By Jana on Apr 14, 2007
When John and I started letting people know that we were no longer active in the church, many people replied that it wasn’t much of a surprise. They knew we were active in Sunstone, and in Mormon feminism, and that we didn’t believe in the version of church history espoused in church manuals. On the other hand, though, many of the people who knew about our “edginess” felt this was the reason we needed to stay active in the church. They argued that if we were to leave we would create a bad example for others to point to, to say “Look what happens when you attend Sunstone or fraternize with liberal Mormons.” They reminded us that we could only hope to influence LDS culture if it was from the ‘inside.’ I have to admit that I felt the weight of their concerns, but ultimately it wasn’t enough of a reason to stay active in the church.
Since LDS filmmaker Richard Dutcher wrote in the Daily Herald yesterday of his departure from church activity and Mormon film-making, many people have pointed to his artistic hubris or his unorthodox ideas as reason for his leaving. They’ve said that “they saw it coming for a long time.” Not knowing Richard personally, I have no idea what the complexities are behind his choices. And I don’t doubt that this was an agonizing decision for him. I feel for the personal challenges that he may be facing right now: from family members, from LDS friends, and perhaps even from church authorities.
Given all of that, though, I am grieving that he’s left. Because Richard’s movies were important threads in the shared values that continues to bind me to the church. I frequently reflect on scenes from God’s Army and Brigham City (I haven’t yet watched States of Grace, but I’m planning to remedy that soon). Dutcher’s stories have a staying power that seminary videos and LDS historical docudramas lack. So while I completely respect Richard’s personal choices, my grieving comes from losing someone in the LDS community who told true stories about issues that I continue to care deeply about. And that is a loss indeed.
------------
Share this!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I think this is going to have a chilling effect on other LDS filmmakers who were possibly following in Mr. Dutcher’s footsteps, in creating good LDS cinema. They might think, “Hmmm, what drove him from the church? Was it his delving deeper into the art of cinema?”
Comment # 1 by Daniel | Apr 14, 2007 | Reply
That’s surprisingly crushing news. I’m shocked by how personally I’m taking it at this moment. I’m literally holding back tears right now.
Had more to say, but it’s coming out all wrong.
Very hard for me to have heard this tonight.
More comments later.
Comment # 2 by Rick Jepson | Apr 14, 2007 | Reply
I am, of course, one of those who is not surprised. His harangues about Mormon cinema and those who make them have continually been more provoking then enlightening. The sign of his leaving was immediately apparent when he announced his future movie plans.
He was too full of himself and his pet interests, as most who leave the church are, to stay active for long. When your whole sense of self is invested in something Mormon that you think everyone should recognize as superior, it is not unusual for that person to lash out when others don’t agree. It was artistic hubris without question.
Comment # 3 by Jettboy | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Like Rick, I felt sad when I heard Dutcher had parted from the church. Just like I feel a little bit of sadness knowing that John and Jana are no longer active. I know that that sounds backward coming from a former- and also nonactive-member. But there will always be a place in my heart with the desire for the church to be something that I can be a part of. I do have belief and values founded in many of the words and concepts preached by Joseph Smith, and still find comfort in the stories of the Book of Mormon and the accounts of a people’s interactions with the Savior, regardless of the mythical/metaphorical vs. literal take on these accounts.
I long for a home where I can express these parts of myself without feelings the angst, isolation, and stifling that accompany the pressure to conform and submit to the orthodoxy that Dutcher mentions being spiritually incompatible with. I find this home in Sunstone, for the most part. It is the closet I come to fulfilling that longing.
But I occasionally find myself wishing for a place in the more orthodox community. As people like Richard Dutcher and John and Jana exist in that community, that hope becomes stronger and seems possible, if only remotely. As they choose to part ways (as I did), that hope diminishes. Perhaps it is false hope and it is good that it is diminishing. Nonetheless, I was sad to read Dutcher’s farewell address but happy to hear that he is finding more peace and that he is departing on positive terms and with through what appears to be a healthy and optimistic means.
Comment # 4 by Elise | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
“But I occasionally find myself wishing for a place in the more orthodox community.”
If you want that, maybe you should become more orthodox. Hmm . . . there is an idea.
Comment # 5 by Jettboy | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
I’m deeply saddened to hear of Dutcher’s departure, but I do respect his decision and I imagine that he must have his reasons. But I really think that he was one of Mormon cinema’s greatest minds and greatest hopes, and his absence will be felt.
And Jettboy, thank you for so clearly demonstrating one of the reasons why the less orthodox among us sometimes feel compelled to leave the Mormon community.
Comment # 6 by Steve M. | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, Jettboy, I really have to wonder about your motivations sometimes. You strike me as the guy gunning for elders quorum president who never gets the coveted calling so has to create an authoritative-sounding, neo-orthodox blog and go out of his way to be obnoxious with anonymous posts in otherwise serious threads. You are clearly not motivated by trying to bring people into mormon orthodoxy. If you were, the online persona you try to create would dissolve.
Comment # 7 by Rick Jepson | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Whether he does Mormon movies or other kinds, I will continue to watch Dutcher’s work. He is a thoughtful filmmaker with interesting ideas. After viewing his films, I usually find myself coming back to their themes again and again during the days and weeks that follow. That just doesn’t happen when I watch the vast majority of other Mormon films, whether Mobsters and Mormons, or The Testaments, or whatever others may lie between those two extremes in Mormon film.
One of the things that makes us human is our personal effort to deal with life’s big questions. My hat’s off to Dutcher for pursuing his quest, and I wish him well. My ancestors were pioneers when they left Denmark and England for a distant land to pursue their quest. I respect them and their choices. Dutcher, Jana and others who leave their Mormon home on a similar quest also have my deep respect. Neither pursuit is easy, but the honest pursuit of authenticity and meaning deserves our praise.
Comment # 8 by Mike | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
I just don’t like Sunstoners. My motivation is pretty much that simple.
Comment # 9 by Jettboy | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Back to the significant topic at hand.
I’m deeply saddened by this for two main reasons.
1. I think Mormonism stands to lose a great artist…someone who created and shared wonderful insights into what it means to be a Mormon. And who shared those with the whole world. The two missionary movies strike me the most that way. I felt like both were a better representation of what it feels like to be a missionary than anything else I’ve ever read or seen.
2. Dan touched on this….it frankly worries that my own pursuits will lead down a road I’d rather not find myself on. I can’t give them up for fear, and will accept wherever they take me. But I don’t relish the idea of losing an identity that remains important to me, upsetting family members, losing LDS friends, etc. I’ll take it if it comes to that, but I hope it doesn’t. And to see someone I respect end up in that difficult place (and subjecting himself to mindless “see, I told you so” retorts from the likes of jettboy) makes me empathetic for him and scared for myself.
I too long for connection with the orthodoxy to which I no longer belong. John Dehlin has given a wonderful formula for doing so and I find myself having a renewed energy for the ongoing wrestle that characterizes my membership. But I do feel that the only way I can look myself in the mirror is to admit from the start that this struggle can go either way. If I can’t recognize that it mght drive me away from Mormonism, than I don’t feel it has the power to keep me attached to it either.
So….on with the grapple.
To Mr. Dutcher, if this thread ever catches your eye, I’ll miss your contributions and continue to be your fan. I was really looking forward to your Joseph Smith movie (though not to Val Kilmer being in it—-maybe a younger Daniel Day Lewis instead?). Good luck and God bless you through your journey.
Comment # 10 by Rick Jepson | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Jettboy…..this is a very odd place to hang out if you “don’t like sunstoners.”
Comment # 11 by Rick Jepson | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
I actually don’t hang out here. There have been maybe two other short comments I have ever made. For the most part I skip reading from here other than when I feel compelled by the Topic Header or feel I must have my voice heard. For the record, I feel that the less Sunstone-like people are in the Church (those maybe called “non-orthodox”) the better the Church can fulfill its mission.
Comment # 12 by Jettboy | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
HAHAHAHA. “My voice must be heard on this Dutchermatter.” HAHAHAHA
All that I can say is that if it’s any consolation, people like you generally do a good job of driving away people like me.
So just keep doing what you do and eventually, God willing, you’ll successfully reduce the body of the church down to a small group who agree entirely with each other. Joseph Smith would LOVE that.
Comment # 13 by Rick Jepson | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Jettboy: Tough. You can be as self-righteous and obnoxious as you like. I may skip Sunday School because of you, but I’m not leaving the church. It’s my church as much as it is yours.
Comment # 14 by Ann | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
For the record, I feel that the less Sunstone-like people are in the Church (those maybe called “non-orthodox”) the better the Church can fulfill its mission.
The irony is that part of the Church’s mission is “perfecting the saints.” It’s not a place full of perfect people, or even of all-but-perfect people, but a community of sinners and doubters who are seeking perfection. Thankfully, pastoral concerns and an inclusive desire have been the primary motivations of most of the local Church leaders who counseled Jana and I over the years, rather than the “close our ranks” mentality displayed by Jettboy.
Comment # 15 by John Remy | Apr 15, 2007 | Reply
Now, Rick…you know how it is with people like Jettboy.
They can leave rational thought, but they can’t leave rational thought alone.
Comment # 16 by Nick Literski | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
On behalf of people who don’t regularly read Sunstone and who don’t consider themselves “Sunstone Mormons,” I would just like to say that Jettboy is his own special brand of stupid and that he does not represent the rest of us. I am sure that you all know this, but his idiocy has made me particularly mad this morning.
