States of: Grace
Posted on December 26th, 2006 by Kevin Burtt (The Baron)
As a follow up to February’s analysis of LDS cinema:
Richard Dutcher was interviewed last month in “Christianity Today” following the DVD release of “States of Grace”. (Link courtesy of BCC)
(My full analysis of “States of Grace” is here–I gave it a B+–see also Ben’s discussion thread from last year here as well as the above BCC link)
You’d be hard pressed to find a filmmaker who shows quite the same level of disgust and contempt towards his ‘target’ audience than Dutcher has towards the LDS movie-going public. It’s true the box office for “States of Grace” (listed as less than $60,000 gross by two different sources) is certainly disappointing–bordering on tragic, even–which Dutcher ascribes to people thinking it was “just another crappy Mormon movie” (referring to Mormon movies other than his, of course).
There’s a problem, however: the two most recent ‘crappy’ LDS films (discounting Work & Glory Part III, still in theaters) are “Suits on the Loose” ($80,000 gross) and “Church Ball” ($464,000 gross), both of which were released after “States of Grace”.
Neither of which grossed anything to brag about, of course, but still ended up with significantly more than what “States of Grace” took in. Which means, if you do the math, there are a LOT of people who didn’t go see “States of Grace” because it was “States of Grace”, not because it was “just another crappy Mormon movie” (since they then went to see the latter anyway).
Think maybe it’s time to look at the man in the mirror for the cause of Dutcher’s film’s struggles?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that ‘edgy’ movies weren’t going to play well in LDS communities. Normally, a filmmaker then either decides to (a) grit his teeth and give the public what they want, sacrificing personal vision for box-office dollars, or (b) stay faithful to his ideals and then accept the fact that box-office success is not going to be forthcoming.
Dutcher wants to have it both ways–telling the LDS public that ‘you’ll take what I give you and LIKE it’…and then taking the public’s refusal to do so as a personal affront. If he had really listened to what people were saying about “God’s Army” after they saw it in 2000 (which a fair number of people did), he would have known that many of them were NOT going to be early in line to see a sequel. Considering also that his second film (Brigham City) did only a third of “God’s Army”’s gross (and was released still before the glut of ‘crappy’ movies arrived), the disparity in box-office numbers between God’s Army I and II should not have been that surprising. Even back then, in 2000–before Halestorm had made a single movie–’edginess’ was not a good fit for many in the community, and certainly not a recipe for box-office success, leading one to wonder why exactly Dutcher would have expected a different reaction the second time around.
(Again, I liked “States of Grace”…and, in fact, have liked all of Dutcher’s films. But Dutcher is no Ang Lee–he’s not the kind of filmmaker to break down cultural barriers to new movie experiences and genres to virgin audiences en masse all by his lonesome…)
Dutcher is by far the most talented filmmaker in LDS cinema today, and the interview makes it clear that he also has an ego to match. How else to interpret his rejection of the LDS film community, implying in no uncertain terms that ‘if Mormons were smarter and more sophisticated they’d recognize what a great filmmaker I am and shower me with accolades…and money’. Insulting the audience’s intelligence is one sure way NOT to attract more people to your movies–although from the looks of it, that bridge has already been set aflame and abandoned already.
Dutcher thinks more people should see “States of Grace”–so do I: there’s no argument there. But no one has an obligation to see anything they are not comfortable with–whether it’s “The Passion of the Christ” or any LDS-themed film. If Dutcher maintains that not supporting “States of Grace” financially means LDS viewers–like myself, who only rented the DVD–don’t “have respect or reverence for art” and need to be “educated” how to take film “seriously” as he claims in the interview, perhaps it’s time for the LDS community to say “Good riddance!” to him back (meaning, of course, to Dutcher being a ‘Mormon filmmaker’, not to him being Mormon, or a filmmaker.)
