New Film from Richard Dutcher Due Out this Fall

Posted on by

God’s Army II: States of Grace. Watch the Trailer. Then tell us what you think.

(Hat tip: ProvoPulse)

51 thoughts on “New Film from Richard Dutcher Due Out this Fall”

  3. Ugh, I can’t wait until the writing, acting and overall production value of “Mormon” movies is high enough I’d consider paying money to see it in a theater. The only time I’ve enjoyed films created by members are when they don’t focus on the church.

  5. I’m optimistic. It’s hard to tell too much from a trailer though. It looks like it focuses in on the conflict between a past, unworthy life and the present squeaky-clean one as a missionary. Forgiving yourself, moving on, and being better. It’s a great theme and one that I think Dutcher will portray effectively.

    I noticed that the final, title shot just says “States of Grace” leaving off the “God’s Army 2” part. I don’t know if the “God’s Army 2” has been officially dropped, but if it has, I think that’s a good move. Sure, there are lots of members of the church who will recognize the title, and you might be losing a few tickets that you would have had through name recognition.

    But if you’re going for a broader audience, it’s better to drop it. Most Americans haven’t even heard of God’s Army. And when a film is titled “[something you’ve never heard of] 2” that’s always a bad sign. Better to start fresh with a new title.

  6. Looks bolder, bigger, and better. Seems like a powerful story, and might end up being Dutcher’s best (not that that is saying much).

  8. Now that looks good.

    And Dutcher’s films are far and above the crop of LDS movies – they’re art. Dutcher makes art, and those who won’t see is films because they think LDS movies are crappy are missing out on powerful, powerful experiences.

  9. I think Dutcher is a talented filmmaker. His work involves the church, but he’s more an example of third-world cinema than Mollywood.

    Yes, I know that God’s Army didn’t work, but that’s because Dutcher was inexperienced. He didn’t know how to end a film that was initially skillful; it started out not as a celebration of missionary culture, but an exploration of it, and then it derailed. However, Brigham City, while reviled by many Mormons for reasons no one has ever adequately explained to me, was resoundingly successful. It was simultaneously an accurate portrayal of rural Utah culture, a beautifully ambiguous exploration of the different worldviews of people from that culture and people from other regions (remember the wide-eyed, yet touched, amazement with which the FBI agent viewed both the town residents’ unworldy innocence and close community?), and a well-done drama. And it was made for a general audience, not an LDS one, I think.

    I’m looking forward to this next film. I hope it’s a continuance of his work in Brigham City, and not a film targeted at the LDS audience specifically, because while Dutcher may not be a future Soderbergh, he’s certainly capable of making a contribution to American cinema.

  10. While alot remains to be seen, I have to say I was intrigued by the trailer. As I rule I avoid ‘Mormon’ movies like the plague. Any see Home Teachers (shudder)? And while God’s Army was cute and all, its character arc’s were flat and as a result you did not feel connected to them. In contrast, I felt connected to these characters just in the trailer. Again, alot remains to be seen, as they are taking on a very difficult subject it seems, but if Dutcher can correctly portray the complexities of inner-city race relations, especially in relation to the gospel, he will have made a very good film indeed. I will actually watch this one I think, but I hope they have wider theater release for those of who dont live in Utah.

  11. I suggest people support Mormon cinema, even if it’s just buying a used DVD on ebay.

    Sure, most of the movies have been cheap, cheesey, and amateurish. But you gotta start somewhere. And it’s easy to criticize. But they all have good points too. And they have been steadily improving.

    I’ve seen God’s Army, Singles Ward, The R.M., Brigham City, Home Teachers, Best Two Years, Book of Mormon Movie, Other Side of Heaven, Baptists at our Barbecue, and The Work and the Glory. I think the only one I’ve missed is Saints and Soldiers.

    Dutcher’s growth and improvement from God’s Army to Brigham City was amazing. I can’t wait to see what comes next.

    The only one that really disappointed was Book of Mormon Movie. Maybe my expectations were too high. But it covered both ends of the spectrum. Some of it was painfully awful to watch. But parts of it had the Spirit too. You gotta admire the financial backers of that movie, such as Kurt Johnson, who were willing to dig into their own pockets to support a novel way of getting the gospel message out there.

    Basically they all lost money. Some of them big money. People have sacrificed a lot of dollars to get Mormon Cinema going. And eventually it will be another avenue for getting some of the general public interested in the Gospel, just as the Mormon TV commercials.