PS. Jettboy, you are a jerk.
Comment # 17 by HP | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Jettboy,
et al,
Labeling people is often an easy resort for those insecure in their own world view. Just for the record, this particular “sunstone-like-person” is still very active, and at the same time mourns the loss to the church of Richard Dutcher, Jana, and too many others, including members of my own family.
Lest we forget, the gospel is for all mankind, as indicated in 2 NE 26:33. I’m here to learn to understand, and to try and help bridge what too many people see as an “us or them” type situation. We’re all children of our Father in Heaven, and need to help each other out as much as we can.
I know for a fact that the bishops and stake presidents that I know certainly are not of a mindset that we are better off without the “non-orthodox”. I think you would be surprised at the amount of time they spend worrying about those both within and without the fold. The church does tend to attract more socially conservative individuals, but let’s not let the culture of a particular place and time supersede the universal and timeless message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, to paraphrase Ed Firmage.
Comment # 18 by Kevinf | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Jettboy may be playing a little “Don Imus” on us. I think his views of the gospel are actually kinder and more universal than he sometimes lets on.
For what it is worth, I personally find myself comfortable among “Sunstone” Mormons, NOMs, iron rod Mormons, and even RfMs. And I concur with Kevin that I believe most leadership view the gospel net and Mormon community as wide indeed.
I hope Richard Dutcher will at least continue to participate in Sunstone or other LDS-related conferences from time to time. I do not always agree with him or his artistic evaluations of rival film makers, but I have great respect and admiration of him and find his ideas interesting and often helpful to me.
I wish God’s choicest blessings upon him and his family.
Comment # 19 by DavidH | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Jettboy,
Good thing the Lord doesn’t think the way you do, or Peter would never have been forgiven for denying thrice at the worst possible moment…
Secondly, Jettboy, how the hell does your attitude further the mission of the church when instead of bringing people closer to you, they push you away in disgust? You’ve just given “non-Orthodox” members more ammo, more reasons, to not even want to consider themselves any little bit in the same religion as yourself. Way to go in furthering the Lord’s work dude.
Comment # 20 by Daniel | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Steering the conversation back to Richard Dutcher…
Dutcher’s journey away from Mormon orthodoxy and towards (I’m guessing) heterodoxy/agnosticism is hardly a surprise. To those who have walked a similar path the tell-tale signs were/are farily obvious. What isn’t so obvious is what one will do with this new worldview — leave the Church (either quietly or publicly) or remain engaged as a kind of modified-Mormon. So Dutcher’s public announcement that he is no longer a practicing Mormon, as opposed to maintaining activity in the Church as a heterodox/disbelieving Mormon is more of a surprise than his inner journey. That said, given his public profile and the questions he no doubt receives about his “Mormonness” on a fairly regular basis, a public announcement was probably inevitable.
(And wasn’t this kind of predicted last summer during the Sunstone symposium panel Dutcher participated on with former Mormon artists Neil LaBute and Brian Evenson? Didn’t LaBute or someone say one couldn’t be both an Artist and a Mormon, or something like that? I remember the whole room turned and looked at Richard. Anyone remember the exact quote?)
I respect Dutcher’s spiritual journey, his beliefs, and his decision to live as a former-Mormon. I’m less sympathetic towards his ongoing criticism of LDS cinema and weary of his self-annoited role as a kind of caretaker and judge of the medium. I think it is fair to discuss and question the relationship and conflict between Art and Mormonism, to wonder if challenging Art can exist, let alone thrive, in Mormon Culture, but to complain that other Mormon filmmakers are “pissing in the pool,” making crap, and/or ruining the Mormon film market misses the point and smacks of the tortured, misunderstood, self-important “Artiste.” Would Dutcher’s beloved “Bergman, Bresson, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, etc.” complain about the crap films of Michael Bay or whoever directed Big Momma’s House 2? Such low-brow films aren’t even on their radar screen. The marketplace for all art has always given rise to serious art and fivolous crap. It has always co-existed side-by-side serving disparate needs. Whether or not the Mormon market is interested in and/or can support serious art is a fair question (I have my doubts), but to blame the hacks at Halestorm is missing the point. I just don’t buy Richard’s contention that: “Why is Mormon cinema dying? This is no great mystery. Diminishing quality has brought diminishing returns.”
I offer this gentel “smack” as a fan of this three Mormon films and as someone who likes Richard as a person, though I don’t know him personally. He’s always struck me as a kindred spirit and a guy I’d like to be friends with.
Comment # 21 by Matt Thurston | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
I pretty much agree with what Matt said.