Perhaps this artistic ’separation’ (which appears to have already begun) will be beneficial to both parties–it’s just too bad that it seems to have claimed Dutcher’s church activity as a civilian casualty as well…
» Filed Under Any
Comments
46 Responses to “States of: Grace”
Leave a Reply
I like Dutcher’s work too. I think Brigham City is the best so far; for some reason I liked it better than States of Grace. I did not realize that anyone thought God’s Army I was edgy in any way–I certainly didn’t.
I don’t think most mainstream Mormons like edgy movies–fact is, I don’t think most mainstream Americans do either. Just look at the movies that bring in the big bucks.
The way I see it, the portion of the American audience of any religion (or no religion) that likes edgy movies is small–and the LDS subset of that small group is miniscule.
I hope Dutcher does expand his target audience beyond the limited LDS artsy community to include the artsy community at large, without abandoning the LDS (and other) religious roots of his excellent work. He is doing a very important work.
I liked States of Grace, but Dutcher’s interview with Christianity Today left a very bad taste in my mouth.
It’s simply a stupid move to criticize your audience.
It’s also stupid to say you are not a “Mormon film-maker” when all of your films are based on LDS themes.
If he truly wants to seperate himself from this genre than he should stop making movies based on LDS themes and do a better job of promoting these movies outside of Utah.
But why put down your audience that IS watching your movies?
It has been interesting to observe the evolution of Dutcher’s public statements since 2000. Back then, he said he couldn’t make movies that met Hollywood’s perverse standards, but hoped that a large enough audience existed to support movies aimed exclusively at Mormons. I suppose his aims were honestly expressed then and have evolved naturally, but his current distaste for the narrowness of Mormons’ tastes and religion still leaves me wondering if I was just being played as a sucker six years ago, being told what he figured I wanted to hear.
And why did Dutcher make all those cheesy cameos in Halestorm movies and allow “The work and the story” to be made?
I liked Dutcher’s movies as well. Brigham City is my favorite one, followed by God’s Army. States of Grace was very, very good, but not great (IMHO).
I think Dutcher’s biggest problem is that he made a movie that really only has one audience: The Sunstone/Dialogue/AML/Bloggernacle crowd. And that’s a very small niche audience within an already small niche audience. States of Grace is a very challenging movie. Dutcher may have felt that he was giving the audience what it needed rather than what it wanted (an admirable goal), but I think he went about it too soon. Dutcher had not fully earned the trust of the Mormon audience yet. God’s Army was a step in the right direction, but with States of Grace, he jumped ahead seven movies or so. To get to the point where a larger Mormon audience would have supported States of Grace, he would have needed to work up to it, with movies that “gave the audience what they wanted” but with increasing degrees of darkness/challenging material/whatever.
[on another, related point: My wife’s best friend has a brother who is working the special effects on Dutcher’s current movie. According to him, it’s a le$bian vampire flick. Now, take this for what it’s worth, as he’s just “one of the effects guys” and is not in the editing room or the director’s chair. But it seems clear that Dutcher is clearly NOT aiming at the Mormon audience at all].
“he’s not the kind of filmmaker to break down cultural barriers to new movie experiences and genres to virgin audiences en masse all by his lonesome…)”
I believe that this can break down barriers and build bridges with other “Christians.” It answers simple questions that Mitt Romney is struggling to convince many of, namely 1) Mormons & Blacks, 2) Polygamy, 3) Religous diversity with unity, and 4) Mormons are Christians.
My bet is that this will be used by the Mitt Romney camp and will sell unlike any Mormon movie before. Just a hunch… hey Mitt, if you’re reading…
I don’t understand why he’d want to make LDS-themed films. He must know he’ll automatically be lumped in with the Work and the Glory/Singles Ward/Church Ball group. So already he’s lost people like me who hate that crap, but his themes don’t exactly welcome the people that actually enjoy those other Mormon movies. As a filmmaker it seems like either way you lose.
I’d rather see him direct a mainstream Hollywood movie and maybe insert an LDS character that is a real person instead of comedy relief. A real LDS person.
Maybe the vampires will say ‘heck” alot.
“My wife’s best friend has a brother who is working the special effects on Dutcher’s current movie.”
