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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.