I agree that most of what Halestorm has put out is uninspired garbage, but I don’t think they can realistically be blamed for the failure of serious Mormon cinema. I’m not a fan of the self-righteous tone with which some of Dutcher’s tirades against the Halestorm guys and other LDS filmmakers are delivered. But I think he makes some excellent points, and I certainly respect him as a serious artist and filmmaker who is passionate about his work. I also respect his personal decisions regarding activity in the Church.
Although, I can’t help but hope to see more of his work in the Mormon world at some time in the future, however unlikely that may be. I would have killed to see his rendition of Joseph Smith’s life.
We need more writers, artists, and filmmakers like Dutcher in the Mormon community. We need his edginess, his criticism, his boldness, and his nonconformity. But Dutcher’s departure isn’t encouraging. I’m still unconvinced that such artists have much of a home, audience, or future in the LDS community.
Comment # 22 by Steve M. | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
I have mixed feelings about this, partially because I knew Richard when he made Army and saw his motivation and focus change over the years. At that time he was defineitely orthodox, intensely so. When I saw Grace, I could see that he had made an LDS film that challenged the idea of what an LDS film should be. I saw it as provocation, and predictably some people were provoked.
Having said that, I don’t think he slipped out of the church as a result of that film. The last time I had contact with him, I think he saw himself as a pioneer in the field that everyone should honor. And they didn’t necessarily. And perhaps they should have…I don’t know. But to see him as a martyr of his art seems oversimplifying, and to the degree that its true, suggests the artist ought to be a little more thick-skinned.
Comment # 23 by Lönnrot | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
I think that at least one reason that Dutcher periodically commented on the poor state of Mormon cinema is because he was identified with it, and people kept asking him about it. God’s Army and Brigham City were discussed with films that he thought were shoddy. Not only that, to outsiders, they were all considered to be *Mormon* films. It is a normal reaction that we all have, to try to improve our identity and reputation by distancing ourselves from another person’s skewed perception, which they use to encompass us.
For example, if I meet someone whose stereotype of Mormons is that we are gun toting, Bush-voting, misogynistic conservatives, I don’t want to be plopped into that category. It doesn’t reflect me or how I identify myelf, so I work to disabuse that person of the stereotype. I think that Dutcher was doing the same kind of thing, it’s just that he ended up doing it in more public venues than most people do. Whether it may be good or not, that’s for each of us to decide, but I think that we all do this at one time or another.
Comment # 24 by Mike | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
While I do not agree with “orthodox members” kicking those leaving in the pants by making insensitive comments, I do get a kick out of those leaving turning around and blaming the person who’s not sad to see them go as the reason they are leaving.
Y’all enjoy your agency, just like anybody else, and my guess is that those “thinking” persons who leave the Church will be primarily accountable for that decision. Blaming others doesn’t change that to any degree, in my opinion.
Comment # 25 by It's Not Me | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Mike, you make a good point. Still, I think Richard’s campaign against Halestorm and their ilk went beyond mere replies to unsolicited questions about the state of the industry. I can understand Richard not wanting to be lumped in with the rest of Mormon cinema, but I think such fears unfounded. His movies stand on their own two feet. If anything they look better **because** the rest of the genre is so weak in comparison. I don’t think Levi Peterson cares about the positive or negative effect of The Work and The Glory series on his fiction, even though they’re both swimming in the same pool. I think a high-road approach would have served him better, while still actively discussing the problems and viability of Mormon Art. But, this is easy for me to say as an outsider… If I were in Richard’s shoes I might have done the same thing.
A few years ago Jonathan Franzen’s wonderful “The Corrections” won the National Book Award. Oprah later picked it for her book club and Franzen publicly threw a hissy fit, not wanting his “art” to be associated with the weepy, melodramatic books Oprah normally featured. People/critics largely rolled their eyes at Franzen’s delusions of grandeur. It is interesting to me that Oprah is currently featuring Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Road,” one of my favorite novels of the past several years. I was surprised because McCarthy, even more than Franzen, is the last person I’d think of as Oprah material. He’s given one public interview (to the NY Times) in the past 25 years. But now he’s going to be on Oprah. Strange. But its nice to see that McCarthy doesn’t think his art “above” mere Oprah housewives. (And the Oprah $$$ doens’t hurt either.)
Sorry if this was a non-sequitur…
Comment # 26 by Matt Thurston | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Maybe I’m missing something about Dutcher’s point of view, but I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that Mormon cinema has to be an “either/or” position. Does it all have to be high-brow and thought provoking, a la Dutcher, or all low-brow comedy a la Halestorm (and don’t get me started on the BoM Movie)? Surely there is room for both. I’ve got “Citizen Kane” sitting alongside Jim Carrey in my DVD collection. Why can’t I enjoy a similar juxtaposition within the (sub)genre of Mormon movies?