    I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, and of Joseph Smith and the restoration. I want to see the message of those two things go to all the world. Presidents Kimball and Benson suggested film as one avenue, and they weren’t talking just about church-produced videos and shorts.

    I’m putting my money where my mouth is too. I buy Books of Mormon by the case, and give out dozens a month. I buy church multilingual DVDs by the case: Together Forever, The Restoration, Finding Faith in Christ, Heavenly Father’s Plan.

    Carry around a few books and DVDs in your car, pray for opportunities, and I bet you’ll be able to place them with people.

  12. Okay – as this is a breakdown of LDS movies, here’s my quick take:

    Brillant LDS movies:
    Brigham City (a brillant exploration of the gray ares of morality that still manages to be faith and communtiy affirming, but not in a preachy way. I never once felt manipulated. It fails as a mystery movie, but if that’s what you think it is, you’re missing the point).

    Pretty Dang Good LDS Movies:
    God’s Army (very good debut, a few rough spots, but I felt it earned its emotional impact – Dutcher has already publicly commented on the weaknesses of the film, so I’ll let his statements speak for him there)
    Pride and Prejudice (I’ll admit I’m a sucker for chick flicks)
    Saints and Soldiers (would be in “brillant” if the LDSness wasn’t so subtle you could miss it).

    Passable LDS movies:
    The R.M. (on the level of a decent TV movie – the only passable Halestrom movie to date)

    Pretty Bad LDS movies:
    Singles Ward (a movie that makes fun of LDS culture, even though its main moral is that its bad to make fun of LDS culutre. There were 2 funny jokes in the whole movie).
    Book of Mormon Movie (Well, at least they had good intentions, and some of the actors had talent).

    Awful “what were they thinking” LDS movies:
    Handcart
    The Home Teachers

    That’s all I’ve seen – what others are there out there?

    I will watch Dutcher movies, because I feel he’s got talent and deserves support. Despite my odd fondness for The R.M., I will never watch another Halestorm movie until they get some talent and hire a competent screenwriter. Supporting LDS cinema merely because it’s LDS cinema merely encourages mediocrity.

  13. Don’t forget “The Best Two Years.” That would be in the “Awful” category.

  14. I liked “The Best Two Years.” But I watched it with a returned missionary who served in that same area portrayed by the movie … so maybe I’m biased somehow. I’m a fan of the new genre though I think the howlers are just as bad as everyone says.

    This trailer certainly got me interested. It looks to me like it could be a very good film. I wonder if it is supposed to be a modern take on the Alma the Younger theme at all.

  15. Yes, the trailer makes the movie look interesting. I’ll see it if it comes to New York. I was a fan of the first one, especially as a debut for the genre. The Best Two Years was good, I thought. And I liked Singles Ward as well, for what it was. I won’t watch any of the others because of their reputations (except Saints and Soldiers, which has had excellent reviews).

  16. Filmmakers have it, or they don’t. They’re fluent in the grammar of cinema and the syntax of storytelling, or they’re not. Dutcher is. All his films, despite some weaknesses, are real in a way that most other Mormon cinema is not. I think “States of Grace” looks fabulous and I can’t wait to see it.

  18. Huh, people seem to have liked “The Best Two Years.” I retract my suggestion that it is obviously in the “Awful” category. I thought it was terrible, but some here seem to have liked it.

  20. Did anyone else think “God’s Army” did not come very close to accurately depicting missionary life? Maybe I’m just not giving Dutcher enough dramatic license, but the missionary hi-jinks, the edgy approach to teaching and interaction with investigaotrs generally, and the high drama in the lives of the missionaries all rang false to me.

  21. Brigham City was a powerful movie, probably the best made by an LDS director targeted at a general audience. Sure, not everything worked. But it was professional, moving and affecting.

    On the other hand, Dutcher wants to make a movie about Joseph Smith. He’s not ready for that. It is the quintessential story of the birth of the Church, and will require a level of skill which is almost, but not quite impossible. For all the same reasons that it is virtually impossible to make a truly great film about the Savior.

  22. “God’s Army” was tame compared to parts of my mission in South America. My mission had spots at times that were out-of-control, and some missionaries that were wilder than whatever you saw in God’s Army. A sociologist friend told me that in any anecdotal sampling, the “outlyers” (outliers? or those that lie outside the norm) stick out more, and are more noticeable, so that things can seem more “good” or more “bad” than they really are.

    Our mission had those who went home early voluntarily, some sent home, some transferred to other missions. There was dating, sex (or “sexual contact” if you have a narrow definition of sex). Lots of goofing off to go see movies, travelling outside of assigned areas, shoplifting, porno reading, theft among missionaries, and drug use.

