At the edge

Just read an interview with Richard Dutcher in Christianity Today. I’m not quite sure how I feel about it. Two thoughts:

First, I feel somewhat uncomfortable with it, and not in a good way. It’s the “he’s falling away” kind of flavor, not the “he’s pushing the boundaries and making changes for the better.” I sense darkness, not light. Sure, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

Here’s where I get the feeling that he’s falling away:

But you ended up settling in the Mormon church?

Dutcher: My wife and kids predominantly attend the LDS church, but I’m so busy that I’m really not active in that community any more. I travel so much, and I find myself just choosing whatever service appeals to me that week. When I’m in Burbank, I attend a Catholic church. And I’ve recently noticed a Greek Orthodox church across the street, so I’ll probably hit that too.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with attending other churches, unless it means we’re not attending sacrament meeting. And that’s what it sounds like is happening with Dutcher. Not that I want (or need) to nitpick the details in Dutcher’s spiritual life, passing or failing him as it were. But I do think his personal life will inevitably affect his art.

Moving on:

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, like the Bible?

Dutcher: You’re not supposed to ask me that!

That’s not on your approved list of questions?

Dutcher: [Laughing.] That’s right. I’ve gone through a real evolution in my religious views and in my faith over the past four years, so I’m reluctant to get too far into that. I could give an answer which is accurate, and yet the ramifications of that would be misinterpreted. Does that make any sense? Do you know what I’m getting at?

Yeah, it sounds like you don’t want to answer the question.

Dutcher: Well, uhh, I guess I don’t have a problem answering it, but it needs to be a pretty long answer. Let’s just say that my religious views are much more universal than one would expect from someone raised … I’m starting to sound like a politician now. But I don’t believe that Mormons have any special claim to God. I don’t believe that Mormonism has any special doorway to heaven.

There are two ways to read that, I think. Either he means that God loves all His children and tries to help all of them get back to live with Him again, or he means that he no longer believes in the authority given to Joseph Smith from God and passed on down to the present day (the “special doorway” being the ordinances and covenants). I hope he meant the former. If the latter, he’s getting awfully close to apostasy.

Again, I don’t mean that thinking other religions are good is a bad thing. I love other religions, or at least the light that God has given them (and I do believe He has given substantial knowledge and light to the various religions of the world). But no matter how much I love them, I also know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church, and nothing is going to change that.

Second thought: I do think that aiming at a “Mormon aesthetic” which sugarcoats life isn’t going to help anyone, or at least not deeply enough to matter. For example, I saw States of Grace a few weeks ago, and when the movie was over I was shaken. It really did make me rethink the Atonement, and it made it more real to me.

And yet I have reservations about the movie. I don’t know. The sense of redemption comes across pretty clearly, but the sense of goodness (light, truth, etc.) seems dimmed. I’m not doing a very good job of explaining this. That’s probably because I don’t quite understand it myself yet. :)

At this fork in my internal road, I see two paths. The first says that this lack of light (which isn’t an entirely accurate label, but it’ll do) is indeed a problem, and that my gut is right in feeling uncomfortable. The second says that I’ve been sheltered into expecting warm fuzzies all the time, and that I need to adapt my views — that edgy is part of reality, and so on.

I think I’ll take the first path.

You see, it’s not the portrayal of evil that troubles me. Case in point: in the new Joseph Smith movie, bad things happen, and the Satan scenes are dark and definitely not warm-fuzzy inspiring. And I have no problem with that. The difference, to me at least, is that in the Joseph Smith movie I don’t have that gnawing sense of hollowness that I did when I saw States of Grace. The same goes for The Work and the Glory: evil is portrayed, and yet I don’t feel like I’ve lost the Spirit. With Dutcher’s films, I do. (And here there will be a chorus of people exclaiming that they felt the Spirit more intensely during States of Grace than they’ve felt with any other movie. I don’t know how to reply to that, other than that my reaction is different.)

I certainly don’t want to condemn something that could be good (and I think it is good, at least insofar as it helped me understand the Atonement better), so I’ll leave this as a thought-in-progress. I could of course be wrong. It’s happened before. :)

The floor is now yours.