I think that at best Dutcher’s remarks reflect an understandable frustration that there hasn’t been a renaissance in thoughtful, LDS-themed films, with other LDS directors following in his footsteps. At worst, his remarks are a hissy fit that not only has the renaissance failed to take off as he would like, but that he hasn’t been annointed the godfather of it.
As has been stated already, I respect his personal journey, but I can’t grasp his insistence that all LDS films be made in his image.
Comment # 27 by Dave in VA | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Why did mormon cinema die? 4 words: Work and the Story…
Comment # 28 by Matt W. | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Dutcher was (should I talk about him in “past tense”?) a bridge between the broader Christian - and, perhaps, religious world - and Mormonism. As a Reformed Christian - an Evangelical who considers Luther and Calvin to have continued St. Paul and St. Peter - my view of Mormonism was (this is “past tense”) reactionary and almost completely negative. I still keep distance between the Prophet and myself, but that gap is no longer a wall of propaganda, elitism and venom.
Dutcher had/has a way of exposing the weaknesses of LDS believers and on the way made it impossible for me to simply cast-off the LDS church with the simplistic and destructive terms (i.e. cult, fanatics, god-makers) that was such a major part of growing up in conservative Evangelicalism - heck, I go to a Southern Baptist church. He created the beginning of dialogue in my heart and mind, and I’m all the richer for it.
In the process, Dutcher has joined a small list of current and classic directors that I will follow throughout their careers (i.e. Bergman, Dreyer, Wes Anderson, Allen, Scorsese). They make/made artistically significant films that combine the reality of the human experience in God’s creation with the very difficult but unavoidable belief that God does break in from time-to-time - that God is not absent nor [always] silent. This is also what Richard Dutcher does. Furthermore, he crafts characters grounded in reality, but as complex and interesting as any found in the great Russian novels. And, he has improved his skills as a storyteller and filmmaker with every work.
Mr. Dutcher will find his way and I, like most people reading this blog, am praying for him and his family in what can only be a difficult and confusing time.
Comment # 29 by Joe | Apr 16, 2007 | Reply
Joe, that’s a fascinating viewpoint of Dutcher’s work. My favorite parts of his films has always been, as you say, the way he presents the LDS church in its complexity. I’ve met a fair share of those in the Protestant world that cast of Mormonism as a very simple cult, which I do not believe it to be. I have appreciated the ways Dutcher presents the deep emotions, difficult decisions, and heart-wrenching internal battles that occur in the minds and hearts as believers. I felt I found a friend in some of the characters he portrayed for that reason.
Did you become introduced to Dutcher’s work through your Baptist congregation, or was is entirely seperate from that?
Even though I am sad to see him leave, as I mentioned above, I am excited to see what he will do with his career in the future.
Comment # 30 by Elise | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Dave in VA. He’s actually said in interviews that he does think there’s a place for silly LDS films (and, after all, he makes a cameo in the Singles Ward). I think what might have been frustrating to him is the glut of those movies and their obvious popularity among Mormons….where his movies actually get shunned a bit. No matter how you slice it, I think it’s hard to feel rejected by your own people…you know? (He also brings up the point that in theaters in Utah Valley, States of Grace was barely selling tickets while Saw III was selling out.)
Comment # 31 by Rick Jepson | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Rick Jepson,
“I think it’s hard to feel rejected by your own people”
True. It brings to mind a certain scripture about prophets receiving little honor in their own country.
“in theaters in Utah Valley, States of Grace was barely selling tickets while Saw III was selling out”
As a graduate of a fine educational institution in Provo, I am shocked -SHOCKED! - that this might be the case in Utah Valley.
I do agree with your earlier post about the loss of a fine LDS artist. One of the biggest handicaps of LDS culture is its reflexive casting out of the unorthodox. As I infer from your #10 comment, you understand that very well. It’s a harsh loss for both the Church and for those who would add so much if they didn’t feel stifled.
Comment # 32 by Dave in VA | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Good discussion, all.
Just a quick housekeeping note before some thoughts on my own: With the commenter’s permission, we’ve now gone in and retroactively changed the name of the poster in this thread who had been using “Dan” to “Daniel” to avoid confusion among those who thought those comments were from me. My habit has been to generally sign my posts at the bottom or somehow indicate that I was writing or posting in clear awareness of my role at Sunstone, and I will continue to do this. My thanks to that Dan for understanding and agreeing to change his posting name. I hope he’ll continue to join in the discussions here at SunstoneBlog!
I’m linking here to an interview with Richard that I did with him for Sunstone’s November 2006 issue and that Rick Jepson was referring to in his posts above. Beginning on the second part of page 68 are many comments about Richard’s vision for Mormon cinema that really help one understand what he had hoped would emerge and that might add context to much of the discussion here. He also hints a little in the second to last paragraph of the piece about his spiritual journey vis a vis Mormonism.
