Don’t abandon Mormonism and Mormon cinema: It makes Kieth Merrill angry
Richard Dutcher’s commentary in last Thursday’s edition of the (Provo, Utah) Daily Herald sent shockwaves throughout the Mormon blogging community. (Of course there’s a Mormon blogging community. There’s a blogging community for everything.) I recommend reading it in its entirety, but here are some key excerpts:
The church would never allow shoddy, inexperienced architects and builders to create one of its temples. In its sacred commitment to excellence, the church searches for and employs those with the necessary talents, non-Mormons and Mormons alike. Some day, church leaders also will understand the power and potential of film. The cinema of a movement as great as Mormonism must be directed by great artists, not by inexperienced committees. Imagine the potential of images to convey the deepest, most sacred doctrines of Mormonism.
Look at the movies that play on the screen of the theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. These films are the introduction of Mormonism to hundreds of thousands of people from across the globe. Shouldn’t these be the most powerful films on the face of the earth? For whatever reason — nepotism, ignorance … who knows? — this opportunity is squandered. Why not share with visitors the beauty and power of Mormonism, rather than treating them to polite, remedial and not-so-factual recitations of Mormon History and scripture? Viewers should leave those films weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring. Film has the power to do that.
He also said he is no longer a practicing Mormon (a big shock to most readers), but he loves the church and its doctrines and has simply gone a different direction, spiritually.
On Saturday, the Herald ran a viewpoint by Chris Heimerdinger, a popular LDS novelist whose book “Passage to Zarahemla” is being made into a film to be released this summer. Heimerdinger’s comments don’t really interest me, so I’m not going to talk about them.
The real juicy response to Dutcher’s article was published right next to Heimerdinger’s, both covered by one central headline: “Answering Dutcher.” This one was by Kieth Merrill (misspelling of “Keith” is correct), who won a Best Documentary Feature Oscar in 1973 for “The Great American Cowboy.” He was a little annoyed by Dutcher’s dismissal of the films that play at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. These movies, first “Legacy” and most recently “The Testaments,” are hour-long motion pictures that depict stories, dramatized but fact-based, pertaining to Mormonism. Dutcher described them as “polite, remedial and not-so-factual recitations of Mormon History and scripture.” This offended Merrill because, um, he wrote and directed them.
Merrill’s published response is here. I encourage you to read it. It is a masterpiece of angry, irrational, foaming-at-the-mouth straight-up craziness. That he fired it off to the Herald without stopping to collect himself is amazing; that the Herald would publish something they knew Merrill would soon regret having written is, well, not surprising. I mean, if someone gives you an awesome firecracker, you’re gonna light it, right?
Some choice excerpts from Merrill’s vein-popping tirade:
Dutcher has made five movies. One is pretty good. One is OK. The others are mediocre, depending on your tolerance. The “rave reviews” he loves to post on his Web site come from the same folks who praised “The Departed” — but Hollywood and its critics have long since ignored redeeming social value as a criteria of quality and entertainment that inspires as a measure of true brilliance.
(When did Hollywood turn evil, Kieth? Was it before or after they gave you the Oscar you’re so fond of mentioning? And Dutcher’s films are a lot of things, but to suggest they don’t have redeeming social value is to suggest that you have not watched them. They are ALL ABOUT the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the power of repentance and forgiveness. A person can disagree with the doctrine involved, but there’s no denying it has social value.)
Good, Richard. So your ultimate goal is to make a demented and despicable film like “The Departed” that is perfectly crafted and wins you an Oscar but assaults every virtue, value and sensibility you’ve ever known? You should have taken the insurance money when your building burned down and gone into real estate.
(Bringing up the sad case of Dutcher’s Mapleton, Utah, offices burning down last year: classy.)
I predict that Richard Dutcher will (1) find a niche by dropping deeper into the darkness of the hard-R market; (2) become a companion of commiseration with Neil LeButte; or (3) disappear altogether. On the other hand he may become a pawn of the anti-Mormons who are now making DVDs and passing them out door to door. How about “God’s Army Gone South”?
(For the record, none of Dutcher’s film so far has been anything more than a very mild PG-13. Also for the record, Mr. LaBute spells his name with one “t.”)