Yeah, Dutcher has been on the high road to apostasy for a while, it seems. Too bad… I wonder what his wife thinks about it all.

I once had lunch with Richard Dutcher at a Presidential Forum at BYU-Idaho. Elder Bednar was then President Bednar, and it was interesting to watch — in a room of 20 people around a table — Dutcher’s interaction with President Bednar. Dutcher is a charismatic man, but that’s where my interest in him ends.

It’s sad to read the excerpts you posted while thinking back on the time I spent with him. Richard Dutcher was invited to BYU-Idaho to discuss Mormons in the Arts and the great need to instill morals into media.

It seems his mantra is slipping.

It’s unfortunate.

If you read the rest of the interview, he seems almost proud of the fact that his next movie will “[violate] the Mormon aesthetic in pretty much every way possible. It’s on the street, it’s violent, it’s edgy. For those to whom their sensibilities are more important than the message, it’s probably going to offend a large percentage of those people…. It will definitely be rated R.”

I think Dutcher is starting to worship the message more than the Maker. Sensibilities are there for a reason.

Thank you for that analysis. You managed to sum up my feelings nicely. I saw States of Grace recently. I was impressed and inspired but I was also disturbed (mostly by the intensity of the images - I don’t usually watch very violent movies and I’m sensitive to it). I went surfing on the web to find other people’s discussions of it and found that interview in Christianity Today.

My impression (admittedly as a total stranger that has never met him) is that Richard Dutcher is indeed ‘Falling’. It’s sad.

Thanks for your comment, Vicky. It seems to me like there’s a reaction against sappy saccharine cinema (Saturday’s Warrior type of stuff), but almost inevitably the reactionaries go too far in the opposite direction, swinging beyond the safelands and into the dark and dangerous woods. And for me that’s worse. I’d rather have sappy movies that are safe than edgy movies that push the Spirit out of the room. But of course I’d rather have masterpieces that are both safe and real. And yes, I do think that’s possible. The Book of Mormon, for example, portrays all sorts of wickedness without chasing away the Spirit. It can be done.

Now that Mr. Dutcher has made public his non-activity in the Church, I suppose this is a pretty dated discussion. However, I don’t thought I’d add my thoughts since I seem to be the only one on the other end of the argument. I’m the guy who thought the new Joseph Smith film and the third Work and the Glory (I didn’t see the other ones), in addition to the majority of more “safe” LDS related or produced films, are hollow, while Dutcher’s films never fail to move me spiritually and help me draw closer to God and Christ. It’s no doubt true there are things we should and should not see, and I think that differs to a large (if not total) extent from one person to another–but is the “Mormon sensibility” Dutcher questions really valid? There are at least as many quotes from general authorities and prophets that would lead me to believe otherwise as the two-or-so frequently tossed about condemnation of R-rated films that seem to have created a monumental Mormon myth. Prophets have also told us to see the “best” movies and read the “best” books–and they are quick to point out that “best” does not mean “most conservative” or “least likely to offend,” but most artistically important and powerful. Say what you will about Dutcher’s apparently hyper-violent “Falling,” but I have no doubt it is a more sophisticated piece of art than any seminary video.

I abstained from this particular conversation, but some of my comments on other posts show that I agree with you, David. Particularly about the Joseph Smith film (my oft-repeated motto: the Church will be on the right track when it makes a film in which Joseph Smith loses at stick pull), but also Testaments and others. I only saw the first Work and the Glory, and it’s a credit to the Church that it’s not a Church production. I thought it was dreck, and that’s not even getting into the Mormon-themed films that dominate the market that are even worse.

This is just going to end up being a rehash the same argument on Ben’s other Dutcher-related posts, though. So it goes.

Oops, somebody forgot a close-italics tag. I only meant to italicize the word “not” for emphasis. Silly me.

David: I agree that Mormon films need to be better crafted artistically. Yes, Falling is certainly more sophisticated art than the seminary videos. But if your most important criterion is how artistic something is, then you’re worshiping the god of art instead of the God of Israel. There are more important things out there.

