Dutcher and Dark LDS Films
Posted on January 15th, 2007 by Bryce Inouye
I almost fear bringing up Dutcher again since some of his perhaps ill chosen comments in various interviews have certainly polarized many of his target audience. In the latest Sunstone though they have a new interview with him that is quite interesting. I know most of you won’t read the interview and I’m not interested in summarizing it. I will say it’s a nice counter-point to his Christianity Today Interview that engendered so much discussion. I think he certainly phrased things there in at best some odd ways. But that’s not what I wanted to discuss. Rather I wanted to discuss a couple of paragraphs from his interview that were a criticism of Utah County that I found extremely true and cutting.
What really has me discouraged is that although the film did better there than most other places, in Provo, Utah, which has about the highest percentage of Mormons anywhere, States of Grace did nothing compared to Saw II and other films that came out near the same time. So for me, it’s frustrating that the Mormon community doesn’t want to see my kind of movies— States of Grace and Brigham City. They want to see Saw II. The death of Mormon cinema is going to come about simply because the Mormons are going to kill it. This isn’t at all to blame the audience. I know why people don’t come to these films. It’s because there have been so many crappy Mormon movies that the filmmakers have completely violated the trust of the audience. People are not gong to spend $8, or $30 or $40 on a date, to go out and see another bad Mormon film. So when something good comes along, convincing them that it’s good is very difficult. So I get pretty worked up about it.
While I think the failure of the film in its initial release is a tad more complex than that paragraph suggests, I think that’s been discussed ad nauseam. Rather I want to get at his point about movies like Saw II or Hostel doing so well in Utah County when Dutcher’s films don’t. Say what you will about bad marketing for the film (although they’ve fixed that with DVD marketing) but I halfway wonder how many of those not seeing these films are LDS but willing to see these dark, ultra-horrifically violent B-movies. Now perhaps there’s no crossover of the market. (I suspect that a certain lack of cross over is why it’s ultimately a bad comparison) However even if Utah County is divided between those looking for G rated and light PG fare and those uninterested in LDS cinema and who are basically indistinguishable from regular American viewers, that avoids the central question of why. Why do those sorts of films do so well here?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
60 Responses to “Dutcher and Dark LDS Films”
Leave a Reply
you are asking the wrong questions.
why shouldn’t horror films do the same business in Utah that they do elsewhere?
why should anyone anywhere go out of their way to watch Dutcher’s films?
Dutcher isn’t that good of a film maker. His films aren’t marketed as opening weekend must-see events. Why should we go to his films? So Mormon film has shifted from bad to just above mediocre. It still isn’t good and there still isn’t a Mormon movie worth caring about. Dutcher should be angry that he isn’t as good as he thinks he is and it isn’t fair that he criticizes the audience and investors for supporting his mediocre films. Should my family really be expected to put down $60 to watch Dutcher’s uninspiring slightly better than mediocre films just because we’re Mormon and he’s Mormon? please.
The real question is will Dutcher’s next film be a Mormon slasher movie designed to play well in Utah County? Maybe he could do a movie about Ammon and the king’s flocks from the point of view of the guys that got their arms chopped off by an opponent that seemed to have mystical powers.
Part of it seems to be that in the US, people (not just Utahns) just don’t seem to care much about violent content in movies nowadays. (“‘Rated R for violence’?…meh”) Part of the ‘blame’ might go to “The Passion…”–since of course if “Passion”-levels of violence are now judged ‘acceptable’ to Church members then certainly “Saw II” levels of violence can’t be that bad–although I think the cultural shift predates that by several years. (I think the lack of cross-over is an issue, too…)
Also, as mentioned in the earlier thread, Dutcher still hasn’t explained why if ‘crappy Mormon movies’ are to blame for his box-office failures, “Church Ball”–released after “States of Grace”–grossed over FIVE times as much money as “Grace” did…
why shouldn’t horror films do the same business in Utah that they do elsewhere?
Well, that’s the key issue at play. I didn’t want to turn this into just an other Dutcher bashing session. (I’ve not seen any of his films admittedly, so I just don’t have much by way of comment - although I suspect his criticisms fit me. Most of the LDS films I’ve seen, even those praised as great, haven’t been that good to me.)
First off I’ll play my hypocritical card. I like lots of movies that are violent. I loved the first Blade movie. Enjoyed Kill Bill. Went and saw Apocalypto and Children of Men.
Having said that I don’t like horror movies because there is something genuinely repellant about them. It seems like if films like Basic Instinct are p-rnography toned down for the masses then especially a lot of recent horror films are torture p-rnography toned down somewhat for the masses. I don’t mind violence if there is a plot to it. But some folks really get into the gore and violence for their own sake. That bothers me.
As to the question. Should more uplifting films do better here? I think they should. Although arguably they do. G-rated films and family films score strong here. I suspect action movies and horror films do well because there are two large colleges here plus lots of related young people and educational programs. So you have a large body of the key 18-25 year old demographic here which is what those kinds of films target.
I suspect three causes:
1. In Utah County, there are two groups of people. Those who watch R-rated movies and those who don’t. I’d suggest that SoG was marketed toward the R-rated viewers. R-rated viewers are less likely to watch serious spiritual films.
2. serious spiritual films generally only do well on the mass market in the Winter period (Thanksgiving through Ash Wednesday), good examples this year are the Nativity Story, We are Marshall, Pursuit of Happyness.) and as far as I know, States of Grace did not show or premiere in this time period.
