In the LA Times, "Richard Dutcher leaves the Mormon church and a genre," reviewing where Dutcher has been and where's he's going, in filmmaking and everything else. The article refers to Dutcher as "the father of modern Latter-day Saint cinema," then notes that "after filming several other of the genre's touchstone works, Dutcher renounced Mormonism last year, citing a theological evolution he calls 'a very frustrating enlightenment.'"
Following Dutcher's enlightenment, he left the LDS Church in 2007. The LA Times laps that storyline right up (religion is for dupes; enlightenment requires renouncing religion), oblivious to the fact that one man's enlightenment is another's confusion. I'm sure that alternative perspective is familiar to many of its readers — the ones that are still around, that is. In fairness to Dutcher, the article notes that he "takes pains not to disparage Mormons or Mormonism." So I'm guessing the enlightenment meme is a reflection of the LA Times, not Dutcher. The article also has nice things to say about Dutcher's latest film, Falling, described as "the first R-rated Mormon movie." I guess that makes Dutcher the father of modern Mormon R-rated cinema. Take another bow, Richard.
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."
Posted by: John Mansfield | Aug 20, 2008 at 03:04 PM
I thought Dutcher said he left so he could drink beer. It was a deep philosophical difference, obviously.
Posted by: Jim Cobabe | Aug 20, 2008 at 05:34 PM
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?
Posted by: Graham Wing | Aug 20, 2008 at 07:43 PM
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...
Posted by: Kristine | Aug 20, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Good point Kristine. And the LA Times isn't exactly noted for fair and unbiased LDS coverage.
Posted by: Clark Goble | Aug 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Nate W. | Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Jettboy | Aug 21, 2008 at 08:41 AM
I liked Brigham City. That's the only movie of his I've ever seen.
Posted by: Seth R. | Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM
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?
Posted by: Left Field | Aug 22, 2008 at 04:08 AM
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.
Posted by: John Mansfield | Aug 22, 2008 at 06:05 AM
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...
Posted by: Mormon Filmmaker | Aug 22, 2008 at 06:44 AM