Finally, just a thought or two about my own sense of the recent Herald piece. I actually was with Richard last Friday night, the evening of the day the Herald commentary came out. I expressed then my wonder to him about why he felt like he needed to make such a clear statement and for the Herald’s quite mainstream readership about where he was right then with regard to church activity.
The first thing he shared in response is that it wasn’t premeditated. The Herald had contacted him about doing a piece on “Is Mormon Cinema Dead?” and let him know that they had an agreement from someone else to argue what they thought would be an opposing point of view to what they assumed Richard would write. He tells of beginning that piece in the way that the paper had assumed it would go, only to not have it feel right to him. Then tearing that draft up, this piece (at 3x the length the Herald asked for!) is what emerged. So, in short, he really didn’t begin with the idea of sharing all of that about his current relationship with the church and his activity status.
We spoke quite a bit about things, and though he didn’t directly say this in response to questioning, some of the conversation that night centered around his public life as someone who would often have folks who recognized him as Elder Dalton from God’s Army come up to him and begin sharing their enthusiasm for not only the film but also how it led to their son’s going on a mission, etc. And though he of course would appreciate their sharing and be glad that his film had such a powerful, good effect on their lives, he shared how it was quite uncomfortable for him to be thought of as a character and to have folks open up to him in a way that sort of assumes that he was essentially that same person. So, in short, I think it was a desire to get a bit more breathing room for his own evolving journey that was behind some of what he shared.
In closing, let me just add that Richard and I have been friends for several years, and that I know him to be a deeply spiritual person who is one hundred percent engaged in a breathtaking spiritual journey. We’ve had many long conversations about powerful religious experiences and have also traded books back and forth by incredible spiritual thinkers and writers. My primary artistic medium for exploring such things is personal essay (my editorials) and work to shape magazine pieces and arrange conference conversations; his is storytelling through film. Because it is such a completely different medium and involves so much work and requires such belief in oneself and one’s vision and abilities (to write, drum up the finances, assemble the cast and crew, deal with the marketing, etc.) I’m in complete awe of what Richard creates. And if the kind of passion and confidence that is required to do that comes across from time to time as arrogance, then so it does. But the closer I get to understanding the realities of what it means to be an independent filmmaker, and especially one with the idealistic vision for Mormon cinema that Richard describes in the Sunstone interview, all the off-putting edges of that kind of drive and passion simply fade away for me.
Dan Wotherspoon
Editor, Sunstone
Comment # 33 by Dan | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
There have been a number of blog posts on this subject around the ‘nacle. I particularly like Taryn Nelson-Seawright’s post at By Common Consent as I think it gets to the heart of Dutcher’s most important legacy: as a filmmaker who makes challenging, thought-provoking, and for many people, spiritually uplifting films that lead to conversion (in the case of Taryn, literally) or a re-appraisal and/or re-commitment of one’s heart/soul.
Comment # 34 by Matt Thurston | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
LOL. I’m glad to see the Dan/Daniel thing straightened out. I was actually scratching my head a bit because while I liked Daniel’s posts, they didn’t seem like Dan. Funny mix up.
VA Dave, thanks for your response. Looking back through the posts I can’t tell if I came across like I was arguing with you. Especially in light of my earlier heated comments to my main man jettboy (although, to my credit, I did go back and edit out the word “A-hole” from my original response.) Anyway, I hope I didn’t come across that way to you.
Comment # 35 by Rick Jepson | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for that info, Dan. Like you, I am awed by the passion and commitment that independent filmmakers show in their efforts to share what they have to say. I am doubly awed when it is the kind of message that Dutcher has given us.
Comment # 36 by Mike | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Rick Jepson,
Nope, you weren’t argumentative. In fact, you enlightened me on Dutcher’s position, for which I tip my hat to you.
And I think Jettboy needed someone to cool his heels for him and reign in his “exuberance.”
Comment # 37 by Dave in VA | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
Richard is taking a journey that we all must take sooner or later. The journey from faith based to reality based. It is a difficult path to follow but the determined and strong will survive. I’ve watched all of Richards films and have been deeply touched, both positively and negatively, by two of them.
His depth of thought is not appreciated by those who are told what to believe every Sunday morning. He asks far too many questions to be appreciated by people who have been taught to be fearful and suspicious of questions and questioners.
His chosen audience is 50 years behind him spiritually, this is the bane of many great minds.
In 50 years he will be revered.
I would love to see more of his movies.
Gordon Hill
Comment # 38 by Gordon Hill | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
It looks like Jettboy is gone, his meds must have kicked in.
The words of Jettboy are far more destructive to the LDS church than anything Sunstone can do.
Comment # 39 by Gordon Hill | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
“In 50 years he will be revered.”
I completely agree.