    But, a LOT of good was done by the missionaries as a whole, too. A lot of people were baptized. And even after taking into account that maybe 75% to 85% of them eventually go inactive, that was still a lot of people.

    If all you saw or experienced in your mission was the textbook “this is the way it ought to be”, then consider yourself blessed.

    Sometimes those edgy approaches to teaching work. The concepts in “Preach My Gospel” manual are not new. It was how highly productive missionaries were doing things 20 years ago. In my mission, the productive missionaries were putting the lessons into their own words, and customizing the lessons to the investigators.

    Those missionaries realized that investigators wanted to interract with real people, and not human tape-players, not androids, not “the Morg”. The recitation of memorized lessons bothered me when I was an investigator. And if I had not received a testimony prior to the discussions, it would have turned me off.

  23. Ivan,

    If you are willing to put Saints and Soldiers in the list are you willing to put Napoleon Dynamite on the list as well?

  24. random John –

    Oops – I knew I forgot something.

    ND gets a rating of “Freakin’ Awesome.”

  25. While we’re on the topic of LDS film in general, the trailer for Mobsters and Mormons is also out here.

    ARJ,
    S&S counts while ND doesn’t because S&S contains a character we can be pretty certain is Mormon, also because it was directly marketed towards Mormons in a way ND was not.

    Ivan,
    I disagree about the moral of Singles Ward being that you shouldn’t make fun of LDS culture. I believe I know what you refer to; I remember that was Samuelsen’s complaint on AML-list a few years ago. Rather than a fatal flaw in contradicting themes, however, I think it’s just a script error. Granted, it’s a major mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

    I heard Hale saying that the scene where Cammie is offended by Jonathan’s stand-up routine was intended to suggest that the criticisms went on for an extended period of time. As such, I’m willing to believe that the scene was simply poorly executed. It should have showed Jonathan making much harsher jokes – one’s that expressed real contempt – and should have shown more clearly that it went on for a long time. The poorly done scene is certainly a strike against the film, but if we assume it’s just a mistake, it’s not a good enough reason to toss out the film completely.

  26. Ok, as for the above list, has no one else noticed that Pride and Prejudice is on it?? Um…am I missing something? How is that a ‘mormon’ movie? And please get off the napolean one too. It WAS the first decent thing to come from BYU’s film school, as it was written by byu students, and Jon Heder is LDS. HOWEVER, is that really a “mormon’ movie as it is not about LDS or mormon culture in anyway? I mean if mormons just have to be involoved, than Im going to start saying that the Maytag commercials were a huge step for mormon media cause the maytag man is lds. Come on. None of the above mentioned “mormon’ movies are any good. Lets all stop and be honest for a second. Gods Army (oh what a horrible name), just isn’t true. The story rings false to all who watch it. And this is usually true for all these mormon movies. They do not accuratly portray human emotion or relationships. And this makes for really cheesy movies with really mediocre acting. As for so called ‘mormon cinema’ helping to spread the gospel, get out of the wasatch valley buddy. Cause NO ONE has seen them outside of there. Do you HONESTLY think non-members are going to watch these movies? Dude, if an investigator watched home teachers they would think we were a bunch of crack addicts. Listen, if you want people to feel the spirit and join the chruch, dont try and do it with cheesy utah culture, have them read the BOM. And somebody please explain to me the pride and prejucide one. I feel like im taking crazy pills.

  27. Julie, I have heard that there is a DVD version of Pride and Prejudice that takes all the Mormon elements out and puts them in the extras. (Just hearsay though, anyone seen it?) If this is the version you saw, confusion would be understandable.

    But the movie falls into the category because it was made by, about and for Mormons.

  28. I think Dutcher has done well and is films only seem to get better. The direction and acting in God’s Army felt less like a film and more like a documentary without the documentary feel. That is the acting seemed effortless, like we were watching real people. The lack of a real linear plot was due to writing but made up for in the direction and acting.

    Brigham City was good. Suspenseful, well directed and acted, and a fairly good grasp of the evils of the world. It was very accessable to non members and not overly preachy like GA. GA2 looks really good. The direction looks better and it looks like Dutcher is really developing his ability to create characters from vastly different cultures.

    I think the subject of other Mollywood films like Singles Ward and the string of artery clogging cheese that follows falls into the bad writing, mediocre acting and student directing and production quality. Singles Ward was good. I really enjoyed it. I think parodying the culture is great but the RM and Home Teachers were terrible. RM looked like a bunch of leftover jokes that never made it into the Singles Ward because they were too bad, and HT tried parodying the doctrine and using that as a launching point for a very bad buddy/road trip flick.