Here is the truth. More people have been inspired by “Mr. Krueger’s Christmas,” [another Merrill movie] moved to tears during “Legacy” and walked out of “The Testament” with spirits soaring than the total number of people who have ever bothered to go to Richard Dutcher’s movies combined. Your arrogance makes me bite my tongue to keep from turning a somber “goodbye” into a cheerful “good riddance.”
(It is worth noting, of course, that the reason more people have seen Merrill’s movies is that they are shown for free.)
Now then. That’s some pretty angry stuff there. But it gets better! That is the toned-down version! Merrill sent his earlier draft to an LDS film e-mail group, and the moderator sent it out to the list. It is mostly the same as what appeared in the Herald, but features some angrier language. Some examples:
Richard Dutcher has made 5 movies. A couple are pretty good (as films go) the others are weak to mediocre depending on your tolerance. The “rave reviews” he loves to post on his website come from the edgy fringe of the movie business - and of course Hollywood is the “edgy fringe” of society anyway.
If Dutcher was truly a stand-out, unusual and brilliant filmmaker, his haughtiness might be tolerable and his advice worth a box of Krispy Kreme donuts. But even Mormons rejected his last two films and his latest Fallen Angel is so raunchyâ€â€according to some who worked on it I suspect it won’t even open in Utah. Well it will open in Park City maybe or even Sundance where the films depicting the dark underbelly of society are hailed as magnificent art!
Here is the truth Dutcher, you idiot. More people have walked out of Legacy and The Testaments with hearts throbbing, tears streaming and spirits soaring [than] the total number of people who have ever even bothered to go to your stupid movies !!!!
I’m not going to bother dissecting the mistruths and logical flaws in this, since it wasn’t Merrill’s “official” response anyway. Also, something else amusing happened.
In Merrill’s version for the Herald, he wrote, “Give me a break! The guy’s gone mental!” In the paper, that paragraph got cut altogether. But the uncut version appeared on the Herald’s Web site, only with “mental” changed to “psycho.”
Apparently, Herald executive editor Randy Wright checked with Merrill before making the change, and Merrill okayed it. Why did Randy want to change it? Maybe he thought “mental” was offensive to mentally ill people, but “psycho” wasn’t? Who knows. Having spent a year with Randy as my boss, I can only assume that the reason was something impulsive and flawed.
Anyway, the complete version of Merrill’s article appeared on the Web, including the “psycho” paragraph. But whoever oversees Web stuff for the Herald had to write a headline for the story (it didn’t have a proper headline in the newspaper version, so there wasn’t one already attached), and what that editor came up with was this:
That’s the version Merrill saw when he looked for his article online, and it led him to write a blistering e-mail to Randy Wright. He forwarded it to that LDS film group again, with a note asking the moderator to pass it along:
Please make sure your readers get this official version.
FYI - I never said “Dutcher has gone psycho.”BLIND-SIDED
Randy - Editor Provo Daily Hearald,
My request for no changes without my approval included the headline.
When you said you were changing my use of the word “mental” to “pyscho” I thought you meant in the text– in another context.
You did NOT tell me you were making that the headline.
I appreciate that controversy sells papers for you, but good grief, my article was bad enough without using THAT headline.
I FEEL TOTALLY BLIND-SIDED BY THAT CHOICE ! The headline is big and bold and in fact something I NEVER said.
Silence IS golden. I need to remember that.
Alas.
Kieth Merrill
This is one of my favorite sentences ever: “I appreciate that controversy sells papers for you, but good grief, my article was bad enough without using THAT headline.” In other words: “I look really, really bad right now, and 99.9 percent of it is my own fault — but I’m going to yell at you for the other 0.1 percent!”
If you look at that story on the Herald’s site now, you’ll see it with this headline:
And in the text, where Merrill wrote, “The guy’s gone mental!,” and where Randy changed it to, “The guy’s gone psycho!,” it NOW says, “The guy’s lost it!”
So back to the main story: The Herald ran Merrill’s very angry response to Dutcher’s comments. Now, if you’ve been following current events in the entertainment industry the last several months, you know what comes right after the public, rage-fueled rant: the contrite apology.
Merrill began his apology tour where it all started, on the opinion page of the Daily Herald. On Monday, a new article from Merrill appeared. It reads, in part:
My outrageous and over-reactive response to Richard’s editorial in the Daily Herald was inappropriate and wrong. I was wrong in doing it. I was mostly wrong in what I said. There were reasons, of course, but none of them qualify as an acceptable excuse for my bad behavior. I regret my actions and my words. I apologize for my sarcasm, criticism and condemnations. I am sorry. I have asked Richard and Gwen to forgive me.