3. Dutcher is right, in part. It would take something very special to get me to another “Mormon” movie. In Mormon Cinema, I will re-watch “the other side of Heaven” and maybe even “the Best two years.” but not much else appeals to me. Not even “Saints and Soldiers”, although I liked it alot, has much replay value for me.
Maybe I’m asking to much, but I am looking for our “chariots of fire” in film.
If I were to make films for a “Mormon Market” I’d look to make something I’d be willing to watch with my family on sunday.
Actually Matt, I believe States of Grace did premier during the winter time period. As I recall the bigger problem was that it came out just prior to the new Harry Potter film which targeted a similar demographic and it was lost in the crowd.
Interestingly Saints and Soldiers was what finally turned me off LDS cinema (although I’m putting States of Grace on my Netflix queue). That was “the best” and I thought it was pretty weak.
The Mormons I know with no interest in seeing Dutcher’s film all have the same objection to them: they don’t like seeing things like blessing the sacrament and baptisms being portrayed on film.
I myself don’t have any objection to that. I saw States of Grace. It was a very good film, but there were things in the story that basically ruined it for me.
A lot of people see gore and violence in film as harmless. My husband can watch it and not be affected by it—he sees it for what it is: a bunch of special effects. I can’t watch it. I carry those images around in my head and they pop up at unfortunate moments. Like when I’m walking through the house in the dark in the middle of the night for a drink of water.
Susan, I’ve heard that as well. It always struck me as odd since those are things the Church puts in LDS videos all the time.
Was “States of Grace” never submitted to the various film festivals? “Saints and Soldiers” won quite a few awards from them.
Clark, even though I had big problems with what he said in his CT interview, I think Dutcher makes an excellent point about Mormon hypocrisy in that super-violent horror movies do better than his much less violent (and higher quality) Mormon movie. I think Matt W basically captures the truth of the matter when he says that there are some people who will not ever see R-rated and PG-13-rated violent movies and there are some people who will. And those people who saw the horror flicks simply don’t seem to have a problem with them.
The problem for Dutcher, which I hope he will someday realize, is that his potential market is with people who like family-friendly movies. I like to take my 11-year-old and my eight-year-old to the movies, and “God’s Army” is one of their favorite movies (really). They didn’t see Brigham City because it’s just too scary for young girls, and they only saw the beginning of “States of Grace” because it was just too violent. And I have said this before, and I will say it again: you don’t need to include actual scenes of graphic violence, sex or bad language to make a quality movie. There are many examples of recent movies (”Invincible” “Holes”) that deal with difficult topics and retain a PG rating. Dutcher should be using his considerable talents to pursue this marketplace rather than making forays into the lazy film world of violence and sex.
I’ve said this before, but maybe Dutcher needs to make a commercially viable movie about Mormons that would actually appeal to people outside Utah County. Utah County is just a weird place. If you’re trying to make “art” that’s commercially viable in Utah County (which is more of a mindset than just the actual place), then you have to appeal to the weird Mormon sensibilities of Utah County, and good luck on ever pinning that down. Most of the Church can’t do it — and he expects to just do it while antagonizing them at the same time?
Maybe — and I’ve commented on this in the past — Dutcher needs to make a commercially viable movie about Mormons rather than a Mormon movie. I wonder if he can tell the difference anymore.
But if Dutcher wants to continue with his art, I think his strategy should be to ignore Utah County. He needs to make a movie that appeals to Mormons in DC, New York, Texas, California, Ohio, Europe, South America, etc. Ignore the viewer base in Utah. If he makes a movie that gets critical buzz outside Utah, the Utahns will fall all over themselves rushing to watch Dutcher. Mormons in Utah don’t want to think that they are outside the party. If Dutcher were to figure out a way to get everyone else except Utah to pay attention, the Utahns will fall into line. That probably means, hold no film openings in Utah County — hold them in Rexburg and Laie and Dallas and Kirtland and Nauvoo instead).
Anyway, I like the idea of reprising Ammon and Saw II!
Utah County isn’t that weird. It’s just that it’s the ultimate example of suburbia. I think that’s what folks miss.
So you’re never going to have great restaurants here, to give my favorite gripe. That’s because here people really like Red Lobster and so forth. Even the one good restaurant here, the Tree Room up at Sundance, never changes it’s menu because folks want the same thing, over and over again. So you end up having to go to Park City or a few places in SLC.
Ditto with film and art. All that tripe that Dutcher rightfully condemns at DB is liked by the suburban mindset. I poll most people and they can’t stand the more “arty” stuff.
But, and this is where I separate from some, even if Utah is often the ultimate bland suburbia, that doesn’t mean it’s bad. I didn’t fully understand until I started having kids of my own. But you’re really, really busy. And often more “risky” stuff you don’t have time for. I only get to see a handful of movies. I’m just not going to be that daring in my choices.
So that leaves you with the college crowd. And that’s simply a more complex market, typically driven primarily by escapist entertainment.
Saw ii opened Oct. 28, 2005. States of Grace opened Nov. 4, 2005. Harry Potter, in my opinion is not to the same Demographic and opened Nov 18th, 2005.