    I wonder how growing up in the church or in Utah impacts the acceptance. Both my Wife and I are converts and live in the “mission field” in the midwest. We both enjoyed Dutcher’s work, the Best Two Years, Singles Ward and Pride and Prejudice.

  29. Ok we need to clarify. The only Pride and Prejudice movies I am aware of are TV or Film adapatations of the Jane Austen novel. Someone please tell me you aren’t referring to any of these?

  30. A sinner –
    (aren’t we all sinners? Just curious)

    anyway, there was a version that came out a year and a half ago or so called “Pride and Prejudice: A Latter-day Comedy” it was a modern day LDS riff on the Austen book.

    website here: http://www.prideprejudice.com/

    they seem to have toned the DVD down from the theatrical version. (why?)

  31. Julie,
    Mormon cinema may not play at theaters outside of the Wasatch front, but those DVD’s eventually make an impact as members buy them and occasionally show them to their friends.

    A friend who may not read the Book of Mormon, may watch God’s Army, Best 2 Years, or Other Side of Heaven with you just to see what missions can be like.

    A friends of an LDS teenager may not read the Book of Mormon, but may sit through the cheesey Book of Mormon Movie. Many LDS teens don’t even read the Book of Mormon, but might watch the BoM Movie, which might generate interest.

    Single non-members who are active in their own church can relate to things in Singles Ward. We’re not the only Christian religion that can make fun of itself. I’m confident that people in other churches can relate to much of Baptists at our Barbecue. Maybe the Baptists should make a movie called “Mormons at our Barbecue.”

    The Work and the Glory movie is also a nice theatrical introduction to introduce just a little bit at a time for someone who is curious about the beginnings of the church, but isn’t ready to investigate or watch a preachy church-produced video.

    Watching those movies isn’t going to convert people as readily as reading the Book of Mormon. But they all have their place. More people are willing to watch a movie these days than read a book. Give people what they are ready for, then when they are ready for more, give them more.

    I found things that related to my mission in all 3 of the missionary movies I’ve seen so far; God’s Army, Best 2 Years, Other Side of Heaven.

    No one can accurately portray the mission experiences of hundreds of thousands of living RM’s in a mere 90 to 120 minutes. And a movie that is solely about what the church _expects_ your mission _should_ be, might be considered by many to be misleading and unrepresentative. That would be a great thing for the church to produce, to show young men what’s expected of them, and to help parents and leaders prepare young men. But it wouldn’t be good cinema.

    Sure, Home Teachers was ridiculously unrealistic slapstick. But don’t most of us know some people who have a little “Peter Priesthood” or the football-slob in them?

    Granted, most of those movies are not worth taking a family of 5 to the theater and shelling out $8 a head to see. But they are all worth at least $10 plus shipping to buy used, and to keep on hand if your kids want to see them, and to share with friends.

  33. God’s Army may not have been a great movie, but I have to disagree with the statements that it was false. Everything that happened in that movie, I experienced first hand or personally knew missionaries (former companions, friends) who experienced it first hand.

  34. I just want to point out that although I think Eric Russell is very smart I disagree with his definition of Mormon Cinema as “by, for, and about Mormons.” We already discussed this briefly here at Kulturblog (a great place by the way) during an interesting post on NAPOLEON DYNAMITE that is still drawing comments.

    Let me break down why I think the “by, for, and about Mormons” definition is no good.

    “By” The first question here is who is the “author” of a film (a subject open to endless debate), and secondly who has to be Mormon, the director? The screenwriter? The producers? All the actors? The director of photography? Who? A film is a highly collaborative piece of work involving hundreds of people. A key consideration in deciding if a film should be classified as Mormon Cinema is if the director and/or writer are Mormon, but then you must ask, do they have to be active? What if they grew up Mormon, but drifted away or were excommunicated? Does that mean they can’t tell Mormon stories? I personally believe the director of a film doesn’t have to be Mormon for a film to be considered Mormon Cinema, but it certainly helps. It is certainly possible for a talented and sensitive non-Mormon to tell a Mormon story in an effective way.

