Mountain Meadows Massacre Movie
Well, it was bound to happen. The only things that makes Mormons more uncomfortable than discussions of polygamy are discussions about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. So the upcoming movie, September Dawn, probably will make many of us queasy to our stomach. The New York Times has a discussion.
A few excerpts.
The film, “September Dawn,” stars Jon Voight, Lolita Davidovich and Terence Stamp (Dean Cain, the director’s son, makes a cameo appearance). Two newcomers, Trent Ford and Tamara Hope, play a frontier Romeo and Juliet in a romance played out against a drama of a mass murder that continues to engender controversy almost 150 years after the fact. Financed independently by September Dawn and Voice Pictures, it is currently being screened for distributors.
. . .
As the story unfolds, a company of pioneers arrives from Arkansas. A couple of young lovers-to-be – one a Mormon, the other part of the ill-fated wagon train – meet amid a toxic atmosphere of suspicion and rancor. A Mormon raid ends with a castration, an enemy’s testicles neatly nailed to a door. All the while, the territorial governor and president of the church, Brigham Young, played by Mr. Stamp, is heard in voice-over, encouraging vengeance, violence, “blood atonement” and divine justice.
What makes me most nervous? This note:
In writing the script, Mr. Cain said, he and Ms. Schutter were helped by a great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, who has left the church and become a born-again Christian.
Oh . . . . . . no.
“helped” isn’t quite how I’d put it.
Although with the two Superman associations of two of the actors, it was an odd juxtaposition of relations in my mind between that and the subject and setting of this film.
Someone should do a Haun’s Mill film (is that the name of it?) for a look at the history of what we went through (which does not justify killing others, but it’s more typical of what went on).
Eek. I even hate to say that kind of thing was “typical”. Geez.
And I don’t know why, but oddly enough the final scenes in one of the Trinity spaghetti westerns, the one with the Mormons in it? Where they all break out fighting in the end, comes to mind. NOT to in any way diminish the seriousness of the real event this forthcoming movie is about, but I guess it’s my mind’s way of sort of “wishing” a much less harmful and much more comical event and results, than what the reality is.
Course, I don’t know that this film is going to depict the reality, not with the “help” they found.
Comment by Sarebear — January 22, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
Niiice. The Tanners go to Hollywood.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 22, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
I was checking back to see the awards and ran across this.
Probably another sink without a trace movie.
Sigh.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — January 22, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
Can we sue for defamation of character? Libel? Do we have to sit quietly by and smile while people publish lies as history?
Comment by HARPINGHEATHER — January 22, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
And yeah. Any chance of getting a Haun’s Mill movie out in time to be released at the same time?
Comment by HARPINGHEATHER — January 22, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
I like Terence Stamp, he’s a great actor. I’ll wait to see a trailer to decide if I’m going to see it or not.
It seems like a strange idea. Out of all the thousands of western stories that could be made, why would they choose this one?
Comment by jjohnsen — January 22, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
Out of all the thousands of western stories that could be made, why would they choose this one?
Hmmm. You think this might have anything to do with it?
I can imagine anti’s pitching the movie idea to anyone that would listen…
Comment by Geoff J — January 22, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
Great. General Zod as Brigham Young. That’s some good PR…
Comment by Ben S. — January 22, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
Well, he also happens to be Jor-El, on Smallville, but so far he’s rather totalitarian and cold.
I’m actually surprised someone hasn’t made a movie of this sooner; conflict with unusual stories involved seems to be alot of what goes into many movies, and it’s hard to find a western movie that doesn’t feel like it’s been done before.
Comment by Sarebear — January 22, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
It seems like a strange idea. Out of all the thousands of western stories that could be made, why would they choose this one?
Actually, if we distance ourselves from it, it really is a rather interesting story. The problem I have is that the context of the larger Utah war and past violence in Illinois and Missouri will be lost. That and the fact that the US was sending out forces thought to be bent on genocide.
I think was is interesting isn’t that this story and others are made, but that more stories haven’t been made. The territory of Deseret was huge – encompassing a lot of the West. Porter Rockwell was one of the most prolific gunfighters in the west but is largely unknown outside of some Mormon circles. The Utah War was a huge issue in US history, but is largely unknown. One could argue that the cost of the Utah war was such that it really did help set up the later Civil War.
My concern is less that the film is being made but that it is certain to made with the typical anti-Mormon sentiment (which is not necessarily to say that it will be an anti-Mormon film)
Comment by Clark Goble — January 22, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
In the MTC they showed us a movie about Jesus, I believe it was called, “The Lamb of God”. In any case, I could swear that one of the people Jesus visits in the spirit world was Terence Stamp. It struck me a very odd to see General Zod there. I was sure he would be in Spirit Prison, which itself is probably more fun than the Phantom Zone.
Comment by a random John — January 23, 2006 @ 1:33 am
I’ve heard that the church itself is making a Mountain Meadows movie, perhaps in anticipation of this one.
Comment by Eric Russell — January 23, 2006 @ 1:42 am
Let’s own our history–the good, the bad and the ugly.
Everything has a bias but a good film will show all sides and circumstances. Ever see The Work and the Glory films? There’s some bias right there.
Comment by Wendy — January 23, 2006 @ 2:17 am
The concern that this film is being produced from an “anti” perspective begs a question: Which parts of the history support anything else?
1) That Mormons disarmed the victims by telling them they would be granted safe passage through hostile Indian country? (undisputed)
2) That Mormon leaders in Southern Utah were actively engaged in planning the massacre? (undisputed)
3) That Mormons murdered unarmed men, women and children over ten? (undisputed)
4) That only one man, John D. Lee, was ever held “accountable” for the murders? (undisputed)
5) That controversy exists to this day as to whether Brigham Young was complicit in the massacre? (undisputed) (Even The NY Times article, in a section not included above, acknowledges that this particular issue is unsettled).
The historical truth is awful. Yet there is a standard myth surrounding the event that permeates Southern Utah to this day, and is passed on to members of the church even outside of Utah (such as Texas, where I was raised). This is that the wagon train included some who had murdered Mormons in Missouri and were threatening more, and that the massacre was really an Indian affair, with some minor role played by rogue Mormons acting without the support or knowledge of any leaders. The underlying message being sent is that Mormons were not really involved and, even if a few were, their actions were justified given all they had suffered.
The truth is much more complex and much more troubling.
I don’t believe the film will accurately portray the history or the context, not necessarily because it is being made from an “anti” perspective, but because no mainstream feature film can afford to become a documentary. Again, given what happened, how can a historically accurate retelling of the event come accros as anything other than a horrific crime?
I am also concerned, however, that the film will not even cause Mormons to critically question some aspects of the myth. Rather, the troubling aspects of the truth will again be casually dismissed, more easily shrugged off if the source is labeled “anti.”
Comment by Kleermaker — January 23, 2006 @ 2:46 am
I agree, Clark. Even from a Mormon perspective, as opposed to an anti-Mormon perspective (of the helper, who possibly/probably influences the film), if they were dedicated to the honest truth of it, it would still come off making Mormons look bad. At least, some of them, back then.
Which I have no problem with, assuming all those “(undisputed’s)” are the facts (which, since I’ve never looked into it myself, I have no idea, but perhaps I’d better). Everyone makes mistakes, which is NO excuse for murder, but no people is perfect. That said, everyone involved should have been held accountable (which may raise serious issues about Brigham but I don’t want to end up starting a huge debate, lol!).
I can accept that there were bad events in the past, perpetrated by Mormons. And, I wish there was still going to be portrayal of horrid persecution of Mormons, not to justify what happens, but to show the background, some of it, even if none of these perpetrators were in the Mountain Meadows. It kind of goes to the, some people might have been endured so much that seems unendurable, that their thinking became rather skewed, perhaps post-traumatic stress disorder as well. WHICH, again, does not excuse murder/massacre. It’s just more background.
Comment by Sarebear — January 23, 2006 @ 3:29 am
The following is off topic and potentially rude!
The concern that this film is being produced from an “anti†perspective begs a question: Which parts of the history support anything else?
I am compelled to point out that this is a wrong but popular use of “begs a(the) question.” The term has a very technical meaning from formal logic which is not “raises the question” though it is being misused in exactly that way more and more. Please, please, please, if you think that “begs the question” means “raises the question” then simply say “raises the question” whenever the need arises.
I will now run away and hide along with my nerdy indignation.
Comment by a random John — January 23, 2006 @ 9:47 am
The following is off topic and potentially rude!
That’s a good intro, arj. I think I’m going to start putting that line at the start of all my comments.
Comment by Eric Russell — January 23, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Well, arj, every time I become indignant at how a word is being misused I learn that the misuse is accepted as proper (a couple examples: nookyoolar, literally). Popular use has a way of becoming proper. In fact, this may have already happened in the case of beg and you’re just being snooty.
Comment by Tom — January 23, 2006 @ 10:15 am
this is off topic and potentially rude: I third the statement.
I don’t have any problem with this movie. I just don’t think Americans are so stupid that they will interpret any movie as completely factual.
The fact is that a wagon train from Arkansas was attacked and there was possible Mormon involvement. It sounds like an interesting premise for a movie.
I think the more we object to stuff like this, the more appealing it is. That’s part of the appeal, like with that gay cowboy movie.
The actual plot, thwarted lovers, is fairly boring. The controversy has given it more publicity than it deserves.
Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, the Mountain Meadow movie is more interesting in plot.
I sang in a regional choir thing where we had survivors of the massacre come to Cedar and we had general authorities there and it was supposed to be sort of reconciliation. The chief of the Paiutes was there also. I thought it was nice.
It seems like objecting to this movie would negate our remorse.
I am not being contrary today on purpose, it seems I’m disagreeing with everybody.
Comment by annegb — January 23, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I recall when TNT came out with the Avenging Angel movie (with Charlton Heston as Brigham Young) came out. I was on my mission, and I can say that for the few weeks after it came out, missionary work was harder among those who had seen it.
I finally saw it after my movie – it was okay. Rather typical and only decent for a TV movie, but I can see why investigators might have second thoughts about the church after seeing it.
There is often a big difference between how we think audiences should react, and how they actually will.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — January 23, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
In writing the script, Mr. Cain said, he and Ms. Schutter were helped by a great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, who has left the church and become a born-again Christian.
If Sandra Tanner is being referenced here, the Times left out a “great.” Tanner proudly notes that she is a great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young.
Comment by Justin — January 23, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
>>The fact is that a wagon train from Arkansas was attacked and there was possible Mormon involvement.
POSSIBLE Mormon involvement is a far cry from “All the while, the territorial governor and president of the church, Brigham Young, played by Mr. Stamp, is heard in voice-over, encouraging vengeance, violence, “blood atonement†and divine justice.” A second-grader would realize exactly what conclusion the movie was pointing them to.
Comment by HARPINGHEATHER — January 23, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Well I think it unarguable there was Mormon involvement. It was Mormons who did the massacre. What I think one needs to do is understand their motivations, something which says nothing about justifying it. The problem is that I think the obvious extensions to Mormons as a whole will be made.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
“The following is off topic and potentially rude.”
True on both counts, a random John. As anyone with a moderately effective liberal arts education, I understand the term’s “very technical meaning from formal logic.” I notice you did not include a definition in your post. This leads me to suspect that, despite your nominally educative tone, the intention was not so much to enlighten as to demonstrate your own cleverness. Because we are not in a logic lecture I used the term knowingly, and in a manner accepted in common usage. See, The New Oxford Dictionary of English (this use is “widely accepted in modern standard English”). I shall now run to my cave, awaiting your next salvo.
As to the substantive issue, I must say that references to “possible mormon involvement” are precisely what I was describing (#14). The myth persists. There seems to be much less concern that Mormons believe a sanitized (and in some important respects, untrue) version of this tragic event than that non-Mormons might see a dramatized (and potentially biased) version. Unwillingness to acknowledge truth is troubling from any vantage point.
Comment by Kleermaker — January 23, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
arj, I’m using your term all over the blog as a disclaimer. Sucks to be you, huh?
Comment by annegb — January 23, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
My deep dark secrete regarding begs the question.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
okay, now I’m going to use “begs the question” when I get the opportunity. Probably in the check out at Wal-Mart. “Begs the question: how many dogs do you have?”
Comment by annegb — January 24, 2006 @ 6:52 am
I’m sure this will somehow be construed to “beg a question” but I really mean it more as a statement/comment (just as a point of clarification). This moive will no more be representiative of the Church’s involvement in settling the western United States than is a western about a couple of gay cowboys representative of cowboy genre films. Great points by harpingheather, Sarebear, and others about Haun’s Mill, or the extermination order or even the Prophet’s Martyrdom.
Comment by Guy Murray — January 24, 2006 @ 9:41 am
The following is off-topic and potentially rude! And a threadjack at this point
Kleermaker,
Please don’t take my nit-picking as a personal attack. This is a nerdy compulsion that I have. I would guess that the great majority of people have no idea that “begging the question” is a form of logical fallacy in which a part of a proof assumes the truth of the very question being proved. The reason that they do not know that is that recently people have abused the term to mean “raises the question.” In fact, I would think that most people would look at a proper usage of “begs the question” and claim that it is either wrong or nonsense. Given that you claim to know the difference, may I ask why you deliberately selected “begs” rather than “raises”?
If those that know the correct meaning do nothing then it will be lost forever. I really don’t care to elighten anyone as to the proper meaning so much as to stop the popular usage. Yes, I know that this is a fool’s errand, but it is my calling in life! All those in favor beg your right arm to the square. All opposed by the same sign.
Comment by a random John — January 24, 2006 @ 10:13 am
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm
Well, interesting stuff, but I suspect if will sink quickly.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — January 24, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
I think it makes great subject matter for a movie. The problem is that the Church will not get a favorable treatment. That is, the facts about this are very much in dispute. Cain will not and cannot really portray that. From the article, it looks like the movie will show that BY very much did endorse, perhaps even direct, the massacre. That is not a fair depiction of the facts; even Juanita Brooks points out that we don’t know something like that for sure.
We have President Hinckley’s statement that he is sure that BY was opposed to it. The Church position is that BY sent a messenger with explicit instructions not to interfere with the wagon train. It does not seem that this view will come through in Cain’s film.
Another thing that greatly troubles me based on what I read in the NYT article is that Cain has stated that “I don’t see any reason to soft-pedal anything.” He goes on to explain that what he means by this is not that he is interested in showing not only the massacre but also the reason the “Mormon” settlers felt like a massacre was in order, i.e. the intense persecution of the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois, which included rape, beatings, pillaging, a genocidal extermination order issued by the state, and the forced expulsion of an entire religious group out of the country of the United States, not to mention the brutal treatment of Mormon missionaries in Arkansas. Rather, the article makes it seem that Cain is not interested in showing this side of the story at all, but rather wants to spend the entire picture showing the monstrous Mormons bashing people’s heads in with rocks.
Cain’s stated reason for making this movie equally gives reason to disturb us. He wants to show basically what Krakauer wanted to show: that religion breeds violence. This is something he wants to show through the movie, as articulated in the NYT article Clark has linked.
Comment by john f. — January 28, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Okay, Clark also expressed what I was trying to say in # 10 — should have read all the comments before commenting.
Comment by john f. — January 28, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Just to note the Tanners aren’t involved.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 28, 2006 @ 9:56 pm