Comment # 40 by Rick Jepson | Apr 17, 2007 | Reply
I’m bummed about RIchard going inactive. Loved, God’s Army, which had me having missionary dreams for the next four nights. Though, the scene with the Elder leaving his mission for Tanneresque reasons, and the response seemed a bit weak to me. Unnecessarily shallow. Never mind. Perfection is not a requirement.
I’m bummed about Jana leaving. I’ve enjoyed her essays, perspectives, attitudes, and enjoyed a brief talk after a Sunstone panel a few years ago.
And yet, here I am looking at my own long term commitments. And it appears I have become inactive myself. Not in my local ward, in which I remain as active as ever. (Bricks and spit would not stop me, as far as that goes.) But inactive in Sunstone. I’ve got a closet full of back issues going back decades. Some issues very well marked and battered, either from pleasure or frustration. I’ve participated on Sunstones in three States, presenting or helping with panels 10 times. I’ve published essays twice, and letters two or three times. Five of my published FARMS essays were first presented at or submitted to Sunstone. I’ve got many pleasant memories of excellent panels, lovely talks, interesting presentations, beautiful essays, some very positive feedback on presentations or essays I have been given. Yet… my spiritual path seems to be taking me away. And I’m wondering how my exit narrative would compare?
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Comment # 41 by Kevin Christensen | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Well said, Kevin (#41). You describe a place on your spiritual journey many have no doubt encountered. Sunstone isn’t an end or final destination, but one of many points or spots on one’s lifelong (or eternal?) road/journey. I’m glad it was there for you, and that you were able to give so much back in the form of essays, letters, and panel presentations. That is quite a legacy to draw from if you are ever interested in looking back at past points on your journey.
J. Bonner Ritchie (I think), a Sunstone Board Member, once said something to the effect that he had long since moved past his Sunstone phase, had long since reconciled and processed the kinds of issues Sunstone trades in, but continued to support it because he knew others would need it. He said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I continue to support it because It makes me feel good to know it’s there.” Dan Wotherspoon, who told me the preceding anecdote, could probably quote him better than I did. I know many who feel the same way. Hopefully you’ll point others to Sunstone if you think it might help them on their journey.
Just cuirous, and if it is not too personal, where is your spiritual path taking you?
Comment # 42 by Matt Thurston | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Kevin and Matt: thanks for the last two posts. Really good stuff.
Comment # 43 by Rick Jepson | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
I guess I am just “moving into” my Sunstone phase. I have found it a good way to fill in some of the spiritual/intellectual holes that are just missing right now. No, it doesn’t fill them all, but it helps. It is exciting to know there are other folks that think a bit harder about things and dare to discuss them. I’m sure there are people like that in my ward, but I guess we haven’t connected, yet.
And back to Richard Dutcher, I’ll miss his artistic input. I have enjoyed his movies, not because they are 4-star, but because they are different and have substance. He was headed in the right direction, and I’m sure with more support, he would have gotten there (think “Joseph Smith Story”). Possibly I was part of the problem. Instead of lining up at the theatres, I just waited for the “God’s Army” DVDs to come out.
I hope there will be many talented directors stepping up to fill the void.
Comment # 44 by Keva | Apr 18, 2007 | Reply
Matt , in #42, asked, “Where is my spiritual journey taking me?”
Various things in the Pittsburgh area. I’ve been the High Priest’s instructor for the past few years, and I cheerfully comment in Sunday School. In May I am speaking to the Miller-Eccles Study groups in May, on the topic of Margaret Barker. Thanks to a conversation with Orson Scott Card after a Pittsburgh Book signing a while back, I’ve been writing essays on Barker an other topics for the Meridian Magazine online, whenever the fancy strikes me. I’ve collaberated with Margaret on an essay that is currently going through peer review at a non-LDS press. I occasionally comment on various LDS boards, or review books at Amazon, and will no doubt do more for the FARMS Review when something comes up. Plus, I’ve been invited to write a Sunstone exit narrative for this blog.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Comment # 45 by Kevin Christensen | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for commenting again, Kevin. From Sunstone to Meridian? Have you gone mad?!?! Just kidding.
I look forward to your exit narrative. I also look forward to meeting you next month at Miller-Eccles. One of the M-E groups meets at my parents’ home in Orange County. If you go out to dinner with Armand Mauss before speaking at M-E, I might even tag along. I’ll bring John and Jana Remy too and we’ll gang up on you until you decide to “return” to Sunstone.
Comment # 46 by Matt Thurston | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
Just wanted to alert everybody to Dutcher’s follow-up comments to his Provo Herald article. Some very funny and thought-provoking stuff, as usual.
Here’s the link:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/04/richard-dutcher-vehicle-of-gods-grace/
If anyone can figure out how to just cut and paste the whole piece, that would be fabulous as well.
Oh–and there’s a follow-up to his follow-up a little further down the page.
