As I’d written in Part 1 of 2:
As a campaign contribution to both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, I wish to resurrect an old ghost from their past. Both men are Mormons who clearly want to become our next president. The old ghost is a movie that came out in 2007 – September Dawn – which is about an even older ghost.
Disclaimer: The following text has links which might no longer be active. However, I think you’ll get the general idea anyway.
Part 2 of 2:
Posted on Sept. 10, 2007
September Dawn Re-visited
My Motives
Why am I posting yet a second piece in defense, of all things, a movie? Aren't there bigger fish to fry? After all, if I'm in the midst of running for the office of US president, might there be other themes I could more profitably explore? I answer "yes" to both questions. However, you must admit, every once in a while something can grab a person's attention in inexplicable ways. The generally unfair treatment of this movie by the critics moved me in a way surprising even to myself.
I hate to see anyone maligned. So I suppose the critics jumped all over this flick for much the same reason. They obviously thought the Mormons were being beaten up. As you'll see, I disagree. Maybe because my mother was an actress, I sympathize with that profession. So my basic motive was to defend the actors' work and the film itself. I tend to support the underdog, so an indie film trying to make it in the face of overwhelming hostility also moved me.
Synopsis of September Dawn
By Robert W. Butler of the Kansas City Star:
QUOTE:
The facts aren't in dispute. In 1857 a wagon train of California-bound immigrants stopped in southern Utah to rest and resupply. The Mormons who had settled there a decade earlier were in a tizzy, expecting an invasion by U.S. troops who would replace their theocracy with federal law. Plus, they were still paranoid about the murder years earlier of their prophet, Joseph Smith, and the persecution that drove them from Illinois and Missouri.
Leaders of the Mormon militia persuaded local Indians to lay siege to the camp in Mountain Meadow; after several days the Mormons rode up under a white flag, telling the battle-weary immigrants to lay down their arms. Then the Mormons murdered approximately 130 men, women and children, sparing only those too young to testify against them.
:UNQUOTE.
Let's Play a Little Game
I invite you to try a little experiment: After you see September Dawn, go on the internet to read some of the reviews posted by movie critics. You'll wonder how these people sleep at night or what drugs they're on.
When I read the material by nineteen different sources (listed at end of this blog), I ended up respecting only one of them: Ben Arnoldy, staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor. And Ben's piece isn't a review of the movie itself, but is instead a sober commentary entitled, "In response to the new movie, the church sheds light on the 1857 Mountain Meadows massacre." [I wonder: If it weren't for this movie, perhaps the church wouldn't be as motivated to shed light.]
Brief Excerpts
If you read this before seeing September Dawn, see if the following characterizations are at all accurate (these critics' full reviews are linked at the end of this blog):
Butler: stridently anti-Mormon / cliché-heavy melodrama / blatant propaganda / tepid / silly melodrama.
Chang: precocious little polygamist / didactic presentation / massacre porn / demonizing.
Covert: unsparing depiction of the bloodbath / rife with scandalized references to polygamy / venomous religious tract printed on celluloid.
Ebert: goofy beard.
Hanke: wild-eyed anti-Mormon propaganda / Snidely Whiplash mustache twirling.
Hoberman: ham-fisted lyricism of political ads and pharmaceutical commercials / hackneyed dialogue.
Hyden: [Mormons as] backwoods yahoos / campy flashback.
Kaltenbach: melodrama of the most lurid kind / emotional screed.
Mathews: worst historical drama ever made / disturbingly awful / trivializes / downright insulting.
Nilsen: Mormons are fair game / grotesquely over-the-top ham actor / mono-dimensional characters / dialogue that fairly reeks of printer's ink.
Olsen: trying hard to twist those events / steamroll over much of the nuance / needlessly interject a love story / bang the "Mormon's are freaky" drum.
Rocchi: it's not well made / stiff, flat language / wrapped in so much blood and grisly violence / shoddily made / evil goatee / ominous set of whiskers / [camera shots] from crazy angles.
Rowin: downright laughable / sloppy, platitudinous filmmaking / nearly delusional / kitsch / fatuous / shallow.
Schager: year's first honest-to-goodness exploitation flick / cartoonish demonization / hokey Romeo and Juliet romance / arch-villain goatee.
Seitz: maudlin / grotesque western.
Seymour: bombastic / lead-weight dialogue / point is hammered so loudly / heavy-handed excessiveness / overbearing
Smith: September Dawn succeeds completely at failure / more Sept. 11 porn / you'll sleep through it.