    “For” I bet if you asked the directors of many of the films discussed on this thread whether they intended their film to only be seen by Mormons most would reply, no. In fact, many of these films have been marketed agressively outside of areas where Mormons predominantly live. I would bet most Mormon filmmakers including Richard Dutcher would say they want as many people as possible to see their films. In this they’re not much different than any filmmaker I have ever met anywhere. True, the films might be primarily aimed at a Mormon audience, mainly so they can be profitable, and the discovery that they can indeed by profitable is the great contribution of Richard Dutcher, but the goal of many Mormon filmmakers (including I believe Dutcher) is to make a film that can “cross-over,” meaning find an appreciative audience outside of Mormon culture. If that happens we should be overjoyed, not scratch our heads and say hmmmm…guess, it wasn’t really “for” Mormons anyway.

    “About” Two basic problems here. First and foremost is that not all characters are written or performed as obviously Mormon. Napoleon and Kip are Mormon in my opinion, as are many of the other characters in ND. I think many people who are Mormon, and many people who aren’t Mormon but are familiar with Mormons, can recognize that. It should come as no surprise than that I think NAPOLEON DYNAMITE is a crucial work in Mormon Cinema. Although I haven’t got around to seeing it, my understanding is SAINTS AND SOLDIERS also doesn’t over-emphasize that it has Mormon characters. So do we throw that one out? No, we don’t. The second problem is how many characters have to be Mormon for it to be “about” Mormons and how Mormon do they have to be? Can they be inactive? What if it was a conversion story and for most of the film the main character wasn’t Mormon? You can being to see how limiting the definition is.

    It’s worth discussing because for one thing with such a strict definition of Mormon Cinema you get a pretty narrow and in many ways unremarkable collection of films (with a few notable exceptions). The “by, for, and about” definition is championed, I believe, primarily by Mormon filmmakers post-GOD’S ARMY, which did I admit forever change Mormon filmmaking, primarily by creating a niche market. However, Mormon Cinema existed before that and there are a lot of great Mormon filmmakers who had been doing great work prior to GOD’S ARMY who are ignored with this definition, unfairly so because today’s Mormon filmmakers owe them a debt. When a hugely successful film like NAPOLEON DYNAMITE comes along and we don’t recognize or claim it as a Mormon Film we do two things, both unintentional, but both bad. First, we close off non-Mormons from recognizing that we can tell great stories in great ways and, as trite as it sounds, from recognizing that Mormons are people too. Secondly, as young Mormon filmmakers grow up they may feel limited by such narrow definitions. They may be proud to be Mormon, have something to say about being Mormon, or want to explore a Mormon issue, but be interested in making a movie with a more subtle touch like NAPOLEON DYNAMITE than say, SINGLES WARD. If we want more and better films about Mormon experiences than we had best encourage young Mormon filmmakers to make a wide variety of films.

  35. Kim,

    It was true and false. True–in the sense that I resonated with it to a certain degree because of my own experience as a missionary. False–in the sense that it was very much contrived in order to get the point across. It went over board in the way it gathered every conceivable missionary-character-type into one apartment. What an odd-ball crazy eclectic group–way over-done. Every conceivable destaster known to missiondom was woven into the narrative–even the death of an elder while in the field.

    So, while there seems to be something sincere at the core, it’s surrounded by a contrived madness of sorts. And furthermore, as it relates to how it’s false, there is no connection with the “church” as a community. Where are the zone conferences? The mission conferences? The wards? The stakes? The traveling general authorities? You don’t really get a sense of the “Kingdom”.

    Has anyone mentioned “The Otherside of Heaven”? Not a great movie either, but as long as we’re compiling a list…

  36. The thing I appreciated most about “Saints and Soldiers” is that these guys came back to the basic “pallet” (if you will) in their attempt at film-art. There’s nothing goof-ball about it. It’s straight-forward story telling. And though it has some weaknesses, IMO, it demonstrates that this particular group of film makers may have a lot of potential when it comes to creating top-notch “timeless” material.

  37. Brian,

    I admit that my definition of LDS film is very problematic, for all the reasons you point out. My concern, though, is that if we widen the fences to include ND, the new definition – whatever it may be – becomes even more problematic. The slippery slope gets all the more slippery. If we include ND, then suddenly Little Secrets, Johnny Lingo, Down and Derby, and even Latter Days all have cases on their behalf. And if we include any of those four, many other even greyer films suddenly have a case. So, if we include the likes of ND, where exactly do we draw the line?

  38. Oops! I just realized that used the wrong word in my analogy. That should be “palette” instead of “pallet”. (what can you expect from blue collar type frustrated artist?)

    Adam, that bleeping would sound like a morse code fest.

  40. I watched the trailer. Wow. The overhead view of elders pulling away from a blessing followed by the overhead view of gangstas pulling away from a victim is something else.