My rant was destructive, venomous and arrogant. It is I who am “psycho.” Offensive words spoken are bad enough. Offensive words written and put on the Internet become an irretrievable poison in the cosmos. Retractions can never scrub it completely clean so going forward I will endeavor to find other ways to make it right if I am able.
Obviously, Merrill’s next step will be to enter rehab.
But I kid the director of “Legacy” and “The Testaments”! I give the guy props for apologizing. It takes a big man to do that. Of course, it’s a little alarming that he’s capable of such pettiness, judgmentalism, and meanness when he’s angry, but I guess as long as no one makes him angry, we’ll be OK.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I have a paper to write, but I’ll get back to this. I can tell that it’s oozing drama.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Not that I’m missing the point of the article, but “for the record,” “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” replaced “The Testaments” at the Legacy theater in the latter part of 2005. It was not created by Kieth Merrill, though.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I think maybe you enjoyed Merrill’s blowup a little too much.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
The best thing about Testaments was Geddy Lee playing a Native American. I can say this with certainty, neither one of them is a particularly good filmmaker. If I had to pick the better one, I’d say Dutcher. Mr. Krueger’s Christmas was just plain awful.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
What? Geddy Lee is on Testaments? Maybe I’ll have to go force myself to sit through it after all.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:22 am
The next big leap for Mormons and Mormonism: being able to handle it when somebody leaves Mormonism.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:49 am
This is a very interesting set of articles. While I agree with Merrill that Dutcher is acting condescending, Merrill himself needs to see the beam in his own eye, so to speak.
Which response is more helpful, Merrill’s or Heimerdinger’s? When Dutcher says “you suck”, Heimerdinger says “yeah, but we can do better” while Merrill says “oh yeah? YOU suck!”
April 18th, 2007 at 7:59 am
If Geddy Lee is actually in Testaments, that would be its one and only redeeming quality. I loved this post. It just goes to show how petty, immature and unintelligent LDS filmmaking has become. Dutcher was the only standout. It’s too bad to see him go. I hope he comes back soon.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:23 am
You know, I have no great love for Kieth Merrill. I think his Audience Alliance is moronic, and Legacy was boring. And this op-ed is outrageous.
However, it’s kind of nice to see someone slap Dutcher. He’s a good filmmaker, but he’s not nearly as amazingly revolutionary as he thinks he is.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Nope. Don’t get your hopes up. No Geddy Lee listed here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258247/fullcredits#cast
April 18th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Is Kieth’s apology truly an act of contrition brought upon by spiritual introspection or did his business manager call him up and say, “Do you realize how many people are NOT going to buy into our film financing scam now that they’ve seen the real you? Quick, publish an apology. Maybe enough people will believe you’re sincere to save our hides.”
April 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Loved this commentary–though I also liked Heimerdinger’s response as well–Thanks Eric, for compressing the info. I especially like the part about him arguing over the .01 that was the papers fault. Very funny…very sad…very interesting.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Greg: You are mistaken. “Mr. Krueger’s Christmas” was AWESOME!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Charity covereth a multitude of sins.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You know, I hate to take a side here, but Dutcher’s films always left me with the impression that they were about redemption and the atonement. I really was inspired by “God’s Army” and “States of Grace”. I liked “Legacy” well enough, but it didn’t make me cry. And “Testaments” came across as bad actors on a laughably bad stage-set. At no time in that movie could I suspend my disbelief that we were watching anything other than actors. I really was confused when people in the church didn’t like “God’s Army” simply because they thought portraying a blessing was sacrelige. (?) Was he making a joke of it? No, he handled it very respectfully. (But if Mormons would rather chuckle at themselves watching schlock like “Home Teachers” — with no message about the atonement, they can be my guest.) Dutcher’s work is important.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
…And that goes for your mom, too!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I’ve always felt Dutcher was way too snooty in the way he overvalues his film skills. Yeah, garbage like “Home Teachers” was made. But so were really good films like “Saints and Soldiers”. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that the percentage of mormo-films that are rubbish is significantly less than the percentage of general films that are rubbish. Granted, I think the mormo-movies should be better than Hollywood, but Dutcher always seemed offended that they were not as much better as he would have liked. He never seemed to have the patience to let the genre grow up, and wanted it to be instantly mature.
I didn’t realize how petty Kieth Merrill could be, and was quite startled by his response. I’ve always considered him more of a documentary artist, and not all that great at storytelling (I disliked Legacy, and never even saw Testiments, but I did like Mr. Kruger’s Christmas). But his juvenile response was not at all appropriate. It tends to reinforce Dutcher’s dismissive assessment of Merrill as a filmmaker - backhandedly comparing his work to “shoddy, inexperienced architects and builders” working on a temple. I can see this kind of thing infuriating Merrill, and if it were me, I’d write back to defend myself. But to call names, that was petty and childish. Stick to the facts.
Dutcher’s work is good, but by the end he was starting to set himself up as a light to which he thinks others should look. If the Church of Jesus Christ wanted a more professional looking ministry, it would not send out a bunch of 19-year-olds and 21-year-olds to spread its message. It would hire film and advertising specialists who weren’t necessarily within the church to produce more visually stunning and emotionally drawing films for its visitor centers. It could change its methods to be more appealing to those who desire entertainment. But it doesn’t. The strength of their outreach is the spirit of sacrifice that 19-year-olds make to give up two years of their life and the power of their message.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
You must really have a lot of spare time on your hands.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
How petty was Kieth Merrill? Exactly as petty as I am when someone attacks something I love. I’m not surprised. There have been times when I have reacted for more angrily than I ought to have, but I’ve been lucky enough to lack the means to publish those reactions to hundreds of thousands of readers. And some of them have been REALLY bad.
I agree with Dutcher; when cinema is commissioned by the Church itself, we should demand more. Legacy was an early attempt at doing things well, so far its part it did fine. Pizzatheface described my feelings about Testaments perfectly, so I don’t have to. But it could be much better, and Dutcher’s right: it should be much better.
Dutcher is what he is, and he probably could have been more tactful. Everything I know about Kieth Merrill leads me to believe he’s a decent man. I’m not really surprised by his initial reaction (and really, as angry missives go, it’s not the most rancid thing I’ve seen) and I’d like to take his apology at face value.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Eric,
I have to say that I’m somewhat shocked at your incredible leap to the Isle of Conclusions in the following statement:
(It is worth noting, of course, that the reason more people have seen Merrill’s movies is that they are shown for free.)
That is certainly:
1) Unproveable. Maybe more people have seen Merrill’s movies, I don’t have hard figures on that, but to assert that the difference is the price is an unsupportable assumption.
2) Illogical. What you are saying is that there are more people willing to travel to Salt Lake City and get tickets to see Legacy in the Joseph Smith Theater than there are people willing to pony up between $1 and $9 to see God’s Army in a theater near them. I would think that the advantage of proximity would far outweigh the advantage of price, especially in comparing those two movies. Have more people seen Mr. Krueger’s Christmas than have seen Dutcher’s stuff? Possibly, due to it having been shown on TV. But, put God’s Army or what-not on TV and those numbers will equal out. I think you’re trying to compare apples and oranges here, and I call shenanigans on you.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:38 am
I’ll just second some of what LittleWoodenBoy stated. Merrill reacted emotionally after his work and love was attacked as he perceived it. After some time and thought he realized he made a mistake commenting before some time and thought. I think many of us have been in a similar position. I will take his apology at face value as well.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Duke, there are plenty of other reasons why more people have seen Merrill’s movies than Dutcher’s, and none of them are because Merrill’s movies are better (which is what he seemed to be saying when he brought it up).
Merrill’s movies are official church productions that were shown non-stop every single day for 15 years at the Joseph Smith building, right next to Temple Square! Temple Square gets 3 million visitors a year, and everyone who comes by gets a chance to see the movie. If Dutcher’s movies were officially sanctioned church productions, shown for free next to one of the most popular tourist attractions in the Western United States, he’d have millions of viewers, too. It has nothing to do with whose movies are better.