I just watched “States of Grace” for the second time last night with my family. It is a great movie. I agree that it had some unecessary violence, but it also had many spiritual and thought-provoking scenes. I think Dutcher has really matured and improved as a film-maker. His comments in the CT interview really broke my heart more than anything.
I agree with Geoff, mostly. Dutcher’s argument that other LDS films have ruined the market is absurd. Every genre has bad movies, but that doesn’t make people stop going to good ones. E.g., there are plenty of horrible animated movies that bomb in the theaters, but good ones like Cars continue to do well. There are bad horror movies that don’t do well, and others that do.
States of Grace was worst mismatches of genres I’ve ever seen. You had a supposedly uplifing LDS-targeted film that included a child murder scene and a bloody attempted suicide, among other things. What’s the audience for such as mess? While I can think of many worse movies than States of Grace, I can’t think of a movie that would be more difficult to market. Your typical LDS “family” audience would hate it for the violence (as well as the sexual content). Your typical “young adult” and “teenage” audiences would hate it for its preachiness. Your typical “date” audience would hate it for the lack of chemistry between the romantic actors and the forbidden nature of the romance, not to mention its repercussions. That about covers 90% of the moviegoing audience, and the other 10%, the older generation, would walk out within about 15 minutes.
So I don’t think States of Grace has any lessons for the LDS market except that you have to be consistent within the film. Even in Passion, people knew that Christ would be crucified, so they got what they expected.
As for why people in Utah county see violent movies like the Saw franchise, one aspect of film theory points out that films are like our dreams (which can be violent, scary and sexual). Watching films like these is one way to cope with our fears and emotions. It’s a way of “safely” generating the type of adreneline that we’d otherwise only get in dangerious activities. Teenagers and young adults naturally seek “thrills” that older and younger people don’t (like x-treme sports, racing cars, etc.), so movies like this satisfy that desire for thrills. I don’t personally like this type of film, but I’m not in that demographic.
Jonathan N wrote:
That’s probably the best analysis of the low box-office performance of SoG that I’ve read.
Clark wrote:
I think you owe it to yourself to rent/buy and watch God’s Army and Brigham City. Get them used on eBay or Amazon.
I think States of Grace will, in 20 years or so, be considered a classic. While I still like Brigham City better, the messages of States of Grace have grown on me over time.
I suspect there are LDS movie goers who feel more comfortable (and “comfortable” is a word I deliberately use) watching an “R” slasher movie, than States of Grace. That is because, in the “R” slasher movie, there is probably little moral ambiguity: we all know those violent characters are going to hell anyway, and there is no chance in hades they would ever join the church (or try to stay in the church if they did).
Clark, FWIW, I agree with Bookslinger that God’s Army and Brigham City are worth seeing. Definitely. SoG is probably better than half the movies out there that you might go to see, even though I don’t think it’s a spiritually uplifting movie personally. And as I’ve said before I’m disappointed in the dark direction Dutcher is taking with his movies. But if you’re going to rent, say, Matrix, why not get SoG instead?
As I said, I don’t watch movies as much at the moment. NetFlix is doing great by me as I have three movies sitting beside the TV that have been there since early December.
I think he’s right about the garbage being put out as Mormon films turning people off. I only had to see a couple to realize there was no reason for me to see another one until they could convince good actors/directors/writers to participate. I’d rather spend my money on the great Hollywood films I’ve seen this year like Invincible, Cars, The Illusionist Devil Wears Prada and Inside Man. Well-made films that aren’t graphic in any way but have great acting and well-written storylines.
As for more people in Utah County seeing Saw II, wasn’t it Provo that lost a smut case because it was proven that hotels there served up more porn than comparable cities? I don’t believe people in Utah County aren’t that much different than anyone else in the U.S., I just think they hide it better.
Dutcher has issues. Blaming all the other Mormon filmmakers for the failure of your own film is nothing short of pathetic. I’m embarrassed for him. That attitude is exactly what movies are made about, someone so out of touch with reality, so sure that everyone around them is wrong…I can just see the climactic scene with him jumping up and down screaming, “It’s everyone else’s fault! Look what they’ve done to me! They’ve ruined me!” How sad.
Jonathan N. summed up his failure pretty well.
Clark,
I was going to chime in that Netflix doesn’t have SoG, since I’ve check repeatedly and it was never there. However before I did so I decided to check one more time and it is in fact there! Hooray! I’ll get it now.
There may be a point to buying DVD’s of the poor quality Mormon movies. Admitted, one doesn’t want to reward mediocrity, but Mormon movies are still in their infancy, and maybe by supporting Mormon cinema, the writing and production of commercial Mormon movies will get better.
I have God’s Army, Brigham City, Singles Ward, The RM, Baptists at Our Barbecue, The Home Teachers, Best Two Years, Other Side of Heaven, Saints and Soldiers, Work and the Glory (1 and 2), Mobsters and Mormons, New York Doll, Napoleon Dynamite, American Mormon, Latter-Day Night Biscuit, and Book of Mormon Movie.
The only one that I recommend _against_ is Latter-day Night Biscuit (only 2 minutes worth watching out of 63).
Some of them (Singles Ward, RM, Home Teachers, American Mormon, BoM Movie) have moments where you have to grit your teeth, groan, and clamp your eyes shut, but the overall experience of watching them is still positive, and worth the $10 to $15 price on the used market.