Comment # 47 by Blevins | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
When is ME in May? Not the weekend of MHA, right???
Comment # 48 by Jana | Apr 19, 2007 | Reply
The Miller Eccles study group meetings in May are scheduled for May 18 and 19.
Kevin C.
Comment # 49 by Kevin Christensen | Apr 20, 2007 | Reply
Sorry I didn’t meet Matt and Jana at Miller Eccles, and that a dinner didn’t happen, due to me being off-line while I was there. I was looking forward to it.
Kevin C.
Comment # 50 by Kevin Christensen | May 22, 2007 | Reply
Dear Kevin:
I do hope that your presentation at M-E went well! I can’t speak for Matt’s absence, but mine was the result of having an obligation to attend another meeting that same night. I hope our paths will cross sometime soon as I’d love to meet you.
Comment # 51 by Jana | May 22, 2007 | Reply
Kevin, very bummed I didn’t make Miller-Eccles. I heard it went very well. I had worked late for three nights prior to M-E and felt some obligation to spend some time with the fam on that particular Friday night.
As Jana said, I hope our paths cross someday soon. Any chance you’ll be at Sunstone in August? Have you submitted your M-E presentation to Dan Wotherspoon? Your presentation would make a nice Sunstone presentation panel as welll.
Comment # 52 by Matt Thurston | May 25, 2007 | Reply
The Friday night meeting Miller Eccles did indeed got very well, with most of the chairs filled, vigorous Q&A at the end, and pleasant lingering afterwards. For the Saturday night meeting, only 12 people showed up. It went alright, but the Q&A was more limited, and most of them dispersed fairly quickly. The host said he thought perhaps I should be invited back sometime. I did provide my lecture outline as a Word conversion from Powerpoint to the Miller Eccles list owners for anyone who wants to see it. And Alyson Von Feldt has suggested that I turn them into an essay. We shall see.
At the moment, I don’t have Sunstone plans for August. With my daughter planning on attending school in San Francisco, and my son in Kansas, and the inherent expenses and priorities that go with the situation, I don’t see me making it this year. I twice gave presentations on Barker’s work at Sunstone in the past, and in neiither case did they go particularly well for those audiences. For the first, presenting a draft of material that went into “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significant for Mormon Studies”, only a few came, few of them really grasped what I was offering. And they’d gotten no one to introduce the panel, and no respondent. For the second try, an earlier version of the “Deuteronomist De-christianizing of the Old Testament” the respondent completely ignored my presentation, dismissed Barker as “not mainstream”, and instead gave a freshman presentation of the Documentary Hypothesis flavoured with distainful implication that he was demonstrating how pathetic it was for anyone to believe in God. (I think it rather ironic and telling that someone who takes pride in being an LDS independent thinker would so reflexively and uncritically dismiss Barker’s work as “not mainstream.”) Afterwards he explained, “I was trying to stir things up.”
I’m also puzzled by how warmly Margaret Starbird was accepted in compariison to the little interest most Sunstone people showed in Barker, who is a far better scholar, working at much higher level, with a broader range of sources and language skills, and whose work on Queen of Heaven and Wisdom is directly relevant to LDS feminist issues.
On the other hand, the same materials that meant so little at Sunstone were accepted and published by FARMS and contributed heavily to Barker’s invitation to BYU for the 2003 Seminar, and to her invitation to speak at the Joseph Smith Conference in Washington D.C. in 2005, and to her writing a paper for the Tree of Life Conference last year. And various other things forthcoming. So, who knows? I have offered the gift before.
Best,
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburg, PA
Comment # 53 by Kevin Christensen | May 29, 2007 | Reply
How can I get a copy of Dutcher’s Brigham City? I live in Los Alamos and NetFlix doesn’t have it, nor is it on any local video store shelves. Is my only alternative Amazon?
Comment # 54 by Eugene Kovalenko | Jun 3, 2007 | Reply
Eugene, that’s what I did in my little corner of the world. And I’m glad I did; I’ll definitely watch it more than once.
Comment # 55 by Mike | Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
Eugene,
You can purchase any of Richard’s three most recent DVDs and other products at http://www.richarddutcher.com.
Comment # 56 by Jon | Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
Thanks guys!
Comment # 57 by Eugene Kovalenko | Jun 4, 2007 | Reply
9-1-08: Since Richard is no longer in the Mormon Church is he still going to make a movie about Joseph Smith? I read in an article a few years back he was still going to make such a movie ‘come hell or high water.’ Since he no longer believes in Mormonism and has left the church it looks like he’s got a couple of options (1) Still make the movie and paint Smith in a positive role or (2) Tell it like it really is warts and all. Anybody out there really know what his plans about this are. Bicheu
Comment # 58 by Dennis Chamberlain | Sep 1, 2008 | Reply