Posted on 08/23/2007 5:45:11 PM PDT by Reaganesque
"This handsome indie Western damningly recounts the 1857 slayings of 120 settlers passing through Utah, but the didactic presentation, grim speechifying and tacked-on love story all signify a less-than-healthy regard for the audience's intelligence."
Variety Justin Chang
1/4 "The film feels less like historical drama than a venomous religious tract printed on celluloid." Minneapolis Star Tribune Colin Covert
"September Dawn has the ham-fisted lyricism of political ads and pharmaceutical commercials." Village Voice J. Hoberman
"When the movie isn't doling out ham-fisted history...it gives us magnificent vistas of a pristine prairie...and there's a deep sweetness to the subplot of Jonathan and Emily falling in love." Film Journal International Frank Lovece
1.5/4 "When watching the screen depiction of a historic event in which 120 people were murdered, giggling is not the appropriate response." Salt Lake Tribune Sean Means
1/5 "It has the chilling certitude of the self-righteous." Orlando Sentinel Roger Moore
2.5/5 "The real problem is that September Dawn isn't a very good movie. It moves too much like a public-school history pageant and gives us mono-dimensional characters who speak dialogue that fairly reeks of printer's ink." Arizona Republic Richard Nilsen
1/5 "The jarring MTV-style filmmaking is so distracting and the 'messaging' so unsubtle that after two long hours you find yourself leaving the theater with a massive headache, wondering when you started to hate Mormons." Orlando Weekly Brett Register
1/4 "Forget Grindhouse. September Dawn is the year's first honest-to-goodness exploitation flick." Slant Magazine Nick Schager
1/4 "Bombastic, slow-drying dramatization with lead-weight dialogue and a turgid romantic subplot." Newsday Gene Seymour
D- "Has serious problems in historical terms. But in this case they're exacerbated by the simple ineptitude of the filmmaking." One Guy's Opinion Frank Swietek
"Even if one gets past the movie's controversial depictions, there is the matter of its second-rate, made-for-television fare -- the poor battle choreography, the wooden editing and the cheesy writing." Washington Post Desson Thomson
2.5/4 "If September Dawn is a kind of Western, it's a Western utterly devoid of heroism or the usual archetypes. But the core message transcends time: Hatred laced with religious fanaticism is a toxic blend." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Dave Tianen
1/4 "Doesn't even measure up to an episode of your typical, cowboy TV show from the Fifties like Roy Rogers or The Lone Ranger. Get my drift, Kimosabe?" NewsBlaze Kam Williams
Click here for links to the full reviews.
“We’ll protect your back as you pass thru.”
[Mormon definition of words was different even back then!]
Here is a must read for everybody, the most evenhanded account I’ve seen from a Mormon.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/ERobinson.html
“But there’s the unmistakable air of evil about this enterprise..”
What is the feminine phraseology for “air of evil?” I doubt there is any question of from where this “air of evil” emanated.
“I am wondering about why someone would want to make this movie now. Is Hillary and/or the DNC or their Hollywood friends behind it?”
What planet have you been on since Jan 20, 1993?
“Production on this movie probably started at least three and perhaps five years ago.
I would be real curious to see how prominent Mitt was as a potential candidate then, shortly after his election as MA gov.
His candidacy only became credible as a result of his purported success as a relatively conservative governor in a very liberal state, which couldn’t have been foreseen when development of the movie started.”
I have never posted anything that used the Mormon persecution in the East as an excuse for the atrocities committed by Mormons at Mountain Meadows. Those who committed these heinous acts may have felt justified because of past wrongs but they were mistaken and their actions were evil. All those who participated in this barbaric episode will face God's justice in the end. That participation extends to those who may have planned and authorized those events.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
10. I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
11. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.
12. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ."
13. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
14. I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15. so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
16. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)
17. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Acts 17:1-4
1. When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.
2. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3. explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, " he said.
4. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.
Acts 18:24-28
24. Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. (again, the OT)
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
27. When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.
28. For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Since you haven't seen the movie, you don't know whether it is historically accurate or not.
“Brigham Young, like followers of Billy Graham” Followers of Brigham Young, like followers of Billy Graham, have tremendous affection for their leader, and they get downright surly when you criticize them. Exploring the source of that affection is the key to making the drama credible.””
What an insult to Billy Graham, comparing simple, normal affection for Graham to the horrors and violence of the brainwashed cultists that you have been reading about on this thread, is bizarre.
I have seen Billy Graham, but I didn’t even know that he had followers, I thought that he was an Evangelist not a leader of a religion, or even a church, If I’m wrong about that, I still never even heard of any surliness, much less massacres by people that admire Graham.