I think God’s Army, Brigham City, Baptists @ Our Barbecue, Best 2 Years, Other Side of Heaven, Saints & Soldiers, Work and the Glory 1 and 2, Mobsters, New York Doll, and Napoleon, are actually worth buying at retail (or discounted retail) so the producers can actually get a piece of the price.
I’d even recommend for non-members that they rent/see: Brigham City, Best Two Years, Other Side of Heaven, Saints and Soldiers, Work and the Glory 1, New York Doll, and Napoleon Dynamite.
I’m waiting for the going price to drop on Ebay for Church Ball and Suits on the Loose before buying those.
If anything, you gotta hand it to those who invested money in making those movies, if for no other reason than they were willing put out their own money to be trail-blazers, to explore, and to find out what it would take. Future investors/producers can learn from those lessons.
John, there’s usually a slight delay for less popular titles on Netflix. So it can sometimes be up to a month after the DVD is released. I also sometimes suspect it is doing some kind of regional checking. (For instance there is now a center in SLC I noticed whereas we used to get and send our videos to Denver) I’ve sometimes tried to find more obscure films and couldn’t when others did. I don’t know what they are doing behind the scenes.
If they don’t have something though they are pretty good about taking suggestions. They do that for foreign films, for instance.
Bookslinger, either you have more money than me or are a little more lax about what to buy. I have to expect to watch something several times to buy it. A few times (primarily back when I was single and had more money to burn) I’d buy something if it was on sale at Walmart. Typically I regretted it though.
I will say though that New York Doll is a fantastic little documentary and I think members and non-members alike would love it. Ditto obviously for Napoleon Dynamite.
There was a New Yorker article on the current state of movie studios that connects with several of the comments above. A couple of passages:
This state seems to be replicated in minature with the Mormon movies: a bunch of mediocre stuff to pull in young folks, and an artist so dedicated to his personal vision that he ignores the needs of the audience. The result is that Saw II brings in more money because professional mediocrity beats amateur mediocrity for that audience, and everyone else stays home because the artist isn’t really inviting them.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/070108crat_atlarge
jjohnson: your logic doesn’t make sense. The lousy Hollywood movies (of which there are literally hundreds each year, but consider Black Ghristmas, Marie Antoinette, Material Girls, and School for Scoundrels as examples) didn’t prevent you from going to Cars and the others you listed, so why would lousy LDS movies prevent you from going to good ones?
I agree with Bookslinger that anyone who makes a movie should be applauded for at least trying. I think Dutcher is talented, but he needes a producer or marketing expert to help him think through what he’s trying to accomplish. Larry Miller’s not that guy. When you write, produce and direct your own movie, you need someone to give you a sanity check on what you’re doing before you go through with it. With a few changes, SoG could have appealed to at least one demographic group instead of none.
My mother roped me in to watching Singles Ward, Brigham City, and Other Side of Heaven. The only one that I could stomache was OSofH.
I still fail to see what is so compelling about Brigham City. It was a mediocre whodunnit at best, and tried to feign intelligent art with the final scene where they ALL refuse the sacrament. I imagine that there were some who thought that was a deep moment, but it was sophomoric.
That’s really the best I can say about LDS cinema. It’s just not that good to begin with. I take comfort to know that we aren’t alone, though. Any one see Kirk Cameron’s “Left Behind”???
Clark G: I think a family (of at least 3 or 4) comes out ahead dollar wise seeing a movie on DVD rather than going to the theater. So where you don’t want to risk dollars on a movie that might be mediocre, waiting for the DVD is a safer/cheaper bet.
The main reason I buy the DVD’s is that most Mormon movies don’t show in theaters around here. The few exceptions were Other Side of Heaven, Legend of Johnny Lingo, Work and the Glory 1 & 2, and (groan) Book of Mormon Movie. Another reason is to loan them to people who would never buy/rent the DVD on their own, in hopes that they’ll buy one for themselves.
On another tack… After a while, those church-produced movies that are only shown at visitor centers, get released on DVD. Does anyone know when the church-produced movie on Joseph and the Restoration is going to be released to the public on DVD, at least through the Dist Center?
I’d also like to see a DVD compilation of all the church’s TV ads. That would be worth showing to friends. I watch a little television, not much, but I haven’t seen any aired locally in many many years.
BookSlinger, A lot of the TV ads are online with Google Video…
Because I’ve seen plenty of great Hollywood movies, but I’ve never seen a great LDS movie. And did you see Marie Antionette? The soundtrack alone makes it better than every single LDS film.
Yes to Google video. But so many people don’t have Internet at all or a high speed connection. And many people who do aren’t sophisticated enough to find them, even if you write down the URL for them.
DVD’s are so much better for something that you can hand someone in person for them to watch later. A slip of paper with an URL is going to get lost.
It’s also much nicer to watch it on a full TV screen instead of a 3 inch wide window on your monitor.
I’m totally with #1. Dutcher/Smutcher. The great Mormon film maker has yet to make a movie.
Interesting question and post. Sorry if this was already mentioned, I don’t have time to read the comments:
I think there’s a serious selection bias going on. Those that are most interested in the slasher shows are more apt to pay full price for a movie, whereas those more interested in Dutcher-type films are more apt to wait for the DVD. I’m guessing teens going out with their friends and singles make up a disproportionate share of full-price movie goers.
Where are you people getting your numbers? STATES OF GRACE grossed a little over $200,000 at the box office. Not big numbers, but a lot more than $60,000. Also, why do you all seem to think Dutcher should alter his filmmaking to satisfy a mass audience? Just because CHURCH BALL made more money, does that mean it’s a more successful film than STATES OF GRACE? That Dutcher should make his films more like CHURCH BALL? Nonsense. Those kind of values would leave no Bergman or Scorcese films. Just a lot of John Hughes and Michael Bay. As an example, this year there wouldn’t be “The Queen,” “Children of Men,” “The Last King of Scotland,” etc. There would just be a bunch of “Night at the Museum” and “Jackass 2.”
A friend called tonight to ask me what the box office gross for STATES OF GRACE was. I asked why. She mentioned this thread. I’ve just finished reading it, along with the other thread about my interview in Christianity Today. I’m certain it would be far wiser of me to refrain from any comments, but…wisdom will come later. Tonight I’ll fall back on the rashness of (relative) youth:
1. First of all, here’s a quote that offers me some comfort at times like this. It is best appreciated by those who are out on the playing field, those who have to listen to lazy armchair critics who spend far too much time on the internet: “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
- Teddy Roosevelt (”Citizenship in a Republic,” Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910)
2. To those of you who have attempted to defend me, to those who have refused to judge me, and to those who have extended a measure of grace: Thank you. It means a lot to me. Truly.
3. To the rest of you: what I really want to say is “Go screw yourselves.” But that would be vulgar, immature, and without class. So, instead, I wish you the best in your attempts at autofornication.
God Bless Us All,
Richard Dutcher
annegb (#32),
Those are some insightful observations there. I really appreciate all of the supporting arguments you gave to bolster your claim that [Dutcher] has yet to make a movie. Sarcasm aside, I would bet even money that you haven’t even seen ‘States of Grace’. If indeed you haven’t, I double dog dare you to watch it late at night by yourself with the phone turned off and the kids in bed. Then come back on here and tell me that Mr. Dutcher hasn’t made a movie.
Margaret (#34),
Well said, but what would be wrong with a having a bunch more of Jackass 2?
Richard (#35),
Spot on with the Teddy quote. I really don’t understand why you’ve become such a lighting rod for passing judgment. My own observation is that a very high percentage of the autofornicators (when talking about you) are simply eating and then regurgitating the vomit of other autofornicators. Too few have taken the time or felt the need to actually sit down at the table and eat the fine meal you have prepared for us.
On a side note, I think that Mainstreet missed out by not going forward with “Grace to the Third Power”. You could have a lot of success in the future with that marketing model. Seriously. Do it.
I’m giving away my age here, but we need a BYU based Porky’s type film. That would be even funnier than Borat.
Richard: If you ever get back to this blog — I loved your films. I liked Brigham City for its insights into collective mind-set myopia. I loved God’s Army because it seemed to remind me of my own missionary experiences. I loved States of Grace because it reminded me of the charity I learned as a missionary — even when breaking the rules. I wouldn’t take my younger kids to see either Brigham City or States of Grace for the reasons stated in some posts here.
However, keeping in mind that I haven’t stepped foot into your film-making world; nevertheless, I respectfully suggest that a bit more tact and respect for others may assist you to not get in the way of your gifts and talents. You admonition to those who didn’t like some of your stuff here is a good example. Another is the fact that not all “LDS cinema” (if there really is such a thing) is as bad as you say (to certainly some is). The Other Side of Heaven, the Work and the Glory films, Saints and Soldiers are all films that I really enjoyed as well. I also really liked The Best Two Years tho no one could pretend that it was great cinema. It just spoke to me and I it made me laugh (mostly at myself).
I also believe that the audience felt your alienation from a more comitted LDS stance of faith that was still evident in God’s Army but clearly in tension in States of Grace. Perhaps your personal revolution in religious views has more to do with your alienation from “LDS cinema” than the audience’s reception. As an author, I would love folks to be more interested in what I consider to be a very worth-while dialogue in philosophical theology about which I write rather than the {often} sheer pablum that comes out of Deseret Book. However, it comes down to commitment for me.
I wish you the best in your jouney as you travel outside the borders of the LDS faith-commitment in film-making. However, maybe your films travelled beyond that border because you did. We speak in terms of being active and inactive rather than believer or adherent because we care a lot more about a person’s conduct and what a person does than what they believe. Orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. It seems that you are no longer active in the LDS community. I admit that it makes me very sad because I liked and learned a lot from your insights into LDS life. It makes me sad because I sense that you are packing up and moving out of a community to which I belong and I rather enjoyed having you as part of our community.
Blake,
I think you’re on to something, but the dominant self salvation Nazi brand of Mormonism is screwed up.
Blake and Nate,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Admittedly, it is often difficult for me to respond with grace to asinine, ill-informed, and offensive statements about my films. It seems that, often, those who are the most bitterly opposed to my work haven’t actually watched much of it. Or they’ve heard a piece of an interview, taken out of context, and have fallen into the trap of passing judgment without having all of the information. And, of course, there are those who have participated in the making of “Singles Ward” and other of the Halestorm crimes against humanity and who have taken offense because I have said things like…well, like Halestorm movies are crimes against humanity.
