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.