A recent post on my family's website left me thinking about Mormon cinema, it's overall suckiness, and the only guy who I've ever seen really get it right, Richard Dutcher.
I loved God's Army. It had some lame "living the Wymount dream" falling action. But the story seemed honest and has been the most realistic depiction of missionary life that I've ever seen, out side of reality of course.
I also really enjoyed Brigham City. It takes standard Mormon stereotypes and turns them on their ear. It's completely subversive. It drew me in with it's tried and true stereotypes and then totally spun everything around. I don't think anyone not steeped in Mormon culture would get half of what he does in this movie. And as it turns out, most people who are steeped in Mormon culture didn't want to have anything to do with it. According to Wikipedia a number of Mormon crew hands were so incensed they walked off the set.
I heard rumors that he was going to make a Joseph Smith movie, but after seeing The Book of Mormon Movie I became completely disenchanted with Mormon cinema and have avoided it ever since.
So, Today I started wondering what Mr. Dutcher has been up too. Well, first of all, I found out he completely agrees with me concerning the state of Mormon cinema. Though I completely disagree with him concerning the power of cinema. The written word will always have more power than a movie.
But he's also jumped out of the boat, so to speak. He's no longer a practicing member of the Church, doesn't plan on making Mormon themed films any more and his next movie is rated R.
I'll leave it for another post to discuss why I think R rated content is like cooking food with poop. (Yeah, you can do it, but why?) For now I'll just return a farewell to Dutcher, albeit belatedly, and also say good-bye to the promise of a good movie about Joseph Smith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That's super sad. Here's hoping he comes around some day.
Another quick comment that I have no intention of personal offense to anyone in my above comment. It's just my honest reaction and feeling. We're allowed to give those sometimes, I hope.
I've known of Mr. Dutcher's leaving for ... well I guess over a year now. His expressions at his leaving touched me profoundly. One interesting quote:
"As many of you know, I am no longer a practicing member of the church. The private answers to the questions I have asked in my prayers, and in my films, have led me on an unexpected journey, a spiritual path which may ultimately prove incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy. This understanding has brought me some of the most profound surprises and also the deepest sadness of my life. It is very hard for me to say goodbye to something that I love."
I wonder if in tapping some powerful stories from Mormonism, Dutcher came to feel that that is what Mormonism was, simply a powerful story.
There is a link off of the mormonstories blog you linked to. It's the blog owner's talk about why people leave the Church. Here is that link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=uZQJc5SxnVs
I listened to that talk and I think he did a pretty good job in expressing what many folks feel when they leave, but missed the one that I assume is closer to what Dutcher (and I) felt, that regardless of all the Church's faults and freckles, it is merely a story, one like many others that has been told over the past million years. The story of humans seeking understanding.
I also intend no offense.
Hard to pierce the veil, eh?
I've thought about faith recently and some discussions I've had in the past with Ray. I thought today about the scientific method and the notion of falsifiability. In science, you need to have conditions to prove something false. If there's no way, then it's outside the scientific method. And truth told, nothing could prove it false to me. So my faith isn't scientific. I guess I'm fine with that. Not scientific doesn't mean not true.
And all the enlightenment in the world can't change truth. We'll just have to be separate on this subject for the time being.
Oh what songs of the heart ...
On the subject of movies, I think I'm more critical than most. (The Shaltes folks don't much like me around when watching movies, for instance.) But I think I'm not usually as critical as Ray or Dutcher. And Ray, while I agree that books are more important than movies, I still like to watch movies. But I guess you do, too, from what I can gather.
And on a completely different subject, Mark, we still need to see if we can recruit you for any online board games again. How does your summer look? Or, in any case, I guess I'll send the question by email.
Mark, that youtube link is awesome. Though people leave for many reasons besides the "I just learned some horrible thing I can't reconcile" reason.
One thing I don't understand is how long term members of the Church can not know about polygamy, word of wisdom, etc?
I'm trying to think back to the first time I ever heard about controversial subjects. I recall Bro. Parsons talking about Joseph Smith's polygamy in 10th grade seminary. But the notion didn't seem odd to me at that time. So I'm sure I was already familiar with it.
I read Orson Scott Card's Saints in high school. At the time I thought that the book was somewhat irreverent. As I recall there are descriptions of the main character having sex with Joseph Smith and later with Brigham Young.
The narrator of the novel is a historian whose ancestors were Mormon but he is not. It's the first time I ever saw Church history displayed from a "rational" historical viewpoint.
Post a Comment