Obviously, there is another class of detractors who simply, because of the style, approach, storylines, etc., simply don’t care for my films. This is natural. We all have our aesthetic preferences. I respect those who can respectfully respond and even critique the films. What I don’t respect are those who toss off insults and unsupported accusations, and those who refuse to take responsibility for their words by simply attaching their real full names to their posts.
I do wish the newspapers would occasionally print some of the nice things I say about Mormon Cinema. If they did, maybe more people would know how much I loved “New York Doll” and that I actually liked “Best Two Years,” Sterling Van Wagenen’s direction of the last two “Work and the Glory” films. I even liked, with a few reservations, “The Other Side of Heaven.” Speaking specifically, I believe that the Halestorm-produced movies and the “Book of Mormon Movie” were the bullets to the brain of Mormon Cinema that have left it in a coma from which it may never awake.
Also, if the autofornicators would take the time to actually read entire articles, such as my interview in the recent issue of “Sunstone Magazine,” they would understand more fully my great (forsaken) hopes for Mormon Cinema and they would sense my great (unforsaken) affection for the Mormon community.
Regardless, I and others will continue making films and the anonymous armchair critics will continue to autofornicate. And I will continue to be grateful for those who, in forums like this, either critique my films with respect or defend them with grace.
Thanks again for the thoughtful response and counsel.
Richard Dutcher
Richard: Thanks for response. I agree with you completely about Halestorm films. The Book of Mormon film was abysmal. While I don’t see them as crimes against humanity, they did not take their subject matter seriously enough to be taken seriously. I believe that there is a real place for films like yours. I admit to buying 10 extra tickets to States of Grace that we would never use just to show my support for you. I’m actually surprised that anyone is opposed to your work — though I admit to being naive and eternally optimistic about the human condition in the midst of our own self-delusion and self-deception. I tend to think that people can learn and have their blinders taken off through love.
I haven’t seen New York Dolls (yet) but I intend to now that you have recommended it. In any event, let my add my meager urging to do films that probe deeply, ask questions we may not want to hear, exposes realities of our own blind-spots that we can’t see and still adresses the LDS community that has already been so richly blessed by your talents and passions. I’m no film-critic — but I know an insightful window to the world when I see one, and I like the vista from the view you have allowed me to gaze upon.
As for #35-1, we may not count for much in terms of our critical nature, but that in no way says that your movies are any good! If we cannot critique them without your ‘relative rashness’ coming out, then how would you know if your movies are any good except for your own biased criticisms, in other words, we are always legends in our own minds until someone tells us the truth and then it usually hurts!
I’ve seen a number of movies mentioned in this blog, and not just Mr. Dutcher’s, and everyone of them, with the exception of ‘Other Side of Heaven’, looked and sounded like complete and utter tripe! For example, RM and SW, both cash in on a niche mentality that does not exist anywhere outside of ‘Utah Valley, USA’ — I couldn’t relate and I am a ‘Lifer in the mission field’ — turned them both off during the playing! Any of these films wildly depicts a set of idiotic mormons that have no relevance except to make fun of our values, or presents a somewhat realistic view of mormons that have no relevance to real life! In other words, these movies have no relevance! Even ‘Other Side of Heaven’, which I could relate to as an RM, was not relevant to anyone other than those that have perhaps been related to an understanding about missionary life! Not relevant, not gonna buy them, not gonna watch them anymore! Nap-D may have been the most relevant and it had nothing to do with Mormonism, but we adopt it as such because a Mormon made it and because Hed-case is now wildly successful and so we adopt a completely relevant non-mormonized movie as part of the LDS film genre — how ridiculous is that?!?! Next thing you know, we will be adopting ‘Panic! at the disco’ or ‘The Killers’ as ‘Mormon Music’ not because they have taught or lived mormonism in their musical forays, but because they are Mormons and they are relevant — How ridiculous is that!?!?
RD, buddy, make something relevant already, I am sure you have talent as a film maker, but make something relevant already and stop whining that we have shattered the illusions of your self-inflicted integrity!
Peter, you seemed to have missed the point of Dutcher’s comments. He isn’t saying “don’t critique my movies.” He’s saying that we should critique the work of others with some level of respect and I would personally add that we should support our critiques. Anybody can say “this movie sucks!” Very few people take the time to intelligently support that opinion.
In your post you said that Dutcher’s films “looked and sounded like complete and utter tripe!” I have a hard time believing that you’ve actually seen “Brigham City” or “States of Grace.” If you have, please offer some support for your comment.
Also, I’ve heard Dutcher speak many times, and I’ve had several personal conversations with him. I’ve never witnessed him “whining” about anything. The whine you refer to must be the tone of your own voice, in your own head, as you read his comments.
Dutcher’s films are surely relevant. His “God’s Army” broke down walls and started the entire Mormon Movie movement. His movies have made me think about my relationships with my Heavenly Father and with the other human beings around me. If that isn’t relevant, I don’t know what is.
On the original topic “Why do those sorts of films do so well here?”,
This is really two questions.
1. Why does a significant portion of the US movie going population like slasher style movies?
2. Why does it appear that, LDS standards and beliefs have little impact on keeping the Utah LDS movie going population from seeing and/or liking these type of movies?
On #1, I am not a fan of slashers. Slashers seem to be geared towards the curious and the those that like the bizarre as opposed to those that love violence itself. I have never heard, “I loved it when the guy got [insert gratuitous violent act]”. Almost always the language was “Wow, It was disgusting when that guy got [insert gratuitous violent act], that was messed up.”.
