SunstonePodcast #004: Richard Dutcher - God’s Army 2 - States of Grace
Today we interview Richard Dutcher, often dubbed “the grandfather of Mormon cinema”, about his latest movie: “God’s Army 2: States of Grace“. To catch the trailer, click here.
Throw away all your preconceived notions about “Mollywood” (as it’s now being called). “States of Grace” is unlike any “Mormon movie” yet to be released. As described on the movie’s web site, “States of Grace follows the experiences of two missionaries, Elder Lozano and Elder Farrell, who find themselves caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting. Their lives intersect with a wounded gang member, a street preacher, and an actress in present-day Santa Monica, California.”
Click here to listen to the podcast.
Aside from nailing all of the fundamentals (phenomenal screenplay, exceptional acting, great directing and cinematography, very creative soundtrack, etc.), this movie strikes hard at some of the core issues of humanity, including forgiveness and redemption–in a very candid and powerful way…pulling no punches.
Please support this movie if you can, and pass the word on to friends and family. This next week and a half will be crucial to its chance to be shown more broadly, outside of Utah and Idaho. If we do not support movies like this, we lessen the chance that other, even more important movies about Mormon history and culture will be considered commercially viable.
And most importantly…this is just an excellent, inredible piece of cenematic art. Mormon, or otherwise.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:53 am
[...] My podcast interview w/ Dutcher yesterday, over on SunstoneBlog.com [...]
November 11th, 2005 at 10:17 am
So I listened to — and enjoyed — the interview. Unfortunately, I’m unable to actually watch the film. I just don’t live in the right part of the country. But I’ll see it when I get the chance.
But, John, enthusiastic much? I’m sure Dutcher’s film is good, but hearing it (or any film that the person in question has only seen once) compared with Citizen Kane makes me suspicious!!!
(Listen to this song by The Shins: it will change your life!)
Thanks for yet another great podcast.
November 14th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
I have not yet seen States of Grace, but I did listen to this podcast and found it very interesting. What struck me, though, is the pessimistic attitute Richard Dutcher (should I say Richard? Brother Dutcher?) has about the future of Mormon film. I hear the one side that these films aren’t making enough money to justify their existence, and I can accept that, though it’s sad.
But I also hear that the Mormon audience doesn’t like the edgier kind of films like Gods Army or States of Grace that don’t fit into the typical “feel good” mode that Mormons supposedly want. I’ve thought about this for some time; this idea of Mormon art. I remember reading “The Chosen” while in freshman English at BYU, and we had a brief discussion in class about whether there could be literature or films like that using Mormonism as the medium. I think we concluded that it probably wasn’t going to happen anytime soon. It seems like most Mormons generally are afraid of looking at things that may make them look at the Mormon ideal differently.
Some people say we’re waiting for the Mormon “Fiddler on the Roof.” That story supposedly gives us a sympathetic look at Jewish life. But look at that story for a moment. The father is a character we all like, but his family is being torn apart from inside as well as outside. His oldest daughter wants to marry the revolutionary who doesn’t hold the religion as the most important thing, like Tevye does. Then the next daughter actually marries outside the faith altogether, and is practically disowned by her father. Meanwhile the little town is broken up by outside forces, and it seems like the idyllic life is over. Do Mormons want to see that kind of tragic story with their own faith? I think the answer is no. We love stories about how we were unfairly persecuted, but we squirm when we think of someone questioning his faith. Or we judge that he just didn’t have enough of a testimony, or somehow blame him without trying to see anything positive in that person.
I guess what strike me about this interview with Richard Dutcher is that here is a filmmaker who *is* trying to make that kind of film that tells a story using less than idyllic elements of the Mormon experience, and could go on to do more like this, but is saying that it may not happen. While I can see where the majority of the Mormon audience wouldn’t want to be made uncomfortable that way, I want to believe that such movies could exists, and that we could allow for such things to exist.
But of course, it is a business, and as much as we would like to see works of art, someone has to pay for it. Here in San Diego we get Mormon movies for brief runs at a couple of local theatres, and I try to do my part and go see them. But when I talk with friends around the ward, not many seem that interested in doing the same. At best they say they’ll wait for the DVD.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
I enjoyed listening to the podcast and getting a sense of the state of “Mormon” cinema. The interview with Richard Dutcher and the ‘trailer’ got me interested; however, I don’t foresee States of Grace being shown in my far off location. So the most support I could provide would be to purchase a DVD if ? / when it is released.
