know what happened next.)
The best part of the Church history element of “A House Divided” is that it keeps things ‘in the now’, without painting things in a light only known by historical hindsight. We see the Kirtland Safety Society go under, and we see Joseph Smith publicly accuse Warren Parrish of embezzlement of funds, which he heatedly denies. Is he really guilty? Or was that a stressed-out Joseph Smith flailing about for a scapegoat on whom to pin the Church’s recent struggles?
The movie—to its credit—does NOT make it obvious one way or the other. I don’t know what the historical conclusion to the matter has been reached as to Parrish’s crime (if any) but that’s exactly the point—none of the Church members at the time knew the true facts either. It came down to basically which side of the story you believed…and many prominent Church members took opposing sides.
(In a similar way, we hear Joseph and Brigham Young both chastise the Saints for ‘greed and corruption’, even though we are never shown any specific evidence of it. Were their observations correct? Or were they seeking to blame the struggles of the Church on someone else to mask their poor leadership? Some Church members thought the former, some the latter. Many were unclear…and the movie keeps the audience unclear as well.)
The film does pull its punches in one instance: Joshua Steed is originally persuaded to join the militia against the Mormons due to a note proclaiming divine judgment (and vengeance) from the Mormons against a number of Missourians including himself—punctuated by mysterious figures shooting bullets through his windows at night. Both the note and the attack were shown to be fake—an attempt by his ‘friend’ to convince him to join the cause, but it might have been bolder to leave that unclear as well. Was there really a group of Mormons wandering around with violent intent towards those that had wronged them earlier? Certainly many Missourians at the time had to wonder, leading to some of the anxiety and conflict...
Aside from the struggles of the early Church, the Steed family soap opera also reaches an effective and appropriately moving conclusion in “House Divided”—tying together events of all three films. My continuing complaint about Steed family events taking too much precedence over the (more interesting) true historical LDS characters still holds in “House Divided”, but both elements are given due attention. I will certainly miss Jonathan Scarfe’s portrayal of Joseph Smith—more complete and compelling than in any heretofore seen ‘regular’ Church film.
Well acted, well written, and well produced, “A House Divided” is one of the better films LDS cinema has to offer—just unfortunate that, at the same time, it feels so incomplete…
Final Grade: B+
Analysis and Other Comments (possible spoilers):
1. The divisions within Church members caused by their financial struggles—including doubts about Joseph Smith’s ability to lead—makes for a compelling story, although the focus on internal conflict makes the decision to deliberately avoid the subject of internal conflict during Zion’s Camp in W&G Part II even more curious. Aside from making the march seem more of a failure than it actually was (given the mitigating circumstances), not mentioning the earlier murmuring against Joseph Smith’s leadership takes away an important precursor when beginning the events of Part III—where the previous incident of Church members doubting Joseph’s ability to lead the Church before the KSS would have provided important context…
2. Good scene: Joseph telling Ben that he must frankly forgive his enemies as he can’t afford to fall into the trap of bitterness and hate. Left unsaid, the fact that Joseph had so many enemies that he really had no choice in the matter: it wouldn't have taken long for the bitterness to take hold if he didn't forgive immediately.
3. Another good scene: Brigham Young defending Joseph and his prophetic ability in the temple. Warren Parrish then snidely remarks: "I could tell you things that would make you doubt his prophetic ability..." Brigham responds immediately: "Then, DON'T tell me...because I know what I know."
4. Strange, that I don't remember Oliver Cowdery being seen or mentioned at any point in "House Divided"--a curious oversight.
5. Historical inaccuracy: Admittedly this is nit-picking, but at the Kirtland temple dedication the Saints are shown to be singing the modern version of "The Spirit of God". It's true "Spirit of God" was sung at the dedication, but the actual music which modern Church members are familiar with (and heard in the movie) wasn't written until 1844, meaning the lyrics were sung to a completely different melody at the time.