On #2,
I would say the intersection between the Utah movie going population and those LDS people who avoid seeing “bad” movies is pretty small. It would be interesting to see statistics on slasher DVDs sales in Utah county.
I knew a guy, from an active latter-day saint family, he told me about his mother taking him to see violent slashers as a youth. She loved those kind of movies. The mother spoken of is a good person. All her children have grown and are temple recommend carrying latter-day saints. None of her children carried on the tradition of seeing slashers.
‘God’s Army’ —hahahahahahahahahahahaha, c’mon you have to be kidding me, LOL, rubbish — turned that off after a few seconds, not quite, but close, and then proceeded to ban the remainder of ‘Mormon Movies’ from my home as poor and tasteless quality portraying nothing useful! Seriously, if that is the way that the persona of a movie maker portrays Mission life, then as I said, more mormons portraying unrealistic views of Mormonism! Just bad taste!
Richard, I think it’s great you have come here to join in the dialogue. I hope you can distinguish between the snarkers (see #45 for an example) and the people who really care about movies and care about what you have to say. The bad thing about blogs is that you see some of the worst of human behavior, people writing things semi-anonymously that they would never say to you face-to-face. But here is something I would tell you if I ever had the honor to meet you face-to-face:
1)God’s Army and Brigham City were great movies. They deserved the praise they got from respected film critics like Michael Medved. I have them in my (very large) DVD collection, and I watch them probably twice a year.
2)SoG was an above-average movie, but disappointing for me because of the subject matter and the fact that it is not suitable for children to watch. But, as I say above, I would rather watch SoG than 80 percent of the movies on the marketplace.
3)Please, please, please consider the fact that there are many people out there with young children who love to watch Mormon movies. My kids have seen God’s Army many times, and they love it. It is uplifting and faith-promoting for them. Brigham City and SoG are not appropriate for young children. Re-read comment #15. What was your potential market with SoG?
4)Comments have consequences. If I could give you one piece of advice: lay off criticizing other film makers. There is simply nothing good that can come from it. Do you think bad filmmakers (”Home Teachers” — YUCK!!!) are going to stop making bad films because you criticize them? I mean, what good can come from it? You are the best-known Mormon filmmaker around. Take the high ground. As my grandmother used to say, if you have nothing good to say, then say nothing at all.
5)You are obviously going through a struggle with your faith, if the CT interview is accurate. Remember the Church of Jesus Christ is perfect but the members are not. We get lots of members on this board who are far, far, far from perfect. I could easily apostasize after just a week of blogging if I were to judge the Church based on its members. But at the end of the day, that is not what matters. What matters is exactly what you portrayed in “God’s Army:” you have to throw away the things of the world and have a conversation with God. Remember that you are being tested just as that missionary in “God’s Army” was being tested. How will you deal with that test?
Richard,
You are one of my heroes (and not just because you served in the same mission that I did (although you served a decade later)). Your movies raise probing, important and sometimes difficult questions about faith, sin, redemption, grace, works, love, and peace.
Geoff B. and Blake are also heroes of mine, and I largely concur with their comments, which I see as positive and constructive.
I enjoyed the panels you participated in last summer at Sunstone (I had not attended a Sunstone conference before, but went largely because of the arts/entertainment theme). (And I enjoyed the panel Blake was on about his excellent theological/philosophical books.)
May God bless us all.
The preview for States of Grace made me and my wife want to watch it (haven’t gotten the chance yet here in Austin, TX), but my gut instinct is that people like my parents might not be as interested. They enjoyed Saints and Soldiers, largely due to the World War II context, and they felt obligated to see the LDS version of Pride and Prejudice, which actually had some redeeming qualities. But States of Grace (at least the preview) doesn’t seem to be offering anything to really hook their generation. Again, it appeals to me and I look forward to seeing it. I just don’t know if people like my parents are going to spend one of three or so movie-nights out on something as edgy as the preview made it seem.
Richard,
Wow, it’s great to have you here. It’s not very often that a fan gets to voice their opinion to the filmmaker. So thanks! I think you’re a fantastic filmmaker (just saw SoG and LOVED it). But what I object to is your blaming other filmmakers for the (box office) failure of your own film. If you were talking about someone else’s film then it could sound like a legitimate point but because it’s your own film you come off as a sore loser (not an objective, informed observer).
Geoff said: “lay off criticizing other film makers…I mean, what good can come from it?…We get lots of members on this board who are far, far, far from perfect. I could easily apostasize after just a week of blogging if I were to judge the Church based on its members.”
Geoff, you should probably follow your own advice.
I think Geoff’s expressions of concern, on this thread and others, to Richard about Richard’s potentially wandering too far from the faith are written from Geoff’s heart and are meant well and not meant as criticism. They are, I believe, informed, in part, by Geoff’s own life’s experiences.
Most of us have struggled, at times, with our faith and our relationship with God and with the institutional church and some of its teachings. Personally, I think going through that process, for many of us, is part of being “born again,” and coming through with a deepened, more mature faith and relationship with God, His servants, organizations, and with all of His children and creations.
