I agree with his analysis of Mormon cinema. And while a little less ego and the perspective of another set of eyes during directing and editing would improve his films, I think he is amazingly talented. I have enjoyed his films so far. eta:  I should say more than enjoyed.  I have found them not only engaging, but deeply moving as well.

I'm sorry to see him leaving the faith, but if he is sincere like he says he is, his journey will bring him back.

-- Edited by Roper at 16:58, 2007-04-13

I like Dutcher and am sad to see him leave the church behind. I think he started actually taking his occupation too seriously. It is after all is said and done, just entertainment. He and others I believe have gotten into the trap of thinking that they are producing high brow art or that there is some social cause in their work. Too bad. For the record, I have seen several of Dutcher's films and I generally like his work. He has recieved some flack for his films such as Brigham City and States of Grace but I liked both movies. I was one of the few who looked at States of Grace and thought it was a great story on repentance. Some were offended that a missionary fell.

Dutcher is correct that there has been some bad movies made for the LDS market. Not growing up in Utah and Arizona there were many jokes that I didn't get. These movies did play well in those areas but as far as quality was concerned, may have been lacking. On the other hand there have been some really good films such as Saints and Soldiers that should have won an Academy Award. The Book of Mormon movie was a horrid tragedy.

I hope brother Dutcher realizes his mistake and returns to the church. I think he was looking for some sort of acceptance or recognition that the church members could not give him.

bokbadok wrote:

---

I haven't seen any of his films, but I also never had a desire to... too "edgy" for me.
Your criticisms of movies or books would be much more credible if you were actually qualified to comment on them.

-- Edited by bokbadok at 17:08, 2007-04-13

---

Bok, did you read his open letter? I fail to find criticism or critique of his films in what I said. I am simply stating what Dutcher himself has indicated... that he pushes the envelope. Should I infer then that in order to be able to say anything, I have to have viewed the work, or in lieu of that be a professional critic? Would that same requirement apply to all individuals privately discerning anything, inside or outside of the "Mormon" genre, as to whether it is praiseworthy or not?

I am probably fairly typical of the LDS demographic who was not raised or lives along or near the Wasatch Front. We don't have the luxury of being able to go to the local video store and renting these sorts of "Mormon" genre movies. And, unless some of our ward friends own the movie and highly recommend it and offer to loan it to us, we have to buy the movie from some place like Deseret Book Club. So we are naturally going to be more apt to go with what we know is safe for the family, even if it is fluff and cheesey. If we want "artsy fartsy" like Dutcher ostensibly tries to do, there is a whole 'nother world out there to choose from.

My take is that Dutcher has / had visions of being the Cecille B. DeMile or George Lucas or Steven Spielberg of "Mormon" genre movies, but has not had a realistic understanding of the demographic he has tried to target. His inference seems to be that LDS people are not sophisticated enough to appreciate his art. Fine, he can think that, but he isn't going to win any friends in the demographic if he is going to infer they are a bunch of hayseeds because they prefer low budget comedy to his high-brow interpretation of "the human condition" in LDS (or Mormon as he refers to it) culture. Doesn't matter how educated or well read someone is... if they are going to prefer an evening of light hearted laughs from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" to suffering through "Steel Magnolias", that is where their decision and dollars are going to go.

As to whether he comes back to the Church... well, it saddens me when he or anyone else leaves. But the reality is that it is they who distance themselves from the Gospel and the Church... not the Church or the Gospel from them. I doubt he will return, unless he goes through much humbling, because much of his decision seems to be based on the long term effects of pride (and perhaps his association with apostates). And on this, I think I can be "credible" as I have a sister-in-law and her husband who became too sophisticated for staying "practicing member[s] of the church."

Fregramis, I'm of a similar mind. One does not find greater truth by turning away from the source of all truth. Leaving the church for a while is only good when imposed as a punishment for gross sin. It does not work for a quest for truth.
It would be like being on a flight to Hawaii, and the pilot suddenly comes over the intercom and berates his copilot for his blind belief in the navigation system, and says that he will find his own path to Hawaii, even if it leads to Oregon for a while. While it is still possible for the pilot to get the plane back on course, he has to do it while he still has sufficient fuel. The sidetrip to Oregon is not going to help him get to Hawaii. At best, it can be recovered from and the pilot will learn that, on long over water flights, the instruments should be trusted. But everyone would have been better off if the pilot had not diverted in the first place.
It is the same thing with diversions from the gospel. They don't help you find the truth. They can be recovered from, and you can still develop strong faith if you decide to return. But the diversion didn't help you any.

I didn't vote "yes" because this is not an issue of what I hope will happen. I don't know his heart either, so I cannot say with any accuracy whether he will come back to the church or not. I hope he does. This gospel is the absolute best thing for everyone. But I answered "I don't know" because I sincerely do not know whether he will come back or not.
He has headed out on a journey away from the truth. Whatever good qualities he has, those can only diminish as he denies to himself the truth that he once knew.
As far as the R rated truth vs g rated lie comment, that is a false dichotomy. It doesn't need to be one or the other. You can choose instead to tell a g rated truth. There are plenty. An "r-rated" truth diminishes you. If someone were to describe on this forum, for instance, their intimate moments with their spouse, I would delete it immediately. It may be true, but it is not uplifting to the reader, and it bears no benefit.
I don't count it as good when someone has decided to be publicly frank and unrepentant about a bad decision. It is inarguably a bad decision for him to have left. He has told himself a lie that he will gain benefit by distancing himself from the source of all truth and happiness. That he is open and unrepentant about such a lie doesn't say anything good.

This is just sad.

Unlike someone after that article who thought it might be because he committed a sin, I am going to withhold judgement on him, and hope he comes back.

Cocobeem wrote:

---

Catherder said: "Should I infer then that in order to be able to say anything, I have to have viewed the work"
I would think this would be at least a minimum requirement before having a justifiable opinion. ???

---

So, in order for a person to discern that they will find no value in watching, say a porno flick, they have to watch it first and weigh the artistic value of the story and cinematography? For a person to discern that rap is not uplifting they have to listen to it and try to understand the lyrics and where the lyricist is coming from first?

Before anyone gets all high and mighty, I'm not comparing Dutcher's films to those examples. I use them to illustrate a point. People do not need to experience something first hand to decide that it is not something they need to spend time, effort, or resources on. And, they should not be made to feel like they are unenlightened or just not getting it because they do not want to experience it. Sure, I've heard from some folks here in cyberspace that his films are great and very thought provoking. Great! So are lots of other pieces of creative work. Doesn't mean I am a uncultured boob just because I don't own them or read them or view them. Each individual is free to choose that which they will hold fast to in that regards.

Dutcher (and unfortunately the inference from a couple other folks) is basically saying that anyone who has not viewed or bought his movies is artistically challenged or at least suffers from some form of uneducated delusion about what is good art. Frankly, I have no use for that sort of attitude, and creative people who exhibit it are elitist... and I don't care what "circles" they are in or who they associate with or what their reputation is.

We've been warned time and time again that if we do not keep our individual pride in check, it will lead to our individual downfall spiritually. We're all welcome to our opinions on Dutcher's creative works, but it may do each individual good to check themselves on their pride and learn from this so they may avoid letting go of the iron rod while walking down path to the Tree of Life. Dutcher has opted to put his trust in his own navigation for whatever reason.

Since Coco brought it up, I don't think I would personally use the concept of integrity to describe Dutcher's actions or attitude as I've seen them in the news over the past 1/2 year or so. Integrity would be if he did not imply others who do not see or agree with his vision and goals are parasites to his efforts. Integrity would be to not use his "celebrity" to announce his disillusionment with the Church and it's teachings. Integrity would not be encouraging others to push the envelope for the sake of "art". All of those speak more of a level of pride to me than anything else.

Let's just say, from my standpoint, regardless of whether his opinion about "Mormon Cinema" is right or wrong, his personal decisions and denigrating of the demographic and his colleagues in general removes him from having any moral leadership of the genre others may have afforded him at one time.

We shall see, but who knows... his leaving the genre may be the best thing for it... yet his leaving the Church will most likely not be the best thing for him and his loved ones, though...

Bok, did you read his open letter?
Yes, I did.  Twice.  I also read the interview in Christianity Today, and most other statements he has made over the years.  I have also seen all of his movies, except the first bad one that he mentioned in the letter.

I fail to find criticism or critique of his films in what I said.
When you said,
 I just have to say Dutcher seems to have a severe over-inflated view of himself and "contributions" to cinema and LDS culture.
I found it odd that you felt qualified to comment on the supposed quality of his contributions considering you haven't seen any of his films.  If you had seen his movies, perhaps you would agree with Dutcher that he is a much more talented filmmaker than the other guys who pump out bad mormon satires.  But because you have never seen Dutcher's films, you cannot compare them to any other mormon film, and hence your judgement of his "severe over-inflated view" is based only on your perception of his open letter.  It just seems kind of prejudicial to me.

Should I infer then that in order to be able to say anything, I have to have viewed the work, or in lieu of that be a professional critic?
I have never known a professional critic to criticize the works of a director without first having viewed them.

People do not need to experience something first hand to decide that it is not something they need to spend time, effort, or resources on.
Of course not.  But it usually helps to have experienced something when attempting to carry on an informed conversation about that something.

I am a viewer of "mormon" movies.

Dutcher won't be back because his movies aren't that good either.

There have been some winners and loosers in my book.

The Other Side of Heaven A+
Testaments A-
Legacy B+
God's Army C-
States of Grace B
Book of Mormon movie D-
The Work and
the Glory Series B+
(The last one of that group was a solid C)


For comedy

Singles Ward B
Best Two Years B+
Baptists at the BarBQ B+
Brigham City B-
Church Ball C+




Of course there are many more.

Just my two cents worth.



-- Edited by Mahonri at 00:44, 2007-04-15

Personal preference.

Of course God's Army and Church Ball/Singles Ward are comparing apples and oranges.
They are in totally different categories.
That's why I listed some as comedies.

I added the other two...

bokbadok wrote:

---

Brigham City is a comedy?! Gee, I guess I missed the subtle underlying satire or something.

---

You're joking right?  It was THE funniest movie EVER!  I cackled in uncontrollable hysteria all the way through. 

It kind of scared my wife though.......

(the movie, mind you, not my antics)

Like Fregramis... I felt the same about Brigham City... and I realize that it wasn't supposed to be a comedy!

Amen to what Keith Merrill wrote...and yes it was an emotional response and perhaps he should have waited a week or two... but again, I agreed with everything he said.

I found myself cringing throughout bro. Merrill's response. I kept hearing in my mind the words of Mark Twain: It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and leave no doubt."

-- Edited by bokbadok at 19:37, 2007-04-15

Perhaps it's because I grew up in a small Mormon community that I enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite.

But my city kids just thought it was hillarious and couldn't get enough of it. It almost got a cult like following at the local high school (kids would go every week to see it in Scottsdale) and my son dressed and did the Napoleon dance in a high school assembly and got a roaring standing ovation.

Oh yea... there's two that I forgot.

Down and Debry B-
Hometeachers C- (I didn't enjoy this movie)

... isn't it funny that Keith Merrill's articulate comments have a similar ring to my opening post of the thread? And Keith Merrill is a very credible and respected professional in the movie industry, both inside and outside the Church... So, if you need to, go ahead and find my comments odd or prejudicial if you so select. Just remember to include everyone who shares them or similar views.
Keith Merrill has issued an  apology:http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/218124/

Are you still in Keith Merrill's camp, Cat?  I guess that is up to you.

Cocobeem wrote:

---

since early Q3 2006



Is this some kind of new timekeeping? Maybe it's some inside Star Wars thing that I'm not getting or something...

---

Sorry, my bad... to translate into layman's terms, replace "early Q3 2006" with "early September 2006" 

Q3 2006 is a business / financial abbreviation for the term "third quarter 2006"... typically a year is divided into 4 quarters for fiscal reporting.  When the fiscal reporting year matches the calendar year, Q1 is first quarter (Jan, Feb, Mar) and so on up to Q4.  Thus, each quarter has 3 month-end reportings, each quarter as a quarter-end cumulative reporting for the sum of the three months, and after Q4, there is a year-end cumulative reporting for the twelve months.

RE:  Napolean Dynamite... one doesn't have to like it or find it the funniest thing since Abbott and Costello to appreciate it.  I can appreciate the effort and artistic value of the film even if it was rather silly in my opinion.    Perhaps it would have been better if I said "since I found it profoundly silly, I don't feel the need waste my effort trying to rate it" as opposed to wording it such that it sounded like it didn't deserve to be rated. 

I think Merrill apologized for the delivery of his message and also the message itself.

He says-
"My outrageous and over-reactive response to Richard's editorial in the Daily Herald was inappropriate and wrong. I was wrong in doing it. I was mostly wrong in what I said."

That, to me, says he's apologizing for content as well.


"The only completely accurate and honest statement in my outburst may be my final expression of genuine sorrow and loss."

That, to me, says he had been mostly talking through his... oh, wait, I mean it seems he was motivated by pride or some other self-serving factor.



And I agree with this -

"... am sincere in feeling that his departure from "Mormon Cinema" is ultimately a loss to the prophetic vision of Spencer Kimball."

Whatever, you!

Merrill only recanted because he was not well-received. No public figure puts out something like that without thinking it through. Maybe the core had merit and maybe it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Dutcher will not apologize. I think he was respectful enough.

What did Heimerdinger say? Was there an old thread about that? My kids read ALL the Tennis Shoes books. One of them's just started over...

Forgive me for crossing threads, but is it possible that this statement

None of us are in a position to pass judgement over others concerning their apparent choices between God and Mammon, unless we are the individual's Bishop or Stake President.
applies to this particular discussion?

bokbadok wrote:

---

Forgive me for crossing threads, but is it possible that this statement

None of us are in a position to pass judgement over others concerning their apparent choices between God and Mammon, unless we are the individual's Bishop or Stake President.
applies to this particular discussion?

---

Was wondering when you were going to get around to using that to try and silence me... you're getting soooo predictable 

Mind elaborating on how you see it applying to this particular discussion as opposed to just inferring one of us -- or me -- is being judgemental?

Hmm... I thought Heimerdinger had a legitimate view there. Anyone know what's going on with him now? Is he divorced?

As for the third link, after the letter, all I found was this comment by Larry somebody...

> Eric Snider:
>
> #1: Never listen to someone's arguments against a film if the
> arguer hasn't even seen it. That seems obvious, but you'd be
> amazed how often I have to bring it up.


forgot him--->   


-- Edited by Cocobeem at 14:15, 2007-04-16

Dude, I get the envelopes and the whole shebang. It was a joke. The guy said never listen to someone's argument against a film if they haven't even seen it, it's obvious but still has to be brought up.... You know, like you haven't seen the films.... It's like a sign that I shouldn't listen to you.

I remember reading Chris's Column back when it came out. I think he may have seen this coming with Dutcher. I thought his original assessment was pretty on especially in light of what we know now from Dutcher himself. Very sad. I wonder what Chris would say now. I'm sure he is saddened to see brother Dutcher leave the church and cling so tenaciously to his anger at LDS audience, for I see it as anger mixed with pride. Even Hollywood films that are panned by critics can be great successes and those that are praised by the critics and the noir types bomb at the box office. Does this mean the audience is a bunch of troglydites? Hardly. Some of the LDS cinema to date has been very good, some has been good, some has been forgettable, and some has been flat out bad, not unlike Hollywood. You can't hit a homerun everytime. And making films with huge crossover appeal is going to be tough. I think Dutcher often lost out because he wanted crossover films. He wanted to be the LDS Movie Hero and Hollywood Darling. So far his films have been unable to deliver this and he appears to have decided to chase the dream of being a Hollywood Darling complete with leaving the church behind as so many others have such as Ryan Gosling, Paul Walker, and others who have kind of left the church behind in their pursuit of Hollywood. The danger is there for all of us. How many would trade fame, fortune, and glory of the world for their eternal happiness. Perhaps Dutcher has fallen into this trap. You can have both. There are examples of those in Hollywood that are able to do both but many seem to succomb. Very sad.

I have to admit though that Paul Walker does have a super hot girlfriend!

Cocobeem wrote:

---

They broke up.

---

YES!!!! That means she's available again!!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Those hollywood relationships never seem to last.