Topel: Voight hams it up / [Dean Cain] doesn't give it much oomph / the result ends up looking ridiculous / camera moves are jerky.
Point/Counterpoint
The Points below are quotes from the movie reviews linked at the end of this essay; the Counterpoints are my responses.
POINT (Butler):
The Mountain Meadow Massacre was one of the Old West's most disturbing incidents and should be rich material for a gripping film.
COUNTERPOINT:
True enough. So why, in well over 50 years of filmmaking, hasn't a single movie been made on this tragedy other than a documentary made in 2003 by Brian Patrick: Burying the Past?
POINT (Chang):
Limited commercial prospects will depend on the film's ability to exploit Mormon outrage - the louder, the better - with its angry and contentious view of a still-disputed tragedy.
COUNTERPOINT:
"Limited commercial prospects?" I don't think they're so limited. By word of mouth and by internet, people will hear about this film. They will hear from others who have seen it and who will make no bones about how wrong the critics are.
POINT (Chang & Covert):
Chang: ...carefully emphasizing that the Utah slayings took place on Sept. 11, 1857.
Covert: ...the fact that the massacre took place on Sept. 11 is driven home forcefully.
COUNTERPOINT:
"emphasizing?" "driven home forcefully?" There was exactly one reference: Just before the massacre, the screen goes black and shows this in white lettering: "Sept. 11, 1857."
POINT (Chang):
Voight's persuasively complex performance.
COUNTERPOINT:
Most of the critics panned Voight's performance, but I thought he did a great job...so I agree with "persuasively complex performance."
POINT (Covert):
...graphic, unsparing depiction of the bloodbath.
COUNTERPOINT:
It was decidedly not graphic at all. What on earth is Covert talking about?
POINT (Covert):
The film is rife with scandalized references to polygamy.
COUNTERPOINT:
"rife?" The references were few in number, didn't beat us over the head, and couldn't possibly be characterized as scandalized.
POINT (Covert):
The only decent Mormon is his older brother Jonathan...
COUNTERPOINT:
Not really...John D. Lee (played in Best Supporting Actor fashion by John Gries) was shown as torn by what he was ordered to do. And Micah had such regret, he asked his brother to kill him. Sounds pretty decent to me.
POINT (Ebert):
In my opinion, when anybody believes their religion gives them the right to kill other people, they are fanatics.
COUNTERPOINT:
I think Roger Ebert blew it here: Instead of "kill," I think the word he wanted was "murder." There is a difference. By the way, I think you'll find it illuminating to read Ebert's entire review, in which he manages to spend ten paragraphs saying little about the movie itself. I wish, though, I could figure out why Ebert bothers to characterize Voigt's beard as "goofy." I found that to be very strange.
POINT (Hanke):
I must give [Terence] Stamp his due, though. He at least plays his impossibly written role with low-key - almost sepulchral-toned - dementia.
COUNTERPOINT:
Several critics thought Terence Stamp played Brigham Young as he had played General Zod in Superman II. I thought Stamp was at least competent, though his screen time was limited. "Impossibly written role?" Let's see: The lines were few, but I don't see how they were "impossibly written." His speech was mostly in answer to an interrogation, showed him preaching (using Brigham Young's real-life impossibly spoken lines?), and in a brief meeting with church leaders.
POINT (Hanke):
The film's other attempts to demonize Mormonism (really, what else can you call this?) are equally as unsubtle (in the manner most closely associated with Dr. Goebbels)...
COUNTERPOINT:
I consider this a cheap attempt to characterize the filmmakers as Nazi-type propagandists (really, what else can you call this?). If Hanke thinks movies which quote Mormon leaders' actual words are "demonizing," I would counter that they are "educating." I hope people are inspired enough by this movie to learn a bit more about the Mormon faith, to the point of being able to ask Mitt Romney: "What are your personal feelings on the separation of church and state, and the doctrine of blood atonement?"
Those are better questions than asking Mitt what he thinks of this movie or if there was ever a "Barbie" in his life.
POINT (Hanke):
The massacre itself can best be described as half-baked Peckinpah (like the ending of The Wild Bunch minus 60 gallons of blood). The scene reaches a high point of absurdity when a major character dies of a gunshot that magically doesn't leave a bullet hole in her dress.
COUNTERPOINT:
There's no comparison at all to the ending of The Wild Bunch (which I've seen six times). Hanke's way off base, as is his comment about no "bullet hole in her dress." It's really quite simple: The bullet entered her body off camera (and therefore out of our view) and ricocheted within. The bullet didn't have to leave her body (at the point where we could see the blood stain her dress), but could have caused enough trauma without leaving her body to cause the bleeding we saw.