My experience coincides with President Packer’s and Elder Eyring’s teachings that one cannot “force” spiritual experiences. Nor do I think one can “force” one’s own “testimony” and “conversion” into existence. My own faith has grown, over time, by fits and starts, from good experience and bad experience, through estrangement from God and reconciliation, through sin, repentance and grace, through doubt and through quiet whisperings of the still small voice. I also see that as part of the message of Richard’s films, and that is why I like them.
DavidH, you are definitely one of the nicest and kindest commentators out there. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with me. I had been away from the gospel most of my life, and the last seven years or so have been baptized and gone to the temple and been sealed to my beautiful wife. I know there are reasons to doubt and to stray — I’ve done it myself. But I also know that there is no happiness like that that comes from obedience and keeping covenants and following the gospel plan. We are beings created to be fulfilled and happy when we are obedient. There are way too many reasons the world creates to stray during our journey, and I always am sad when people stray from the gospel because they are creating so much pain for themselves in the long run. But I also understand the importance of grace and I know from personal experience people can come back after they stray.
Geoff,
I have to be blunt. You seem kind of preachy for someone who fell completely away and came back. Did you really quit the church?
No, I was not baptized until I was 35. But raised with LDS heritage. Steve, I don’t say anything that you wouldn’t hear in a typical sacrament or priesthood meeting. Some people don’t like to hear it, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Geoff B,
One of the hardest things to do is to let people make their own mistakes. Like a reformed smoker who wants to yank the cigs out of their friends’ mouths, it’s hard for those of us who’ve lived outside of the gospel to watch people leave or even temporarily deviate from the path. My friends who are parents say it’s especially hard to watch/allow their children do such.
You just have to love them in a way that let’s them know you’ll still love and accept them, so that they will feel comfortable about coming back when they do decide to come back.
Even Alma Jr, at his meeting with the four sons of Mosiah at the end of their 14 year mission, rejoiced that they were “still” faithful, thereby conveying that there was a possibility of them not staying strong in the faith, even after the tremendous experience they shared seeing the angel who called them to repentance.
Sometimes, the harder you try to hold on to someone, the more they wriggle to get away (like cats), and the more bitter their feelings will be, thereby prolonging their separation. (I know a young man whom I suspect is exhibiting a bit more rebellion than what he otherwise would be doing if his bishop were not squeezing him so hard.)
Bookslinger, agreed. The best thing to do is just give them a warning filled with love and concern for their souls and move on to other work (like you do in handing out Books of Mormon). That’s my policy as well. But if you don’t give them a warning filled with love and concern for their souls, you are doing them and yourself a disservice. That’s the part that is not popular with (some) members of the Bloggernacle.
Can I humbly suggest we move back to the subject of this post? Thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
Geoff,
Given the themes of Dutcher’s films, I think the discussion in the last comments was on subject and on the money. There is a dominate, saved by works, Nazi wing of Mormonism that rejects grace without explicitly stating it. That is the core reason many LDS don’t like his films.
I’m weary of people who aren’t in love with sin being slandered as Nazis (or uncultured Philistines) who don’t accept Christ’s atonement. Enough with the Zeezromisms.
Zeezrom: Yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people–as though he had authority to command God.
Amulek: Behold thou hast lied, for thou sayest that I spake as though I had authority to command God because I said he shall not save his people in their sins. And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.
John Mansfield,
We all have unintentional sins that we commit without knowing we are sinning. That’s where grace kicks in. Scriptures say that the “heathen” who sin without law are under no condemnation, ostensibly because they don’t know better. Scriptures say those people come under grace. I think that grace also applies to members of the Lord’s church who sin in true ignorance, because the Lord is no respecter of persons. If the rule applies to one group, the rule of “not knowing better” has to apply to another group.
I don’t think Steve EM is saying that we can sin intentionally, or intentionally avoid repentance of those sins we know about.
Almost all of us, (except maybe those who have had their calling and election made sure), have sins we _know_ about, and we are _working_ on repenting of them, but haven’t fully repented of them yet. That’s also another area that grace and mercy probably cover, if we are making good-faith efforts.
I think Steve EM is saying that only the Lord can judge who is making a good-faith effort in their repentance. Someone may be able to answer correctly all the temple-recommend questions, but they may be intentionally avoiding repentance on lesser matters, and thereby be under a degree of condemnation.
How does such a temple-recommend-carrying person, in the eyes of the Lord, compare to someone who is sincerely making efforts to repent on the weightier matters in order that he may some day obtain the temple recommend? If those two were to die at the same time, which would have better standing with the Lord, he who dismissed repenting of lesser matters, or he who was trying to (in the process of) repent of all his sins including some major ones?
I don’t know. We don’t know.
As I understand it, even the smallest sin, intentially committed and intentionally unrepented of, may keep us out of the Celestial Kingdom.
I think that is the gist of Steve EM’s Nazi-wing comments. There are those who think that by “getting your ticket punched”, and merely having the ordinances done, doing enough merely to (righteously) have a TR, one gets into the Celestial Kingdom. Whereas the TR is the beginning, or the minimum, not the end. One needs to press forward until the end. That pressing forward until the end turns the key that unlocks the door to the Lord’s grace and mercy, not the fact that we have certain punches on our ticket.
Back to the topic of the post.
Has anyone else seen parallels between Dutcher’s films and his personal life as outlined on his bio at http://www.richarddutcher.com ?
He even mentioned some of it in the CT interview.
I thought the topic of the post was “Why do those sorts of films do so well here?”, referring to slasher films.