That said, yes, art is important, and I’d love to see seminary videos that are real art, sophisticated, not embarrassing, not clichéd. I just don’t think we ought to sacrifice our values for the sake of sophistication.

Take it as you will, but here are some facts about Dutcher and Falling some of you dont know.

His strong LDS wife produced and has a small cameo role in the film knowing well the film had extreme vioence profanity and some brief nudity in it.

He filmed it back to back with States of Grace one after the other.

He actually wrote the film in 1999 shortly after he wrote God’s Army.

He said even then in 1999 he worte it with the violence and language and brief nudity involved in it, he just added the controversial scene where his characer covered in blood kneels before the Christus on the LA Temple grounds.

During the filming of States of Grace he already oncidered himself less active.

All these things you can interpret yourself, but I still love Dutcher’s work as a film auteur. Falling, which I watched today is not a spiritual film, but being a less active member myself has led me to my knees to pray the first time in a long time.

Falling is a moral and extremely tragic tale of a mormon man man who has fallen into inactivity, he and his wife compromise their own beliefs for the film industry which leads to horrible, sad and tragic consequences which brings him to a point where he has fallen so far he has nobody but his Saviour left to save him from the things he has done, as the film ends with the scene of him covered in blood kneeling in front of the Christus statue in a way pleading for answers and forgiveness.

Thus this is not a “spritual” film but the message is strong, even though it has some harsh profanity, very harsh as well as some brutal violence, i still was moved by the message and bleakness of the film to pray and pick up the scriptures again, so it proves everyone is different, to each member his own decisions on what art leads him to our Savior.

I won’t argue that a film like Falling can’t lead someone to pray or pick up their scriptures again, and I agree that that’s a good result. But there are better ways to do that — ways that don’t offend the Spirit.

My friends sit on all aspects of our church from apostolic to anti and still I am of the same opinion. I reserve that righteous judgment is for God alone. There is a time and purpose served in every work. I feel it such a shame to see those who profess the understanding of the ultimate love which Christ showed yet so easily flick away someone with a turn of the wrist. Yes, there may be anger, yes there may disappointment but what if he was your father, brother, or son? Who of you give a man a stone when he asketh for a fish? This man needs to feel the love of Christ and fellowship… and from some of the comments here I felt as if I was listening to the Pharisee’s. It would be wise to get down on your knees and ask god how you may help your brother instead of casting him out… how you may heal his wounds instead flicking acid from your tongues…

Considering Dutcher’s position as a rather vocal filmmaker, he did wield a lot of influence as a spokesman of sorts for the Mormon cinema scene. But with his declared falling away, he can’t really be a legitimate spokesman for that movement, now, can he.

Yes, I feel for the man. We ought to love him. That doesn’t mean we need to love his “fallen” art, however. And I don’t think I’m flicking acid from my tongue by saying that. :) (By the way, he cast himself out, as far as I can tell.)

I am crushed. I am saddened. I never expected this, certainly not from Richard Dutcher. When I saw God’s Army, I thought it was incredibly moving and testimony building. Yes, I know, it’s just a movie, based on just a script, and he’s just acting. Well, it also happens to be true that Richard Dutcher randomly spreads events from his own life among various characters at various points throughout all of his movies. They are, in effect, slightly quasi-autobiographical. And when any character in any of his movies bares a strong and moving testimony, especially HIS character, I truly believe it comes from a very real place. I believed Richard Dutcher was a devout Latter Day Saint, making movies that glorify God and His Church, even if he didn’t color by numbers while doing it.

Now I feel like I was lied to, or worse yet, that someone whose fingerprints are on my own testimony, and who had a very strong one himself, has lost it. That terrifies me. Could that happen to me? I’d rather die. There is no worse fate I can imagine than to lose my testimony. None whatsoever. I need that testimony if I am to make to the Celestial Kingdom, or else I realize that I will spend the rest of eternity wishing I had tried harder to obey and honor Father, and that I could have had an eternity of wanting for nothing, but instead I would be doomed to know there were blessings I could not have, could not qualify for with a second test because there would be no more, and that I would spend the rest of eternity in regret. Not to mention that if I don’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom I can’t keep my family. I personally don’t want to spend the rest of eternity as a Ken doll with no children and no wife. If you’re reading between the lines and think I’m being crude, I apologize. But I’m also being honest. I don’t want to give that up, or any of the other countless blessings that await those who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.