    Jack, I’m making the bleeping into a post so I’ve deleted it here.

  41. Just to rile up the argument about what is and what isn’t a “Mormon movie,” I’ll make the claim that Mormon movies have been around for a very long time. BYU Studies is preparing a special issue celebrating the 100th anniversary of Mormon Cinema. (Yes, 100.)

    One of the earlier well-known Mormon movies was the 1922 silent anti-polygamy vehicle “Trapped by the Mormons.” And fortunately or unfortunately for our generation, it’s recently been remade by a low-budget group in DC.

    This movie and its antecedent raise the question: Does Mormon cinema include movies made about Mormons by anti-Mormons?

  43. The following article in this past Sunday’s New York Times magazine suggests that there may well be a larger market for the new Mormon cinema:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/magazine/31PHENOM.html

    I agree with comment #31 about the useful influence of Mormon-made films. Personally, I suspect that a lively independent Mormon cinema that shows Mormons as real and flawed, but likeable or even admirable people, could be far more influential in raising positive public awareness than any amount of official Church PR and media could ever be.

  44. JWL, that’s an iffy place to be. For instance, there’s numerous movies that seem to glorify Catholics who lead a life of crime (think mafia movies) or bad behavior (think parochial school movies) but dutifully show up for mass and genuflect. Also, it seems quite acceptable to make jokes about Catholics and Jews on shows. At least the jokes about us are few and generally about being goody 2 shoes or polygamists, not about being lax in our faith. The commonality of negative images of some faiths makes me have less respect for them.

    It’s like they treat the faith with less respect. I suppose the same could be said for those who produce stuff like LaBute’s Bash and whoever did that movie about the guy trying to seduce a missionary.

    No member is perfect. This is indisputable. I’d prefer a movie like Brigham City that shows consequences to actions and that people are good overall than movies and shows that make us hypocrites. I’d rather be known as a church of overall good people than have common negative themes in the media that cheapen the church. I have respect for the institution.

  45. So, Godmakers, Orgasmo, SLC Punk…these are all mormon films?? Surely you don’t Trey Parker & Matt Stone telling the world about our faith? Lets leave spreading the gospel to ourselves and church sanctioned materials, and let films be what they are – entertainment.

  46. I was referring to the sorts of movies referred to in the original post and the New York Times article — films being made by practising Church members that are respectful of the Church and the Gospel while acknowledging the human foibles of Church members. Our overall image in the larger world is still that of a weirdo cult and anything that shows Mormons as real human beings trying to live right in the real world can only help break down that image. This in turn makes it easier for regular people to conceive that Mormonism might be something interesting to find out about.

  47. Documentaries, unfortunately, don’t quite get the respect that narrative films do, but I think any list of great Mormon films should include Tasha Oldham’s The Smith Family. I wrote about it here.

  48. The answer to the question of whether Mormon Cinema includes anti-Mormon films, or films that openly mock Mormons, depends on whether you’re taking a scholarly approach, or the approach of a typical film fan. Scholars of film history and criticism study both negative and positive representation of a certain group when they study an ethnic cinema. Typically, the negative and positive are intertwined and interrelated.

    For example, any serious study of Black Cinema would have to deal with BIRTH OF A NATION–a notoriously popular and racist film that came out in 1915. That film was so repugnant that it forced many Blacks to form their own production companies and make their own films in order to control how they were portrayed. Does that sound at all familiar? One of these companies that was formed in the wake of BIRTH OF A NATION was called the Lincoln Motion Picture Company and its stated goal was “to picture the Negro as he is in his every day, a human being with human inclination, and one of talent and intellect.” If you just replace “the Negro” with “Mormon people” I think you end up with a similar worthwhile goal for our cinema, a goal that’s been repeatedly expressed in this thread.

    So, yes, such films as ORGASMO, THE GODMAKERS, and TRAPPED BY MORMONS may offend us, but they’re crucial to any academic study of Mormon film–they reveal how we are perceived by others, just as Church-produced films (another type of film that would have to be included in an honest academic study of Mormon Cinema) reveal how we want to be perceived. Studying all these films shows how such perceptions change over time and how filmmakers try and alter or subvert the stereotypes set up by the filmmakers that preceded them.

  49. I think having the missionary who died in the first movie rise from the dead in the sequel is in poor taste.

  51. The missionary who died in the first one was Dutcher himself, and he doesn’t appear in this as a missionary, or any other way that I can tell from the trailer.

Comments are closed.