John, I think using the podcast as a means to generate interest in the film provides a more timely manner to ‘get the word’ out. I recall seeing write-ups on other LDS-themed movies in the back pages of prior issues of Sunstone … of course in more cases than not by the time the reader learns of the movie in that manner … the film has left the local theatre.
December 2nd, 2005 at 5:59 pm
I saw God’s Army 1 but I haven’t seen the second one yet! I’m not surprised that more than a few Mormons don’t like the edgier Mormon Movies.
People go to church to find peace and purpose in a troubled world. They don’t want someone asking troubling questions.
I agree with Richard about not being optimistic about the future of Mormon films.
Mormon films are being targeted at an audience that is often easily offended so anything interesting in the movie is very likely going to offend someone. And the Mormon audience isn’t big enough to risk losing viewers for anything that is edgy.
We end up with a lot of bland viewing!
I’ve enjoyed Richards’ movies in the past but then my family is to say the least edgy. Our favorite TV program is “The Shield”.
Gordon
December 7th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
So…in relation to Richard Dutcher’s comments on the podcast…there was one statement he made about HaleStorm that was not accurate. He mentioned what he called “a PR Con-Job” that HaleStorm is pulling in regards to the returns on HaleStorm films. He said that none of our films are doing well and that we are pulling a total PR con-job to make people think they are doing well financially….Unfortunately Mr. Dutcher is extremely mis-informed.
A) He doesn’t know what our DVD sales are…
B) He doesn’t know what our foreign sales are…
C) Mr. Dutcher doesn’t know what splits we negotiate with theaters…
D) We don’t ever share that information with outside sources…
The fact is, HaleStorm has consistently produced and released films for 5 years now; we have 5 films (only two of which are LDS themed — Singles Ward 2 and Church Ball) slated for release next year. We are planning on about 4 more productions next year (only one of which is LDS-themed); and we have a 42,000 sq.ft. studio being built in Provo right now. To suggest that we are pulling a con-job and that the movies are not doing well respectively is a bit far-fetched.
I appreciate what Mr. Dutcher thinks he has done for LDS Cinema and I recognize his talent, but the fact that HaleStorm has both a full production and full distribution slate for the next year is quite telling about what is actually happening behind the scenes.
**Funny side note, I received a call yesterday from someone acquainted with Main Street Movies asking me for HaleStorm’s contacts at Wal-Mart, Hollywood and Blockbuster–thinking that we would actually share information like that…sorry Richard, if you’re going to be a competitor, get your own contacts.**
December 8th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
I finally saw God’s Army two! There were a couple of magical moments in the movie, the dinner with the street person was great. Much of the content was gang related and this type of material is done to death in the media.
I agree with Richard Dutcher when he says he is pessimistic about the future of Mormon films.
Mormons for the most part are easily offended by violence and sex even though they are underplayed in the movie.
TV shows like the Shield are so gritty and hard hitting that it makes it impossible for Mormon movies to compete in the areas of sex and violence.
Most Mormons just won’t put up with it and the Mormons who don’t mind would rather just watch the Shield and hundreds of other TV shows and Movies that do it better and don’t have to be concerned with Mormon sensitivities.
I’d rate God’s Army 11, one and one-half stars of a possible four. I rated the original God’s Army, three stars.
Richard is trying to be more open to diversity but deep down there is no doubt that the intent of the film is bring more members into God’s church.
The church should pay Richard for his troubles, he’s carrying a lot of water for them.
Gordon Hill
December 9th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Jed,
In your defense of Halestorm, you somehow neglected to actually state whether Halestorm’s most recent films did, in fact, generate a profit for their investors.
The understanding in the investment community is that of the feature films Halestorm has produced, only “The Singles Ward” was profitable for its investors, and that those investors recouped their investment (but not much more). If that is erroneous information, then you are right to challenge it. Did the investors for “The R.M.” and “The Home Teachers” receive a profitable return? The last time I spoke with one of them, they hadn’t.