Really I don’t understand your ridiculous comparison at all.
This movie is typical bravo sierra from the mainstream protestants. Not even good entertainment. I recently watched three movies about Wyatt Earp, none of which agreed with the story line, but all three had very good acting with Burt Lancaster, Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner. All of the actors portraying Doc Holliday were superb.
Okay, so I admit I have a weakness for flawed heros. Brigham Young comes to mind.
Thanks for the interesting link. I enjoyed reading Ebenezer Robinson’s account. He was an eyewitness to many events in the early history of the LDS church. Some of those events included one of my ancestors who ended up spending the winter of 1838-39 in the Liberty Jail with Joseph Smith.
That document appears to be a Rosetta Stone for understanding the events, pretty harsh on everybody. There must be a better edition of it though, complete with the redacted D&C and other notes.
This is a much better link to that material:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/Return1.htm
You can’t just look at the date MMM happened. It took time for the facts to come out and there was a deep Us vs Them mindset that biased them against believing accusations. They also had good reasons to question if anyone arrested for it would get a fair trial.
You are ignoring the historical context and using hindsight to condemn them for not acting by some unspecified, arbitrary deadline, even though you don’t really know who knew what when, or even what specific charge it was they were ex’ed for.
Fault-finding is a lazy sport anyone can master. People who want to find fault can find it wherever they want to, even in the Savior. If the Church had acted quickly, you could just as easily be posting here today that by acting quickly the Church showed that it knew what happened very fast, so they must have been in on it, and they were trying to quickly toss those guys under the bus as part of the cover up.
Bottom line is the Church doesn’t toss members aside based on rumors, accusation, hearsay and alleged crimes. That means it can be a while before someone who should be ex’ed actually gets shown the door but it is better that than for a worthy member to get railroaded out undeservedly. We all will stand to be judged of God, and being a member there only means you should have known better.
“there was just no distinction in UT between the Church and secular authorities. It was an outright theocracy, mitigated somewhat at times by the federal and military authorities. The same men held Church, militia and territorial offices simultaneously, as was the case with those who planned and perpetrated MMM.”
Just because there were men holding a church and political office doesn’t mean that it’s a theocracy. Given the structure of the church and demographics of the area, it would have been impossible to not have people serving in both areas.
Government and religions offices had distinct rolls, even if a man served in both kinds of positions. Actions taken as a political officer did not carry the authority of the Church and actions taken as a church leader were not backed by the authority of the state. You could also have two members where the relationship of their positions in the church was the inverse of their position in secular office.
Butler Wash Ruins
If you talk this little walk from your car to the overlook (about 1/2 mile) there are some UNDOCUMENTED ruins just a mere 100 or so feet south (left) of where you are standing!
You’d probably fall of the cliff to your death if you tried to get TO them from the overlook, but if you walk up the drainage from the highway, then you are underneath them in the tangled up vegetation.
Been there, done that.
Quite neat.
Well, that's a "partial" allowance; but not a fully justified one: I know you can say that we can't import our "media-quick, media-fed" "you're guilty" modern mindset back into the days of the slow West. One reason to counter that is when you check out "street justice" and "mob justice" in the Old West, you'll find it was too often anything but slow and didn't cater to a drawn-out "due process" that you keep zeroing in on... (as Joe Smith found out).
You are ignoring the historical context and using hindsight to condemn them for not acting by some unspecified, arbitrary deadline, even though you don’t really know who knew what when, or even what specific charge it was they were ex’ed for.
You are so funny. In my comments I keep highlighting the church's role to investigate these crimes and at least usher in ex-communication charges (which they eventually did in Haight's case...13 years after the fact). I'm not saying it would be a perfect, complete "sweep." But it was obvious there were "leaders" to this massacre; and once you talk to the "leaders" they can tell you exactly who was involved in following what orders.
You keep saying/implying it's a criminal matter for beyond the church's doors, as if the church was clueless...even your comment of even though you don’t really know who knew what when, or even what specific charge it was they were ex’ed for confirms that you seem to think that church leadership cannot exercise church discipline apart from criminal proceedings and criminal investigations.
I mean even from a "criminal" matter, if the church wanted to start from that angle, it's not like this was a total "Who dun it?" mystery. For starters, we know that this was ordered by Wm. H. Dame; it was directed by Lt. Col. Isaac Haight; and it was executed by John D. Lee. (I mean, it's not like the Utah militia in those days acted behind white hoods like the KKK).
"When," you ask? (Kind of easy answer: Sept. 11, 1857...you make it sound like this is a "cold case" kind of mystery 150 years later).
"What?" did they do, you ask? (Hmmm...boy, really tough question. How about murder, mayhem, and kidnapping, for starters.)
If you want to know "who" we have re: a partial list of victims' names of the Fancher party even now, and this list wasn't simply work of only a modern-day researcher.
If you want to know "what charges" to bring them up for, well it's a real lame apologetic excuse to try to blame this on the so-called "Utah War." It wasn't really a "war." As others have pointed out, it was more like a "Utah Standoff"...I mean who ever heard of a "war" (other than perhaps the "Cold War") where there were a few skirmishes but no casualties? Lee wasn't court-martialed for this crime; he was tried in a civil court (so the massacre party's advocates should stop trying to hide under this umbrella).
So what charges? We know who ordered, directed and executed the massacre at the leadership level (at least three men). We know that murder is an unforgiveable sin in the LDS church. And we know that to commit murder, you don't have to squeeze the trigger. (If you order someone to be murdered, and there was no dispute who ordered and directed and executed this at least among these three, then Dame could also have been ex-communicated since he committed an unforgiveable sin (by LDS standards).
Bottom line is the Church doesn’t toss members aside based on rumors, accusation, hearsay and alleged crimes.
Yeah, right. (which is exactly why RC diocese after RC diocese has shelled out $millions, all because they knowingly placed priests into new positions with questionable track records--even tho these priests were conviction-free and some of their past came down to "he said" which the Church wrote off as "rumors, accusations, hearsay and alleged crimes.")
“One reason to counter that is when you check out “street justice” and “mob justice” in the Old West”
So Mormons not resorting to lynch-mob justice is a bad thing to you?
“But it was obvious there were “leaders” to this massacre; and once you talk to the “leaders” they can tell you exactly who was involved in following what orders.”
And if they refuse to help, or just try to use the situation to get payback by naming people not involved, what then?
“You keep saying/implying it’s a criminal matter for beyond the church’s doors, as if the church was clueless”
Last I checked, murder was a criminal act, and with the separation of church and state churches had no jurisdiction to investigate a criminal act.
“even your comment of even though you don’t really know who knew what when, or even what specific charge it was they were ex’ed for confirms that you seem to think that church leadership cannot exercise church discipline apart from criminal proceedings and criminal investigations.”
I said that in the case of MURDER they would need a confession or conviction to act on. There are many non-criminal things a person can be ex’ed for (apostacy, violations of the law of chastity etc.) but again it would take either someone to confess their own sin, or another with first hand knowledge to accuse and begin the process. There is a presumption of innocence as well.
“I mean even from a “criminal” matter, if the church wanted to start from that angle, it’s not like this was a total “Who dun it?” mystery.”
So you feel comfortable with tossing aside the presumption of innocence, rules of evidence, and due process because it’s obvious to you with your 20/20 hindsight who is guilty? o you not understand what those safeguards are for? Do you really think that everyone back then saw it all right away as being as cut and dried, black and white as you do today?
Do you know the exact wording of Dame’s order? If not, how can you judge his intent, how can you measure if his order was correctly understood, misunderstood or deliberately twisted? Dame might be guilty as sin, but for the church to ex him there has to be sufficient evidence that it was justified. If the legal authorities can’t get someone convicted, how is it justified to impose an even worse punishment on them than what the law could ever do?
As someone who clearly doesn’t share our faith, what is it to you if our way of dealing with wayward members is not sufficiently harsh for you? From your POV, by keeping him a Mormon aren’t we inflicting some kind of eternal punishment on him? Have you no faith in the justice of God? Would you really feel that just ex’ing him would be enough to say that justice was well served? It seems more to me like your only concern is with finding some way to turn this event into a club to beat on the church with.
“We know that murder is an unforgiveable sin in the LDS church...Dame could also have been ex-communicated since he committed an unforgiveable sin (by LDS standards).
It’s God that forgives, the Church is there to encourage and help people find God’s forgiveness. I don’t think we can really say if he is guilty or not without knowing just what was said in that conversation he had Lee and Haight. L & H would both have a motive portray Dame as ordering it, Dame would have a motive for saying he was misunderstood or disobeyed so as fas as my information goes I don’t think we can ever be really sure about Dame one way or the other. If Dame is guilty God will hold him accountable for that, and also for anything he did to cover over his guilt and hang onto a membership he shouldn’t have had.
Just wanted to make sure I’m not alone, good, other people have noticed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.