POINT (Hyden):
...Ford falls for the fetching Tamara Hope and a bucking bronco only he is able to ride, though not necessarily in that order of importance.
COUNTERPOINT:
"not necessarily in that order of importance?" To whom or what? To Ford or to the story the film is trying to tell? What an odd way to end that sentence. Or maybe it's just another example of a critic being cute.
POINT (Hyden):
[This movie has a] complete lack of empathy for early Mormons...
COUNTERPOINT:
Not so. References were made to the persecutions suffered by the Mormons and to their fear of US Army intervention.
POINT (Kaltenbach):
Hope, ethereally blond and always dressed in virginal white...
COUNTERPOINT:
Not always in white. Maybe Kaltenbach fell asleep during parts of this movie.
POINT (Kaltenbach):
The film finds great irony, or symbolism, or divine providence, in the fact that the massacre happened on Sept. 11.
COUNTERPOINT:
Like I said earlier, exactly one reference was made to 9/11.
POINT (Mathews):
...in placing a glib romantic fable at its center, it trivializes one of America's ugliest and least understood events.
COUNTERPOINT:
It doesn't "trivialize" it; it "personalizes" it.
POINT (Mathews):
The love story, though, is downright insulting. We're to believe that a look can expunge a lifetime of radical religious thought from Jonathan....I wasn't raised by religious fanatics, but I'm guessing that the beliefs they press on their children are strong enough to sustain them through their first kiss.
COUNTERPOINT:
The movie makes clear that Jonathan was different and says why. He was moved against Mormon realities because of how his mother died: Killed (while his father looked on) by order of a Mormon apostle who had taken her away from his father to become one of his wives. We might also wonder how beliefs are "pressed" on children in a polygamous family. Jonathan's dad had 18 wives and myriad responsibilities as a church official, mayor, and general of the militia. Maybe it was easy to overlook one "odd" child in the midst of such a busy household.
POINT (Nilsen):
But [the film's makers] couldn't make any clearer that the film is really about Islamist terrorism.
COUNTERPOINT:
That's odd, in light of another sentence written a few paragraphs later: "...the filmmakers...simply use the [Mormon] church as a stand-in for their real enemy - self-righteous certainty as justification for pogrom. So, which is it: The first sentence or the second? I lean toward the second, while finding the first nonsensical.
POINT (Nilsen):
But the film makes no mention of any LDS [Mormon] religious tenets...
COUNTERPOINT:
Oh? Looks like this critic also snoozed through parts of the film. Blood atonement as a doctrine (referred to several times) is central to what leads to the massacre. Also, obedience to church authority is stressed. And that bit about a vigilante group (the Danites) was interesting in how it chose to enforce morality.
POINT (Nilsen):
Worse, more time is eaten up with a sub-subplot in which the young hero is shown to be a horse whisperer.
COUNTERPOINT:
"sub-subplot?" Give me a break - it was more like an episode which served to introduce the theme of love at first sight, conversationally, between the young lovers. I thought the part where Jonathan turns his back on a horse he's trying to tame was telling. Jonathan was sent by his suspicious father to spy on the wagon train. The paranoia underscoring the need to spy was countered nicely by the confident courage to turn his back (as a sign of good faith) on a potential foe.
A similar theme was struck in Seraphim Falls in which a hunted man gives his gun to his enemy saying in so many words, "If you think I've done you wrong, then kill me."
POINT (Nilsen):
Historically, [Brigham] Young's role in the massacre, if any, has never been determined and probably never will be. But in the film, he is complicit.
COUNTERPOINT:
The film can't prove that Young ordered the massacre, but it does adopt the plausible position that he did so. I see that position as a counterbalance to the decades in which the Mormon Church sought to cover up this episode. In movieland, as well as in the world of faith, there are such things as Devil's Advocates.
POINT (Olsen versus Rowin):
Olsen: ...in particular, Terence Stamp's performance as Brigham Young [has] a strange, unnerving conviction about [it], and give[s] the film an oddly engaging pull.
Rowin: Everyone involved goes overboard, including an embarrassed Terence Stamp as Young...
COUNTERPOINT:
I guess these two critics disagree about Stamp's performance.
POINT (Schager):
..Bishop Jacob Samuelson (Jon Voight) rails on about how the visitors are abominations (one of the women wears a gun!)...
