I suspect that there are the same sort of divisions among the Brethren about the film as there is on the bloggernacle.

In some ways the film is a bit inflamatory (and certainly discomforting) by requiring Mormons who watch it to confront their own attitudes about sin and redemption in contexts that most of the mainstream believes or hopes do not (or should not) exist.

It forces us to confront issues like:

1. Is redemption possible for a missionary who violates the law of chastity while a missionary and is sent home (most likely under Church discipline)? This situation has occurred hundreds, if not thousands of times.

2. Can there ever be a future in a romantic relationship begun in violation of mission rules and the law of chastity? While this has occurred fewer times than the situation in #1 above, it has happened in at least one case of which I am aware (and the couple was later sealed in the temple), and probably many times.

3. Is forgiveness or redemption possible for a person even tangentially involved in murder–especially after joining the Church? Does Jesus’ atonement really extend that far? I believe it does; I am sure there are substantial numbers of Mormons (and probably many leaders) who believe it does not and cannot.

4. Is violating a mission rule ever justified? Does it always lead to catastrophy? Should it ever be “glorified”?

I think it would make a huge difference. We see this very phenomenon in the way an entire season of (insert show name) is sold out in a matter of hours merely because it is produced by the church and playing at the Conference Center Theater.

This silly homogenization of aesthetics and pop-religion is the number one reason why LDS art has never gotten it’s ass off the ground.

I actually do get concerned by the quick judgment passed not only on Dutcher but on his characters–the easy dismissal of the film by a reviewer on Amazon.com, for example, who left the movie halfway through and still felt he could review it. (He knew the missionaries broke the rules and that was enough.) This film SHOULD touch any audience member who has known the tender mercies of Jesus Christ. I consider _States of Grace_ the best Mormon film yet made, and Dutcher still our best film Mormon maker. Sadly, I don’t know that we will see another LDS-themed film from him. That is a huge loss.

Dutcher’s work is primarily reactionary. It stems more from a defiance of the more superficial elements of mormonism rather than from a well founded personal theology. His work seems to thrive more on how it takes apart the culture rather than on how it expresses deep religious experience–though, no doubt, some of that expression is found in his work. And, no doubt, the culture is due for that kind of “taking apart” now and again.

But, too often he attempts to convey religious experience by forcing the juxtaposition of incompatable elements that ought to find their way into conflict by means of a more inevitable avenue. The conflict becomes more situational than natural because of his tendency to manipulate the context so as to channel the characters in order to insure a particular thematic outcome. This has a tendency to force the irony thereby rendering the characters irrational and therefore unbelievable, i.e., we don’t believe them. And by failing to believe them we fail to derive any meaningful metaphor from their experience.

That said, Dutcher’s work is sprinkled with powerful moments here an there but lacks an over all power that comes of well designed characters which live beyond the premise of the story–as interesting as that premise may be. Such “spikes” of inspiration in Dutcher’s work are a result of his raw ingenuity.

It is my hope that Dutcher will continue to refine his gifts and that he will not stray too far from the religious touch stones which have been the primary source of his inspiration in filmaking. Despite the weakness (as I see them) in his work which I have mentioned above, I prefere his offerings far and away above the silliness of other so called mormon filmakers. Dutcher has attempted to convey something truely meaningful and has (imo) succeeded in some measure–though I believe he can do better if he will remember his initial intent for creating films and found his work more squarely on literature rather than technology.

Holly’s gift was extremely poignant as a well-intentioned attempt to connect with Elder Farrell, but one that revealed her unfamiliarity with LDS beliefs.

I didn’t initially like the ending. As I reflected on the film last night though it became apparent to me that the unsettling conclusion was the perfect way to end such a realistic movie.

It was a refreshing film that honestly portrayed the depth of human depravity, the spiritual consequences of sin and the daily struggle to obey the Lord. But above all, I loved the movie because our Saviour was glorified.