That’s interesting, because my best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Dutcher pass out at 31 Flavors last night.
jimbob -
hah, hah. This is not third hand information. I have it from the man’s mouth. I was not showing the telephone route it took, I just was explaining why I was in a position to even hear about it.
(and I put plenty of disclaimers - he’s not seen the whole movie, only read parts of the script, etc. I haven’t had any in-depth discussions with him at all, I doubt he would even know who I am. I could ask his sister Tonia to call him up if I wanted any clarification, since he’s out filming with Dutcher and not here in Texas. My only point was that the movie clearly is not aimed at an LDS audience. I fully acknowledge that it may be that the vampires are in a three second scene or I misunderstood what I heard.)
I hope ya’ll actually BUY the DVD (www.statesofgrace.com or http://www.holymovies.com) instead of just renting it. Seriously. I think Dutcher deserves some support.
Bookslinger, I bought the DVD, and unless Dutcher makes some serious changes it will be the last movie from him I buy. I like God’s Army, I liked Brigham City. I really didn’t like States of Grace very much at all. I am a serious student of movies and have a huge movie collection (approaching 1000 titles). States of Grace was, simply, not that good. Depressing, really.
I am saddened by Dutcher’s obvious descent into decadence. Now he’s making R-rated movies? Give me a break.
I wish him and his wife well, but as a filmmaker he’s not nearly as good as he thinks he is. He is really, really good at making evangelicals who hate Mormons very happy, as he did in this Christianity Today interview. Next stop: he’s making movies for the Tanners on the secret, untold truth about Joseph Smith.
I planned on renting “State of Grace” next week. I haven’t followed Dutcher’s work/statements since “Brigham City” so I was a bit surprised by his apostasy (honestly, that’s what it is- and as personal a thing it is, his public statements in the interview make it fair game).
Geoff- you’re right- Dutcher thinks he’s much better than he really is. As part of that niche he hit with his earlier films, I’m now done with Dutcher. He can take his “evolving, universal faith” and see how well he does without the Mormon audience. “They’ll probably disown me.” I say don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
[qoute]I hope ya’ll actually BUY the DVD (www.statesofgrace.com or http://www.holymovies.com) instead of just renting it. Seriously. I think Dutcher deserves some support.[qoute]
I did buy the DVD, and enjoyed it. It was strange, and the ending was startling, but I couldn’t help but think these tragedies do happen to missionaries, and they need to know that the Atonement that teach others about also applies to them.
Something I found VERY INTERESTING is after I purchased the DVD Dutcher’s movie company sent me an email inviting me to share this movie with 3 others as a missionary tool for the Gospel. It did not specifically say the Restored Gospel, but I still find it odd that his company is choosing these marketing approach while he is out there publicly criticizing those that bought the movie and the faith of the main characters.
Ivan (12), I meant for my comment to be funny, not nit-picky. Your comment just reminded me of a movie I hadn’t thought of in a while.
jimbob -
ah, got it. I need to stop jumping to conclusions so soon. Perhaps a smiley face at the end of the post would have helped.
it’s all good.
Geoff & Tossman,
If you’ve read my comments re: Dutcher you probably already know that I’ve never been a fan of his work. But in his defense I must say that it is not easy for an artist to stand on the threshold of his dreams and watch the big doors close–or slam, as the case may be–right infront of him. I don’t know how good (or bad) Dutcher may think he is, but I’m certain that, in some measure, he must have believed that he was doing an important work. Now it is a common fact that many artists tend to become self-important as they gain momentum in their careers. Perhaps Dutcher has followed suit, perhaps not–I don’t know. But one thing is certain: his dreams are shattered. And for many who endure such disappointments–regardless of their own cupability–the burden can be almost unbearable.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’d feel better if we stuck with objective (and constructive, if possible) criticism of the man’s work while steering away from criticizing the man. There have been many reports which suggest that he’s a great husband, father, and person to work for. I’d like to keep that image of him alive.
I didn’t enjoy this movie, nor did my daughter and her husband. I think had he chosen one “tragedy” and really painted a full picture of the dynamic, it would have been better instead of just constant sadness. I felt it was masquerading as art. After all the hype, I was really looking forward to it, also.