It’s true that many people generate revenue from a film (the theaters, the retailers, the media advertisers, the distribution companies) and that often everyone does pretty well with a film except those that actually paid to produce it. My comments refer to those investors and my continuing concern is that if LDS films continue to lose money, that investor pool will soon dry up completely.
Also, your parting insult confuses me. We already have our product in WalMart and I’ve had relationships with the other retailers for quite some time. In fact, it was the inroads made by “God’s Army” and “Brigham City” that paved the way for the glut of mediocre product that is now killing LDS cinema.
I’ve asked in my office, and none of my staff called you and asked for your contacts. Regardless, if one of my staff ever does call for helpful information, I hope you will be more cooperative. When your bosses, Dave Hunter and Kurt Hale, considered stepping into LDS cinema, I spent many hours sharing my experiences and information.
Unfortunately, I’ve gotten only grief in return.
Richard Dutcher
December 9th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I’m very surprised by Gordon’s low rating for States of Grace especially given his rating of Gods Army I, but I find his comment that the film’s intent is to bring more people into the church even stranger. I don’t really see a proselyting agenda in this film at all. What make you think that Gordon? It seemed more of a general Christian message about accepting grace than that Mormons have the answers so you should join.
Richard, now that I know you’re watching this blog, would you say you have it in mind (even “deep down” as Gordon says) that you are doing missionary work in your films? One of the things I find fresh in what you do is that I DON’T think you are. I’m sick of everything in Mormonism seeming to be about whether something will cause someone NOT to think well of the Church, and that is why I like your movie and found it so different. It wasn’t AGAINST the church and it wasn’t FOR the church. Mormon missionaries were human like the rest of us and we all have things that we can learn from all sorts of people.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Marcus,
No, it is not part of my agenda to make any more Mormons in the world. Or any less, for that matter.
Richard Dutcher
December 14th, 2005 at 11:57 am
I respect the fact that Mr. Dutcher is making movies that “he wants” to see. I really appreciate that more then words can say. Too many people are making movies for money.
I have heard Richard Dutcher speak to young filmmakers on two different occasions (years ago, during the God’s Army 1 period) and he said that as young LDS filmmakers we should be making Mormon movies, not just films that happen to have Mormon characters in them. It seems now that he is doing exactly what he said we SHOULDN’T be doing.
Maybe I misunderstood him, maybe he was saying that it is our duty to make “spiritual films” no matter what, which is what it sounds like his opinion is now. It is fine if his opinion has changed, mine changes everyday, but I was just wondering because I have never wanted to make “Mormon Movies” and I always felt like I was being told that I would be making a huge mistake by not getting into that game. I also understand that times have changed and the “Mormon Movie” is not as financially viable anymore.
just wondering.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I am not in any way affiliated with “States of Grace” or Richard Dutcher. I do like to use quotation marks and you will see that in this post.
I get frustrated with people who use words like “edgy” and “controversial” to describe this film. Have you seen the movie? If not, please stop perpetuating the use of these labels that carry negative stereotypes. Persons and companies who intentionally do things to be edgy and controversial are at best unoriginal and at worst pathetic panderers.
I could be wrong, but I do not think that Mr. Dutcher intended to be edgy or cause controversy when he made this film. He is certainly not unoriginal. Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews and the white haired lady who lives down the street whose religious affiliation is as yet unknown should all be wary of things that are intentionally edgy and controversial because those things usually turn out to be stupid—for lack of a better word—and we usually come away stupider after having witnessed them. This movie is not stupid.
I don’t want to sound too dramatic, but this movie has the potential to be a life changer/saver. Anyone who has any interest in a man who lived about 2000 years ago that went by the name of Jesus Christ would have much to gain by seeing this movie. “States of Grace” is one of the ten best movies I have ever seen. As I’m sure you all agree, once you get it down to ten, it’s tough to single movies out because of different genres, periods of life when you saw them, reasons they affected you, etc. It is easily the best “Christmas” (be careful not to infer too much from this “label”) movie that I have ever seen.
It is a bummer that the movie hasn’t been as successful financially as it deserves to be. If you haven’t seen the movie and you think you know why it hasn’t worked at the box office, I promise you that you don’t know why it hasn’t worked. And I bet that you still think you know and that I don’t know what you know and that you really do know, but just take my word for it that you don’t know.
