Off the edge

It doesn’t surprise me: Richard Dutcher is “no longer a practicing member of the church.” In a Daily Herald article, Dutcher gives his “parting words” on Mormon movies:

I cannot tell you how much I have cared, and still care, about this movement. My love for the future of Mormon cinema has driven me to a passion that has expressed itself not only in my films, but (as you know) in bouts of public anger at filmmakers who, I believed, were killing a beautiful, unprecedented opportunity and a limitless potential. Miraculously, that opportunity and that potential still exist. It’s just a little harder to see right now.

If this sounds like a farewell address … well, it is.

Way to be dramatic, Richard. Go on, be bitter about people not liking your movies. Go make your R-rated movies. You had potential (notice the use of the past tense), but regretfully you seem to have lost your vision along the way.

I agree that the Halestorm comedies are indeed “moronic,” and I too wish that Mormon filmmakes would “reach higher.” I also agree that films should showcase “the beauty and power of Mormonism,” leaving viewers “weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring.”

But where Dutcher goes wrong, I think, is in claiming that filmmakers ought to “passionately adhere to the guideline that it is better to tell an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie.” There is some truth to that — namely, we need to be striking deep, resonating chords in our films, not superficial, trite commercial jingles. But Dutcher seems to be more interested in the R-rated part, in being so edgy that his films will have to be rated R. It looks like he’s setting up a false dichotomy between good films and clean ones, as if they’re mutually exclusive. And that bothers the heck out of me. It’s like Dutcher is throwing a pity party, trying to justify his choice to make edgier films, almost as if he feels guilty about it. That mentality seems to be part of whatever it is that led him out of the Church and into the road — nay, gutter — that leads to apostasy. Sad.

Now, a few of you are undoubtedly itching at the bit to proclaim that judging is a sin, and that I’m too harsh, and so on. Hold on a moment. I do feel bad for Dutcher as a man, and of course I wish that he wouldn’t leave the Church. But since he’s taken it upon himself to become a public figure, speaking as if he’s representing a large chunk of the Mormon populace, I cannot remain silent. This chasm he’s trying to create — between clean films and great films — is false, of course, but it’s also dangerously persuasive, especially considering the current state of Mormon cinema. Just because we haven’t gotten there yet doesn’t mean that we have to sell out to Babylon.

Other posts I’ve written about Dutcher: States of Mormon cinema, God’s Army, Dancing on the edge, and At the edge. After seeing the preponderance of edge-related titles, I couldn’t help but continue the trend. :)

And now back to the school grindstone… (Only a few more days!)

Ben,

It still seems to me you need to be careful about passing judgment.

That said, I also think you’re misrepresenting (or maybe misunderstanding?) some of the points he was making. I don’t see the dichotomy that you do. The dichotomy you have described is a false one, but reading Dutcher’s article, I don’t see it. Are you getting this from the comments on family films? Are you interpreting that to mean “family-friendly films”?

I think he’s more likely referring to that species of derivative films which, while often lacking anything seriously offensive, are not art–or at least, don’t bring anything new to the table. (I think we have a number of common sub-genres in this category, e.g. the inspirational underdog sports film (The Mighty Ducks et al–there are at least 2 or 3 of these each year, it seems), or romantic comedies (While You Were Sleeping)). I believe Dutcher’s point is that we don’t need any Mormons making more of these “family films,” generic and wholesome enough to appeal to wide audiences, but not advancing the art of “Mormon Cinema” at all. On this point I agree with him. We already have Feature Films for Families–which is about as generically wholesome as it’s possible to get. You won’t go to hell for watching these sorts of movies, but you probably won’t be edified either. And these films certainly won’t leave viewers “weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring.”

So it’s not that a film must be unclean to be artistic or significant–but that the films should dare to take on the topic of human spirituality, specifically to show “the beauty and power of Mormonism.”

That Dutcher is dissociating himself with the LDS film movement seems more like the result of his personal decision to stop practicing–which I think he must realize the (sad, I think) fact that Mormons will shun his work if they know he’s a non-practicing Mormon making films about faith and spirituality. They will reckon he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and perhaps even actively boycott his work. So he’s parting ways with this “genre” to go his own artistic route. I strongly agree with his statement that “Mormon film should not be supported. It must not and cannot exist on the charity of the audience. And certainly not on the charity of investors.”

I also agree with his comments about the Church’s films. While there is the undeniable element of truth which often gives the viewer a witness of the spirit, there are so many clumsy features of these movies that I find them painful to watch in places. I agree with Dutcher that the films produced thus far have been remedial–in some ways. Mostly writing. Here’s my proclamation: when the Church finally produces a film in which Joseph Smith is allowed to lose a game of stick pull, then we’ll be getting somewhere. My hope is that in the future we’re willing to be more honest with ourselves about our history, and that we understand better the line between reverence for vs. deification of our very flawed, very mortal forebears. Our history isn’t all peaches and cream. Our lives aren’t all roses. Human nature is divided. Life is a constant struggle. I’d like to see this explored by and reflected in so-called Mormon Cinema. That’s why I enjoyed States of Grace, which I finally saw a month or so back–it genuinely surprised me with where it went, and I thought the emotional and spiritual trip through the good and the bad was well portrayed. It wasn’t one of my favorite movies, but it’s just miles and miles ahead of most of the rest of the pack.

I’ll be interested to see what the content of his future projects is like. I’m not going to write Dutcher off entirely–either as a filmmaker or as a person–just yet.

I completely agree with you about the blandly unoffensive films, and I’d love to see the Church films become less and less corny. Where I’m getting the dichotomy is in Dutcher’s apparent determination to make a film that is rated R. I feel as if it’s his way of getting back at the Mormon community. Of course, I hope I’m wrong and that I’m just reading into it something that isn’t there.