It was just really smug of Merrill to point out his movies have had more viewers than Dutcher’s. It’s like whoever writes the church Sunday School manual telling an up-and-coming new writer, “More people have read my book than yours!” That doesn’t mean it’s better. It means it’s mass-produced and distributed for free to the entire church, that’s all.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am
My thoughts on Merrill are varied. “Mr. Kreuger’s Christmas” stunk. I thought “Legacy” was so-so. I loved “The Testaments,” if only for it’s portrayal of Christ, which IMO is the best portrayal of the Savior I’ve seen. The whole “Audience Alliance” is mis-conceived and arrogant.
I think reading this response shows Merrill is just as egotistical as Dutcher, but that doesn’t bother me. Most film directors with any degree of success are. I think his apology was sincere, for the same reasons that others have stated. I’ve been known to fire off angry e-mails myself, and then really regret them. Of course, I haven’t done it in a way quite as public as Mr. Merrill, but then again the Daily Herald doesn’t care much about what I write, either.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I realize I am a little late getting in the mix on this, but I became aware of this whole war of words this morning.
I can fully appreciate many of the grievances felt by Mr. Dutcher. Would particularly like to comment on the line where he says “… it is better to tell an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie.”
I, along with, I am sure, many other young LDS people who have a strange ailment (perhaps it is a particular challenge God has given us), by which we are unable to stop our minds from following paths of reason that would shock and some of our more “faithful” peers, have been disturbed by the tendency of some LDS scholars, artists, writers, and film makers to gloss over points of history or doctrine that do not give outsiders, or even ourselves, the warm fuzzies when we first encounter them. At times it would seem that Church sponsored publications (manuals, videos, etc.) tend to follow that line as well. I do not attempt to ascribe meaning to Mr. Dutcher’s statements, or interpret his motivations in making them, but I,personally,believe this is at least part of what he was alluding to in the above quoted statement.
I have a feeling that had Mr. Dutcher been able to make his Joseph Smith movie, it would have contained certain historical facts that are not generally portrayed, and it would not have been shown at Legacy Theater.
April 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m a little late to this, too, but coincidentally, I happened to watch “States of Grace” last Sunday on a tiny iPod screen sitting in an airport, and while I didn’t think it was the best movie I have ever seen, I found it well-done and very moving and having served an LDS mission, very relatable. I do think Dutcher has an interesting and unique voice, and was willing to look at various aspects of the LDS experience in ways most other LDS film-makers never would.
I actually didn’t have any sort of opinion of Kieth Merrill, other than the unfortunate spelling of his first name, until I read his response to Dutcher. I read Dutcher’s piece first, and while I can see why Merrill took it personally, I really didn’t feel much condescenscion in it, and certainly nothing mean-spirited.
Wow, Merrill’s response floored me with its highly personal cheap shots. How one guy could be so angry, lack to the wisdom to realize he was writing in anger and needed to cool down, and then regret it so “contritely” only days later makes HIM seem like he’s lost it.
Sad all around, really.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I know both Richard and Kieth, and respect them both for their talents. I felt saddened when I read each of their letters. In Richard’s case, I never like to see anyone leave the Church due to a conflict within themselves. As one who often personally struggles to seperate doctrine from culture, and determine with what of each I am comfortable, I can understand Richard’s sincere contemplations on where “Mormon Cinema” has led us. I do not judge him for his conclusions and wish him well in finding peace and fulfullment.
I am equally saddened by Kieth’s writings, but likewise, do not judge him, as I have often “flown off the handle” and wondered later what in the world I was thinking. I was glad to see that he quickly apologized. I trust that his apology was sincere, and more than anything, hope that it was precipitated by the Spirit whispering to him the error of his motivation and the hurtful nature of his words, rather than a move calculated by handlers to minimize the damage.
If anything good can come from this exchange, and if both Richard and Kieth want to make Christ’s teachings workable in their lives, they will use this opportunity to reconcile their differences privately, and respect each other for the wonderful God-given talents that each of them has. This is a perfect example of it not being important who is right, but what is right.
As far as the rest of us go, perhaps it is time to put this unfortunate situation behind us. Too many have used it to improperly attack one or the other of these men unfairly, in my opinion. Rather than appreciate the wonderful differences and the unique styles of these men, we seem to want to make it personal. Do we not realize that the appreciation of art is within the eye of the beholder? It is not the worst thingin the world to know that there are people who like what we don’t , and don’t like what we do. The world of Cinematic Arts is a tough enough place to be, without contention brought about by those who should know better!