But for someone like Richard Dutcher, or at least like I perceived him to be, someone I really admired, to lose his testimony and turn his back on the Holy Spirit the way he seems to have done (can you not accurately describe leaving the Church after having been given such a glorious testimony as what he received in Carthage, IL?), that is shocking, frightening, and profoundly sad. I have come close to crying over this.

On the other hand, I’m reading above comments from Mike and it seems that Dutcher started losing his testimony even while filming God’s Army, that faith building testament that I believe it is. This brings to mind a very haunting scene from the movie, now infinitely more so:

Elder Kinnegar: “Maybe if I had cancer I’d believe a little more too.”
Elder Dalton: “You know it’s true. I’ve heard you say it.”
Elder Kinnegar: “I lied.”

Did Richard Dutcher “lie”?

There are some interesting concepts to consider here. Consider the parable of the talents. There was a process of increase for some and burial for one. Apply that to testimony.

Burial is a process of digging down into the dirt and then placing dirt upon the object being buried. How does one bury a testimony? Could it be digging into earthy matters then putting the weight of worldly interests above the things of God? The scriptures tell us if we bury our testimony, the knowledge that we once had will be taken from us.

My ex-husband was crushed when Elder Paul Dunn’s war stories were found to be a fraud. It didn’t affect me in the least because I knew that the church was true before Paul was born and that it would remain true after he was gone. When people try to hush such matters it really bothers me. God said that His church would have wolves in sheep’s clothing. If there were no wolves, there would be no true church.

Perhaps Richard was a wolf, perhaps he just buried his testimony. Either way, the church was true before him and will remain true after he is gone.

Chet: I know exactly how you feel. It really does feel like a huge betrayal. (Perhaps because it is. :)) And that line from Elder Kinnegar does give me chills in retrospect. At the same time, though, we can’t let Dutcher’s loss of faith chew away at ours. Yes, it’s sad. Yes, it hurts. But the gospel’s still true, and you can tell the difference because the gospel feels good, not icky the way you feel when somebody falls away.

Janet: Agreed.

Now I feel like I was lied to, or worse yet, that someone whose fingerprints are on my own testimony, and who had a very strong one himself, has lost it. That terrifies me. Could that happen to me? I’d rather die. There is no worse fate I can imagine than to lose my testimony. None whatsoever. I need that testimony if I am to make to the Celestial Kingdom, or else I realize that I will spend the rest of eternity wishing I had tried harder to obey and honor Father, and that I could have had an eternity of wanting for nothing, but instead I would be doomed to know there were blessings I could not have, could not qualify for with a second test because there would be no more, and that I would spend the rest of eternity in regret. Not to mention that if I don’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom I can’t keep my family. I personally don’t want to spend the rest of eternity as a Ken doll with no children and no wife. If you’re reading between the lines and think I’m being crude, I apologize. But I’m also being honest. I don’t want to give that up, or any of the other countless blessings that await those who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.

Whether the church is “true” or not, this extreme fear and psychological drama Chet experiences is damaging to his soul. That much is true. A “Ken doll”? I can read between the lines and anyone cowering in fear of reason and intelligence due to threats of a TK smoothie needs to relax.

LOL. I totally missed Chet’s reference to the TK smoothie. Thanks for pointing that out.

:)

I ran into Dutcher in the temple about 3 years ago. Wanted to say something; gave him his privacy. I find it sad that guys like Dutcher and Neil LaBute can’t find a way to stay in the church and still work their art. Guys like Jared Hess have figured out how to be happy doing both. Then there’s the crowd that made junk like Mobsters & Mormons and Baptists at the Barbecue that pretty killed the Mormon-themed genre by their mediocrity.