The problem now is that you have read my post and the posts of others and you probably already do “know” a great deal about this movie. This is the kind of “know” where someone reads an anti-mormon website, gets a few of the major plot points out of context and then think they “know” about the Mormons. You think you know where the movie is going to go. And that, my friend, has the potential to ruin it for you.
This is a movie that takes some risks. You will either buy into it or you won’t. If you do, as I did, you will find it to be faith affirming and you will leave the theater a better person. If you go into the theater looking for controversy and edginess, then you will probably find what you are looking for—and walk out of the theater stupider than you were before.
Mr. Dutcher, I hope you read this post. I am leaving it here because it looks like you have stopped by. From this podcast, it sounds like you are getting frustrated with things that are out of your control. I hope that you don’t become jaded. You have made a difference. If you continue to make life changing, faith affirming, risk taking movies like “States of Grace”, the rest will fall into place. Michelangelo was a hell of a painter. And Richard Dutcher can make a damn movie.
And if you just internally labeled me one of “those” Mormons because I used the “h” and “d” words in the last two sentences, you REALLY need to go see this movie.
For those of you who haven’t seen the movie but want to but can’t because you don’t live in the “belt” and are too cheap to buy a plane ticket to go see it, just know that, “The Devil is not your friend!”
Nathan Cartwright
December 17th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Nathan, you hit the nail on the head. A movie maker can have only one primary goal either s/he wants to make money or s/he wants to use the movie to sell a product, in Richard’s case the product is Mormonism. As the bible says you can’t serve two masters.
Richard’s primary goal is to use his movies to sell Mormonism and so by default making money becomes a secondary goal.
Richard was a success, he did an excellent job of selling the Mormon church but by making “commercial success” a secondary consideration he failed to acheive financial success. You can’t serve two masters.
In order for Richard’s movies to be a commercial success then making money has got to be the primary goal and selling the church will have to be secondary.
As I said earlier Richard should be getting money from the Mormon church because he is very successful at promoting the church. But until that happens, he is going to have limited success at making money.
Richard made his bed and now he’s got to lay in it. He want’s to be a hero for the Mormon church and there is nothing wrong with that but the church won’t give him a nickel for his services. Until Richard forgets about selling the church and gives priority to making money he is going to have problems.
I hope Richard has success, I’ve watched and enjoyed three of his movies but he is being loyal to a uncaring master and that is always dangerous.
Gordon Hill
Chubbuck, Idaho
December 19th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Gordon:
I don’t think you read Dutcher’s comments at face value. He says he doesn’t have an agenda of making any more (or less) mormons in the world. But to go about as you say “selling the mormon church” would do just that, because the whole ground of that premise is either making more or less of the church - more or less people, respect, recognition etc.
The mormon church not only doesn’t have any express involvement with Dutcher as you complain they do not, but in my view they *should* not. What are they going to do, ordain him to the High Priesthood of Film? It’s a commercial world we all struggle to get by in. We are in the throes of Babylon, where our art is not our church, neither the church our art. Every work of art only claims merit in 1. Artistic skill (here excellent I think) and 2. Whatever it expresses (in this case I think Richard Dutcher’s own personal convictions) Dutcher’s work represents *himself* - not the church. Sure, people spin it otherwise, but they’re wrong.
Dutcher’s work is a narrative expression of characters with their principles - principles that reach accross many faiths, but which also from his own cultural perspective offer a window on mormon ideas. He’s releasing the film nationally start of next year, and myself I think that implies a belief that any audience (and probably especially Christian audiences) can see straight into the core of it as well as any mormon. What does that say? It speaks of respect for other denominations, it offers something that may reaffirm faith in Christ in whatever way *anyone* believes in Him, not just Mormons. Would people spin that to say he wants more *Christians* in the world? Who knows - and who cares. My safest guess is that he’d be happy if more good came into the world through his films, by *whatever names* or manifestations that may happen, but who can track that? Creating any art is a leap of faith that the world will like what the artist likes - and the only very trackable gratification from it is when someone lets you know they liked it, or that it moved them.
Or so I think, but again, I don’t speak for Dutcher.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Whoops - I meant to sign. That last comment was me, Alex Hall.