Bill and I just looked at each other when it was over and said, “bummer.”
But we said the same thing about the way Syriana ended. Now that was a good movie.
Geoff wrote: “I am saddened by Dutcher’s obvious descent into decadence.
I’m not sure what you’re basing that on. SoG or the CT interview? I don’t think either one indicates he has descended into decadence.
“He is really, really good at making evangelicals who hate Mormons very happy, as he did in this Christianity Today interview.”
I didn’t get that at all from the CT interview. I believe his CT interview does reveal that he has been through a change of faith in regards to the church and the restored gospel. But I’ve seen, or at least read about, much more dramatic changes of faith in the bloggernacle.
He used some catch-phrases in the interview that could be misinterpreted, such as “shun”, but I believe he meant people would avoid his movies, not be officially shunned by the church.
He did make some good points in his interview about official church doctrine versus popular psychology of the LDS culture. There’s been discussion of that ad nauseum on the ‘nacle. So that shouldn’t be a big surprise either.
Like Dutcher, I had an association with evangelical christianity before finding the restored gospel. It appears we both believe that not all evangelicals are mormon-haters, and there is actually much overlap.
Of all Christian denominations, evangelicals may be the ones most close doctrinally to the restored gospel for the fact that most of them believe in modern, personal and continuous revelation through the Holy Ghost. I believe that is the most important point in receiving a testimony of the restored gospel, because you have to believe that God can reveal the truth of it before you can actually pray for and receive the answer.
I think Jack’s comment, #17, about Dutcher having his dreams shattered, is very insightful.
To understand more of the man Richard Dutcher, read his bio on his web site at http://www.richarddutcher.com.
While I found some of Dutcher’s comments - unfortunate, I also temper it with the knowledge that the two times I’ve been quoted in papers I was quoted extremely inaccurately, and the few columns/letters to the editors I’ve had published have been partly rendered into gibberish by helpful editing.
I would rather let Dutcher’s work speak for him than a one-off interview that may or may not be totally accurate.
I also found Tossman’s #13 comments unnecessarily harsh. It’s a tragedy anytime someone leaves the church. I don’t think it behooves us as disciples of Christ to encourage people to go. While in the end, it’s Dutcher’s choice to go or stay, I don’t want to be one of those who helped drive him out merely because his view of the gospel doesn’t fit with mine.
I hope that he realizes a rejection of his art is not the same as a personal rejection. I can see how hard it is to separate the two. I am nowhere near Dutcher’s level, but having done some work in the LDS and Utah music markets, I know all too well how hard it is when something you’ve put a lot of time, effort and soul into gets rejected out of hand for, what seem to you, rather pathetic reasons.
I learned to deal with it by deciding the audience was basically always right - which also includes realizing that sometimes I was aiming my music at exactly the wrong audience, or that the audience was smaller than I realized. But it’s still painful to be rejected.
And considering the level Dutcher is working on, I can imagine the frustration must be much, much higher and much, much more personal.
Outsider’s View:
These bloggernacle conversations about States of Grace just blow my mind. When I was watching it at the theater, it never occurred to me that Mormons would find any reason to criticize it. (Guess that shows how far out of it I am…!)
I saw the movie and thought: “This could be the best missionary film ever.” The characters are believable. The fallen, suicidal missionary seems real. The porn actress who seduced him is also fallen but not beyond redemption. The mission president balances justice and compassion. The LDS community displays Christlike characteristics in every respect. It was remarkable, powerful, and made me long to be a part of the Church again.
Barry is right in comment #6: this film should be shown to the Evangelicals. It would overcome anti-Mormon propaganda better than all the FAIRS articles ever written.
How ironic and sad that the LDS have not rallied round Dutcher and said “We value your talent and we need you in this Church!”
Ivan- Unless he was misquoted in the interview (and if he was, he really ought to dispute it), Dutcher is no longer part of the LDS community. If he does still believe the restored gospel, he can’t bring himself to publically admit it, and he considers himself LDS only in the technical sense.