COUNTERPOINT:
Yet another snoozing critic! The problem the Bishop had: one of the women was wearing "male attire" - pants instead of a dress. And this was stated outright by the Bishop.
POINT (Schager):
Also, it's virtually impossible to take seriously a film whose main contentions can be wholly gleaned from its characters' facial hair - of which Voight's bushy arch-villain goatee is surely the cheesiest.
COUNTERPOINT:
"wholly gleaned from its characters' facial hair?" This guy must have seen another movie - wonder what it was. If not, then I'd have to characterize his review as cheesy.
POINT (Seymour):
On the morning of Sept. 11, 1857, about 120 unarmed men, women and children who had stopped in Utah on their way from Arkansas to California were brutally murdered by a raiding party whose ties to the Mormon Church remain in dispute to the present day.
COUNTERPOINT:
Try again, Seymour. What is in dispute is the extent, if any, that Mormon Church leadership was responsible for the massacre. It's well known that the raiding party consisted of Mormons who, by virtue of being Mormons, had "ties" to the Mormon Church.
POINT (Seymour):
It's plausible that "September Dawn" is overbearing enough to re-open spirited, honest debate about these events. But it's more likely such debate will be delayed while the audience clears the pounding and the soap scum from its ears.
COUNTERPOINT:
What does Seymour mean "re-open?" I'm sure the general American public has not even heard of this historic event and, therefore, had no chance for an initial debate. That sentence ending with "soap scum from its ears" is another example of being cute. Since it's possible that a Mormon might become president and that this homegrown American religion might snowball into a dominant position, I think the time for cute critics has passed.
Lapdog Media
I don't have much respect for the modern American journalistic institution, which is ever respectful of its corporate masters. Don't be too sure that lapdog tendencies are solely the province of syndicated columnists; perhaps the disease has spread to movie critics (of all people...but why not? The public is heavily influenced by such innocuous sources). Thank heaven for the internet; for instance, the critical reviews of September Dawn posted by We-the-People at http://movies.yahoo.com/. I found this one to be of special interest (by jim_ashurst on Aug. 24, 2007):
QUOTE:
I've been to Mountain Meadows. I've read 3 books on the subject. My own Mormon ancestors were involved with the wagon train, but not the massacre. If you think this story was concocted only to embarrass the Mormons, look up Mountain Meadows Massacre on the net, or read "Blood of the Prophets" by Will Bagley.
This may not be the greatest movie ever made in terms of the cinematic arts, but it is not an unwarranted attack on the Mormons. What I wish people would take from this movie is to question how far they can be misled. Those old Mormons were good people, but they were isolated and led by fanatics. Those were mostly good men who were led into committing an awful deed. Had you been one of them, would you have stood up against it? That's the question this movie ought to lead you to.
:UNQUOTE.
Thanks, Jim. You have served us better than these professional critics.
LINKS:
Arnoldy, Ben: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p02s01-ussc.html
Butler, Robert W: http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/v-print/story/244084.html
Chang, Justin: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_review&reviewid=VE1117934474&categoryid=31
Covert, Colin:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/movies/reviews/4719566.html
Ebert, Roger: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070823/REVIEWS/70823001/1023&templ
Hanke, Ken: http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/september_dawn
Hoberman, J: http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/show_print.php?id=77557&page=&issue=0734&printcd+MzU2
Hyden, Steven: http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/september_dawn
Kaltenbach, Chris: http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/bal-to.september24aug24,0,1683668.story
Mathews, Jack: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2007/08/24/2007-08-24_westward_woe_in_1857_utah.html
Nilsen, Richard: http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articles/0622dawn0622.html
Olsen, Mark: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-0824_dawnaug24,1,1230502.story
Rocchi, James: http://www.cinematical.com/2007/08/24/review-september-dawn/
Rowin, Michael: http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2007/08/review_brigham.html
Schager, Nick: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=2925
Seitz, Matt: http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/movies/24dawn.html?ref=movies&pagewanted=print
Seymour, Gene: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etmov25342528aug24,0,3099997,print.story
Smith, Kyle: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242007/entertainment/movies/pulpit_massacre_has_whiff_of_p.htm
Topel, Fred: http://www.hollywood.com/review/September_Dawn/4751095
PRESENTED FOR YOUR PLEASURE AND CONVENIENCE BY:
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party
“I wouldn’t mind a Mormon in the White House, but I'd prefer a Mor-Woman – yeah, like that will ever happen.”
Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment