There has been hubbub around the release of
The Golden Compass, the first film in a projected trilogy based on the
His Dark Materials books by Philip Pullman. It seems Mr. Pullman is an avowed atheist and his books, reportedly, are an allegory about discovering that religion and God are essentially hoaxes. I haven't read the books so I can't really say one way or the other. I've read some pretty convincing arguments on both sides -- some saying the books encourage independent thought, curiosity, wonder, kindness, patience, etc. and others saying that a book by an atheist simply can't be faith affirming. All the talk has piqued my curiosity and the trailer of the film looks like a million bucks. Reviews generally have been mixed-to-poor. The best review tagline I've read so far said, "
Compass Disappoints Fans and Censors," meaning it was neither here nor there enough to satisfy anyone.
Anyway, because the people on the Association for Mormon Letters discussion board are people who are interested in religion and books and movies, it's sparked some discussion there as well. Recently, I posted some quotes from Philip Pullman that I thought were interesting and another writer, Thom Duncan who is a playwright, responded and brought up Richard Dutcher, the director of
God's Army,
Brigham City, and
States of Grace. The following is some of what was written:
"There's an brief, interesting article on Time magazine's online version today about Philip Pullman. Here are a couple of excerpts:
'I suppose if you are interested in religious questions, that makes you religious," Pullman muses. 'I am. What I am not is a believer in the sorts of gods that seem to be on offer from the various major religions.'
Pullman sees himself as championing the universal human values of love and tolerance and curiosity, many of which are of course also embraced by Christianity, though not always, he argues, by Christian writers.
...
Atheism has had a best-selling moment of late with the success of books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and Pullman runs the grave and improbable risk of becoming not just mainstream but fashionable. But he isn't a creature of fashion any more than he's a creature of Satan. 'I'm a great admirer of both men,' he says, 'but I wouldn't want to be part of any movement that had an agenda. I'm not arguing a case. I'm not preaching a sermon. I'm not giving a lecture. I'm telling a story. Any position I take is that of a storyteller who says, Once upon a time, this happened.'"
....
Thom Duncan: "'I'm telling a story. Any position I take is that of a storyteller who says, Once upon a time, this happened.'
Richard Dutcher should memorize Pullman's comment. In fact, I think he may have said something similar at one time or another.
Despite the clarity of this position, some LDS continue to be bothered by such superflous things as Dutcher's missionaries flouting the rules. Poetic license is someting that some people don't seem willing to grant to Mormon Artists. I wish I knew why. Current scholarship shows us that not all the history in the Bible is accurate, there are questions about the time line, and the literary allusions abound, and the official understanding of the Book of Mormons geography has changed in recent decades from a pan-American Nephite civilization to a localized group of people in Mezo-America. Yet none of that affects our appreciation, undestanding, and belief of the sriptures as valid moral guides. Why do we then, become so exercised when an LDS artist uses similar techniques to tell his/her story."
My response: "Good questions. Thom. I think a lot of it has to do with what I think of as the Paul H. Dunn Effect. We come from such an odd, obscure, unlikely history (boy sees God, gets plates made of gold, translates new scripture, men have dozens of wives, etc.) that I think Mormons as a people have long been hungry for mainstream acceptance and have long shunned anything that makes us seem shaky, shifty, weird, or less than firmly established as 100% true all the time.
I think the whole Paul H. Dunn thing had a lot to do with why
The Friend will only accept stories 'based on actual events.' He wounded the institution's public persona of always telling the truth all the time, of always being factual despite the unlikelihood of the claim.
As members of the church we are taught early on that everything we do, say, and think is an extension of/representation of our membership in the church. We're taught to always set the best example because we never know who is watching. We are encouraged to avoid the appearance of evil, etc.
This combines with the fact that the church has always produced paintings, theater, literature, and film but has never produced art for art's sake. Many of the images, sounds, and stories members are exposed to early on are didactic in nature. I think this creates a powerful feeling in most mainstream members that tells them that any artistic creation they may make or consume should not only represent but actively promote the values, teaching, and doctrine of the church.
In other words, I think the whole 'I'm a member of the church first and a (fill in the blank with artist, writer, painter, plumber, etc.) second' is why many LDS people can't get past a Mormon artist who creates things that don't fit into the comfortable, easy to define world of didacticism. For many, you can't be
just a storyteller if you're Mormon. You will always be a Mormon who tells stories and, as such, you have a responsibility to tell stories and tell them in a way that are in keeping with the greater knowledge and light that you have.
I think the problem comes in when an artist makes something that he/she feels is completely in keeping with that greater light and knowledge but the consumer doesn't see it. The (to my mind) ridiculous comments that were made about Dutcher's
States of Grace along the lines of 'Who would want to go see a film about a missionary having sex with a porn star?!!' fall in this category. The film was about grace and redemption for everyone, particularly for the most flawed of sinners and that was the message. But because it showed a missionary falling to temptation and then symbolically suggesting his acceptance and redemption through Christ RATHER THAN depicting some narrow escape from the clutches of evil, some saw it as not in keeping with what we are taught in the 13th Article of Faith.
(I feel like I'm doing an awful lot of stumping for people whose POV I don't agree with.)
Anyway, a lot of it just comes down to taste and tolerance for complexity and darkness. For me, I need darkness in order for the light to have real meaning. Elder Farrell's fall in
States of Grace reminds me of what a sinner I am and of how dependent on and grateful for Christ I am and need to be. If he had just avoided Holly and not given in, I would have thought, "Good for him" but there would have been no ending to the movie.
States of Grace doesn't encourage us to sin. Rather, it suggested there was hope for when we do -- which we all do and always will.
But, back to the original point of this post, depicting a character who had a history in adult films and, worse yet, having that character sleep with a missionary doesn't fit in with some people's view of what a Mormon storyteller should do. Because he/she should know better (according to them).
This, of course, reminds me of my old saw about why Mormons will flock to see amoral trash produced by people who have nothing to do with their lives, beliefs, or cultural heritage but will stay away from
God's Army because there are Priesthood blessings given on screen and a missionary sitting on the can.
But that's a post for another day."