I have experienced a similar falling away, where basically I was an apostate who technically still had a membership record. I fell as a result of my own choices, and not by anybody else’s influence.
If Dutcher ends up leaving the Church (and how would you define that exactly, by the way, because during my dark days I considered myself having “left” the Church), he will do it on his own. I highly doubt a harsh post on M* will be a factor in his apostasy. He cannot blame a floundering career on his primary audience’s percieved inability to “get it.”
MikeInWeHo: How ironic and sad that the LDS have not rallied round Dutcher and said “We value your talent and we need you in this Church!”
We did. With God’s Army and Brigham City. I took great pride in having a decent LDS artist present LDS ideals in professional film. A lot of people I know really rallied around Dutcher. It’s only after he insulted my intelligence that he lost me. Why should I “cut him a break” (bookslinger) and spend my hard-earned cash on his DVD as part of a community that he just can’t be bothered with any more?
Tossman #22,
Perhaps because he only said that in reaction to a deep sense of rejection by the Mormon communities anemic response to the film. Basically you are saying I don’t like him because he doesn’t like me. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is bigger than that. Whether he is right or not, forgiveness is always in order. I can’t help seeing this as anything other than a tragedy. Dutcher is undeniably a good man and I for one have been very moved by the work he has done.
Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding some of you on this thread, but it seems you are implying that Dutcher’s “diversification of faith” may be tied to his audience’s rejection of his film, and that somehow by not turning out in droves to support him, we are pushing him out of the Church.
Could it be that SoG simply does not appeal to his (former) base audience? I like God’s Army and Brigham City, although the latter stretched the willing suspense of disbelief a bit too much for me. Dutcher was a household name. But a simple Google search reveals that his comments about the church are not limited to the CT interview. Perhaps Dutcher was leaving a bad taste in peoples’ mouths long before SoG’s failure.
Lastly, why would I want to watch an LDS-based movie by somebody who (again, unless he is misquoted or taken waayy out of context) seeks a separation from that community?
Like I said in my previous post, I had took a path (albeit briefly) to a “more universal faith”- an “evolution of faith,” if you will. I think it’s a bunch of rhetorical bullcrap.
Let me stipulate that I do not want Dutcher to apostasize completely. And should he do so and repent, I would welcome him back in a heartbeat. But I cannot sympathize, or take part responsibility for, his own public disaffection from the Church.
Correction: “I had taken a path”
Darn, DARN you M* admins for not finding us an edit feature!
I think the movie was started and made without the desire for separation personally. I am only guessing here. But seeing a movie that he honestly (right or wrong) felt was a very important work. It had to hurt to see it tank. That doesn’t make harsh feeling right. It is rather ignorant and self important to insult your audience, without a doubt. I just would at least like to hope that hurt feelings were largely behind it. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would at least like to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This link shows a completely different Dutcher just 5 years ago.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,280007247,00.html
FWIW, I wrote mr Dutcher an e-mail and asked if he felt taken out of context. I have not yet received a response.
Yeah,
I’m still waiting to hear back from Donny Osmond.
Seth, good luck with that wait. As you probably know, he has a very interesting web site in which he does some apologetics work that is quite interesting.
Anyway, back to Dutcher. My feelings toward him personally would be quite different if A)God’s Army had not been such a great missionary movie with content and messages that he is apparently rejecting now (don’t you remember the scene where the missionary throws out all the anti-Mormon garbage — compare that to his CT interview) and B)he had not given several hurtful, spiteful interviews in which he says, in effect, that his lack of success is because his audience (meaning LDS people) is full of parochial idiots who don’t get his “art,” and C) he had not rejected the Church that gave him so much and D)he had given the interview to a different forum than Christianity Today, which, when it deals with Mormon-related news, basically is an anti-Mormon web site. (Just FYI: I regularly read CT and am extremely familiar with its content. There is some great stuff there, but when it deals with Mormons the editors are happily anti-Mormon).
Dutcher is a son of God who deserves respect and love. He is a family man, and I wish him success with his wife and kids. He made two quite good movies that show the LDS faith with respect and have positive, up-lifting portraits of LDS characters. I will always appreciate him for that.
But, based on this interview and others ,and the fact that his movies are increasingly violent and dark (for “art’s sake” of course), he is on the wrong path. I do not respect the road he is on and have no qualms with saying “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I feel sorry for him and would welcome him back with open arms. But for now I am saddened and alarmed at the direction his life and his art is taking. I have no problem saying that publicly.
Tossman #24, “And should he do so and repent, I would welcome him back in a heartbeat”
You wouldn’t welcome him back right now? No man or woman on this earth is the Gatekeeper of His church. We are all welcome. Always. And we were all invited by the same perfect man.
Like all of us, Dutcher was welcomed back before he ever left. Whether he ever did leave is between him and his Lord.
Paul Newman never answered my letter either.
Nate C, I would encourage you to ready the CT interview again. Dutcher says he has left the Church and is no longer part of the Mormon community. He has nothing but contempt for Mormons. He cannot bring himself to say the Book of Mormon is true. He is on the wrong path. I have been on the wrong path in my life, and I found my way back. I pray Dutcher will do the same, not for me but for himself. But in the meantime he is on the wrong path, and I don’t mind saying so. As I said in #29, I would welcome him back any time. I hope he makes the right choices.
Geoff: Dutcher does not say he “left the church” in the CT interview. Here are the quotes that indicate he is inactive.
and:
So apparently, he went inactive before SoG was completed.
His attitude towards the restored gospel sounds a lot like “New Order Mormonism” as described in these quotes:
and:
Bookslinger,
You also have to consider Dutcher’s audience. The purpose of the interview was to get people to buy his movie, States of Grace, which was being released at that time. I don’t think you appeal to the “Christianity Today” audience by bearing testimony of the Book of Mormon. If it were me, I would try to keep the interview as “universal” as possible so as not scare away potential customers. And that is what Dutcher did. I think you are reading too much into one interview on one day. I think you should wait for more statements from different sources before you write the guy off.
Mitt Romney has gotten some flack recently for doing something similar. What does a Republican do when he’s running for office in the most liberal state in the union? He finds whatever common ground he has with the voters and focuses on that. You play to your audience. When you take his statements out of context years later, as some anti-Mitt conservatives are doing, you can get him to sound pretty liberal.
re: 32
“He has nothing but contempt for Mormons…”
I see zero evidence to support that statement in the CT interview, his films, or anywhere else. On the contrary, his films show a tremendous love of the LDS community. He’s certainly a bit evasive in the CT interview, but GBH himself set the example for that approach in his various TV interviews so you can hardly hold it against Dutcher for doing the same.
Nate,
Maybe I was too lukewarm in my defense of Dutcher. I tried to use the quotes to show he claimed to be “inactive” and had “been away” , in counter to Geoff’s claim that Dutcher had apostatized.
You’re right that he’s going to frame things for the interview’s audience.
I’ve also seen banner ads for SoG on the Christianity Today web site. I found that very interesting.
CT’s website is advertising a Mormon-themed film? WOW, times they are a changin’…
Anybody have a link to that?
Mike: it was a banner ad that rotates among various advertisers. I’m pretty sure I saw it at the bottom of their video/movie page or on the Dutcher interview page.
Who knows if they sold it based on the number of exposures (impressions) or on the number of click-throughs. If based on the number of impressions, the inventory (contracted # of impressions) may have expired already.
Websters defines the word ‘apostasy’ as renunciation of a religious faith
or abandonment of a previous loyalty. Though the word is not defined in our LDS Bible Dictionary, I’ve seen it more universally defined in several talks/articles as a “falling away.”
This should be a personal thing, but since Dutcher has made his views public (in the process of mocking his audience), let’s break it down:
-Renunciation (his comments in CT and elsewhere taken as a whole, Dutcher has come very close to renunciation, IMO)
-Abandonment of a previous loyalty (I think that one’s pretty obvious)
-Falling Away (inactivity, loss of testimony, abandoning of his religion for a “more universal, more evolved” faith)
Dude’s apostate. How far along that road he is is between him, God, and his bishop.
I would consider my little stint away from the Church as personal apostasy, and I didn’t even go so far as to mock my church. I was welcomed back with open arms and Dutcher should be as well, but I gotta call a spade a spade.
Tossman,
Where does Dutcher “mock [the] church” (as distinct from some of its members)?
“You can’t tell Mormon stories without telling specifics of Mormonism,” he says. “I had no interest in making Mormon doctrine look just like any other Protestant religion. Why would I do that? Why not make it some other religion, like other Mormon filmmakers. There are tons of Mormon filmmakers who are telling Mormon stories and then take Mormonism out of it. It’s cowardly and greedy. They do it because they think they’ll make more money at it, but they’re doing a disservice to their own people.” -Richard Dutcher
I find the black/white mentality very interesting in this blog. It’s as if many of you see spirituality as merely In The Church/Out of The Church instead of as a fluid, living part of our lives. Dutcher used the word “evolving.” I like that. It sounds to me from his interview that he is moving in his faith. Living his faith. Experiencing his faith. Instead of sitting still in a plastic chair at the back of some sunday school class. And he’s brave enough to admit it, knowing that he’s going to be publicly rejected for it.
I also don’t see him “insulting” or “rejecting” any of us individually simply because he makes general statements to make his points. And I think his general statements are generally true.
Dutcher’s an artist. And he’s progressing or, at least, “evolving.” I’m very interested to watch this evolution. He may go through an interesting period, several interesting periods, then 20 years from now end up back in the Church. Or maybe he’ll never come back. Regardless, he’ll leave his spiritual evolution on film for us to share in. To me that sounds exciting. A heck of lot more exciting than a Work and the Glory 4.
Frankly, I think we’re all terrified to see a Mormon in the public eye admit to having doubt. Perhaps it shows insecurities in our own testimonies.
As we know, there is no faith without doubt. Maybe Dutcher is still faithful after all, just more open and honest about his doubts than most of us.
Margaret, with all due respect, any person who does his home teaching has talked to “inactives” who come up with comments/excuses/complaints that are very similar to Dutcher’s. There are a thousand reasons not to come to Church, not to take the sacrament, not to keep the covenants you made at baptism or in the temple. “Evolving faith” is definitely up there on the excuse list. Dutcher has found his own excuses but they are not original or unique. How many times as a home teacher have I heard “I’m so busy right now,” which, fascinatingly is exactly what Dutcher says about not going to Church with his family. I agree that our progression is a very, very long road, and it is unique for each person. But I guarantee you there will be a time when Dutcher looks back at this time in his life and regrets not going to the Lord’s church with his family.
I would agree with your comment that doubting is part of faith. But real faith is in doing what modern-day prophets have told us to do — take the sacrament regularly, go to the temple, attend Church meetings, have FHE, have family prayer, read the scriptures, keep the commandments — despite all of the thousands of reasons the world comes up with for not doing these things.
Our goal is not “evolving faith” that takes us through unknown and dangerous roads. Our goal is faith that helps us progress in the way Heavenly Father wants us to.
I think Dutcher is endearing in the interview–our first pretentious artist crank. He is so off balance when the interviewer asks him about being a Mormon-anything, almost like an insulted teenager. I only wish he’d been more unapologetic about his Mormoness. Of course he’s a Mormon filmmaker. Of course he’s inactive or lapsed–he doesn’t go to church. And of course he insults his audience. By doing so, however, he insults himself. Flannery O’Connor writes about the many Catholic readers who are offended by her fiction, those same readers who are not REALLY readers. She also says she is not writing for them. With his movies, Dutcher tries to reach an audience that are not REALLY filmgoeers. That’s not an insult, or at least it shouldn’t be. It’s an issue for all artists (sometimes Mormons are so precious about their experience when it’s just another experience). The joke’s really on him for imagining he can reach an audience who, in his own words, judge movies more for what’s NOT in them, then what is.
Frankly, I think it’s all wonderful. When I first saw BRIGHAM CITY I wanted more than anything to hate it. I couldn’t help but love it. Love him or hate him, he’s a VERY GOOD filmmaker and his personal faith should not be at issue. Mormon art should be wide enough to include all who have had a significant experience with Mormonism as a Mormon in some way. We should embrace Dutcher as a Mormon filmmaker whether he likes it or not, and when he pouts in the corner about being misunderstood, labeled, and boxed-up, we should tolerate him (maybe ignore him). Meanwhile, I believe he’ll continue to make movies and one day we’ll all look back at this stage in his artistic career as an important moment when he begins to be comfortable with who he is.
Geoff #43,
A tad judgmental n’est-ce pas?
I’d been thinking about submitting this comment to another blog as a guest post, but will throw it out here as food for thought.
Let me first say, I am not a Mormon Film Maker and I have never finished writing a book. I do have a degree in Digital Media(I learned how to make video games), but have never entered the ring after graduating from College. (And skills unused are skills forgotten.) For some, this disqualifies me completely from having this conversation. But, I am an opinionated fellow. Also, I am hear really to beg those with talents and capacities greater than my own to do something I can not.
LDS films are films which can potentially impact the LDS community.
There are, in my opinion currently four types of LDS film currently.
1. Movies with some Mormon connected to it: These are not really Mormon movies, but could impact the LDS community in that if Jon Heder appeared nude, smoking weed, and cussing, this might affect some impressionable teens somewhere. In this Genre, we could put Ken Jennings, Jon Heder, the Hess’ stuff, Twelve Dogs of Christmas, etc. Of course, all LDS movies in the other genres are a sub-genre of this genre. We all feel a need to know what Richard Dutcher’s calling is, etc.
2. Movies made to make money from “Mormonsâ€: Halestorm pictures, in my opinion, is basically a group that is making movies only to make money. While I also work only to make money, I don’t make Mormon Films. The new Tahitian Noni Lingo falls into this Category, as well as Halestorm, the Book of Mormon Movie fiasco, and sadly, perhaps living scriptures. I am judging here, which is always bad, but typically, I think these films include the ones we leave the theater thinking, “I’ve been exploitedâ€. Some of these films may be ok, but I think these films typically have no message they are attempting to convey.
3. Movies made about “Mormonism†with a message for “Mormonsâ€- This is where I think Richard Dutcher fits in. I think this is why his films have such a divisive effect. Some people like the message, others do not. They feel the message conflicts with the message of Mormonism as they interpret it. I think the Church has published some films such as this as well. Films like Legacy, and How Rare a possession, or the other films shown at Temple Square might fall in this category. (I have not seen the other temple square movies, so can’t say. I live in Texas.) There are of course, some anti-Mormon films in this genre, as well.
4. Movies made about “Mormonism†with a message for the world. – A lot of Anti- Mormon movies fall into this category, like September Dawn, the latest. Some LDS movies fall into this category. I think “The other side of Heaven†made this attempt, as well as “Saints and Soldiers†and I believe Dutcher’s “States of Grace†tried to speak to the community at large. (But I am the worst judge of this, as I haven’t seen it yet. It is in my netflix queue, but this year, my wife’s picks are on the top of the list, and mine on the bottom. My judgement is based more on Dutcher’s Marketing than on his film.) The Church also has made some films in this category. For example, they’ve produced several versions of the first vision, and the Lamb of God is in this category for me.
But the films I dream of has not been made. I am looking for the C.S. Lewis film, or the “Chariots of Fire†for my niche of Faith. I dream of a film, where I don’t need to Mormon Market it to my friends, but that people who are not LDS will go see it without being told to, because it just looks that fantastic. I dream of a film where after seeing it, people will come away thinking “Mormonism is cool.†and it will create referrals or even better change lives. It is my opinion that the church itself can not make this movie. (For obvious reasons) It is my dream that such a movie will be made though.
So, will you make it?