« Brigham Young and the West, Part 1 | Main | Insider's view of Mormon chapels »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The pose in the photo didn't register until I read the first line of the article: "Richard Dutcher didn't set out to become a filmmaking messiah."

I thought Dutcher said he left so he could drink beer. It was a deep philosophical difference, obviously.

It said "he officially left the church last year". For some reason, I was under the impression that he was not going to participate any more, but that he wasn't going to officially leave. Did the article actually mean that he had his name removed, or did they just mean he made the "official" decision last year to not be active?

It would probably be good to remember that Dutcher didn't actually *write* that article--many reporters have a somewhat limited range when writing stories about religion...

Good point Kristine. And the LA Times isn't exactly noted for fair and unbiased LDS coverage.

Richard Dutcher has been careful not to disparage Mormons. Will Mormons be as careful not to disparage him?

Seriously, I was taught to believe that those that the Lord has prepared to receive the gospel will hear and understand, and others who are not prepared will not be accountable for not receiving the gospel. At the same token, isn't it possible that He who has all wisdom may have a different, special path for people that ultimately diverges from the Church? If for whatever reason (the person isn't ready for the Church, the Church isn't ready for the person, there are lives the person needs to touch that cannot be done in the Church) a person may be called away from the Church, shouldn't we try to at least not judge it? We probably shouldn't support or advocate it, but when the person's decision is made, we should at least be serene and pray that they are making the right decision for them.

I didn't like him (both personally and professionally) when he made his second movie. My wife pegged that he would leave the Church after watching the first move. He was an egotist with unreal expectations. When his fantasy never caught up with reality, he fell.

I liked Brigham City. That's the only movie of his I've ever seen.

At first I thought the only thing really new in this article was the news that he had "officially" left the church. But then I realized, as did Kristine, that reporters can't always be counted on to successfully navigate the nuances of such terms as "officially left." So if that's the case, is there really any news here that wasn't covered months ago by the Daily Herald? Or is the Times just re-hashing old news out of Provo?

The hook that made it a current item was: "Now, after incurring scorn in the Mormon movie world, the faith-based auteur is back with his most personal film to date, 'Falling.' Glibly marketed as "the first R-rated Mormon movie" in Utah, it opened in Los Angeles on Friday for a one-week engagement at Laemmle's Music Hall in Beverly Hills." Whoever's working Dutcher's publicity really earned his pay by arranging the interview and this many words in the LA Times for a low-budget niche film.

He won't disparage Mormons? How about equating Mormon films (other than his) to PORN? Geesh. One thing the guy IS good at is over-the-top hyperbole...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad