DiscussMormonism.com

I went to a special screening of September Dawn last night with my brother and sister. I wrote a review of it on my blog at MADB, but since I know that many of you cannot access the board, I thought I would post what I wrote here.

Now, my entry contains lots of spoilers so if you plan to see the movie yourself and don't want it ruined then please don't read it. For you who choose not to read, I'll just sum up my impressions; the movie was extremely anti-mormon. Think "godmakers" meets "Mountain Meadows Massacre" all wrapped up in a story of star-crossed lovers. The good guys and bad guys are clear cut--mormons; evil, murderous, fanatical, tryannical. Fancher party; righteous, religious, innocent, kind, naïve. I can't believe they are billing it as based on actual events when it is so fictionalized. Anyway, here is my review for those who wish to read it:




I went to see "September Dawn" with my brother and sister at a special screening last night--this is a movie that was made about the Mountain Meadows Massacre where 120 people in a wagon train were massacred by Mormon settlers and Indians in Southern Utah. I went with an open mind. I had seen the trailer and read some comments here at MADB, so I knew that Brigham Young would be portrayed as ordering the massacre, but I expected that the story would still somewhat follow accurately the events of that tragedy. I was wrong. The filmmakers played fast and loose with the facts. This was a portrayal of the Mountain Meadows Massacre as seen through the lens of extreme anti-mormonism--the likes of which we have probably not seen in 75 years. At one point my brother leaned over and said "This is as bad as "Trapped by the Mormons"" however, this film will be taken as fact by many who know nothing about Mormons or events surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre.



********spoiler alert********** I will be telling much of the plot and action of this movie, so if you plan to see it yourself and don't want to have it ruined for you, don't read this;

During the very first scenes when the Mormons ride up to meet the Fancher party I knew we were in trouble--the lines between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were clearly drawn. The Fanchers were portrayed all in light colors, they wore gold crosses and they were portrayed as positively beatific--and extremely naïve. The Mormons were all stern, evil looking in black (their clothing was awfully nice for only having lived in the valley for 10 years). While the filmmakers showed the Fanchers praying for their Mormon "friends", they then showed the Mormons calling down curses and hellfire on the fanchers. Especially annoying was the reaction of the Mormons to a woman wearing pants and carrying a gun in the party-who receives special attention in their private cursings, because the Mormons hate strong, independent women who speak their minds (I guess Mary Fielding Smith was lucky to have survived among those misogynist early Mormons!)

The Mormons joke about their many wives and are portrayed as only wanting them for nothing more than sex. Except that later in the story, we find out that Bishop Samuelson who has 18 wives, did love one of his wives, but she was taken from him by an unnamed apostle who wanted her for himself, and when she resisted, she was murdered in front of him in order to atone for her sin of disobedience.

One puzzling inconsistency--the Fanchers have a bunch of very valuable race horses with them--they are going to California to start horse racing for the miners. I wondered about good religious people (as they were portrayed in the movie) in those days thinking that horse racing was an honorable trade but this was not mentioned. The only reaction is the stern comment by a Mormon that gambling is a sin.

This movie is really a love story set within the Mountain Meadows Massacre between star-crossed lovers; an immigrant girl and the only sympathetic Mormon character in the whole movie (I am not exaggerating), the son of Bishop Samuelson who is portrayed as the real force behind the murderous Mormons (who's allegiance is to the horrible tyrant Brigham Young)

Samuelson is a crazed, murderous, fanatic. We see flashbacks of him burning a building with a wild eyed Joseph Smith screaming "burn! burn!" ( I assumed it was the Nauvoo Expositor)...then we saw Samuelson with Joseph and others "plotting" when they are ambushed and Joseph is killed (little literary license here I guess), then we hear bits and pieces from Brigham Young's most inflammatory speeches from the Journal of Discourses as he preaches to a congregation of black-robed Mormons interspersed with images of Danites committing atrocities and murdering men and women who disobey the leaders.
Samuelson meets in person with Brigham Young and gets orders directly from him to kill all the settlers. Then Samuelson incites the Mormon men to join in by telling them they are saving these people by killing them and demanding blind obedience to their leaders who are gods on earth. There is a lot of talk of blood atonement and people being able to save themselves by spilling their own blood.

Mormons are depicted as not knowing the Bible at all--the girl quotes Jesus' words about the mote and beam and the son says "huh?" (I guess he doesn't know the Book of Mormon either since that same passage is quoted there too!)

There is a temple scene--the son is awakened by men in black, carrying guns and surrounding his bed and his father tells him to get up, it's time to take out his endowments. The boy protests and the father says "You're going to the temple whether you like it or not!!" My brother said that was the best line of the movie and I have to agree--because it was comical. At this point in the movie when temple rites were depicted (even if they bear no resemblance to LDS temple experiences today) I'm sure many LDS would still be offended (my sister leaned over and said, "before I was just mad...now I'm feeling physically ill!) I should have warned her to expect something like that. I was very glad my husband had decided not to come with us--he would have walked out I'm sure.

John D. Lee has hardly any lines in the movie--he is portrayed as a reluctant participant, forced into carrying out Bishop Samuelson's and Brigham Young's demonic, evil designs. Even the Indians are depicted sympathetically--they are sick of the carnage and drop out, leaving the Mormons to do the bulk of the killing. In the end the only good Mormon(the son) ends up leaving the faith--his gold cross prominently worn to show he has disavowed the wicked Mormons (not much of a surprise there) and the semi sympathetic Lee at least is executed for his crimes. I think the one depiction the filmmakers got right was John D. Lee's execution scene.

Even without the inflammatory aspects of this movie, it is not well done. I don't expect it to get much of a release, so at least some of the damage it could cause to Mormons will be minimized. If I were to sum this movie up in one sentence it would be; "Imagine "the godmakers" meets mountain meadows massacre, served up in a predictable tragic love story, and you get the picture".

That's too bad. I was hoping for a more balanced approach. However, your concern about the portrayal of the native americans actually sounds like they did their research. From what I've read, the Mormons wanted the natives to do the bulk of the killing and raiding, but they were so ineffective the Mormons had to step in and do their own dirty work, which led to the settlers spotting the white men among the raiders, which led the settlers to decide they needed to kill them all. The indians ended up being minor players in the massacre. That's how I understand it at least.

Anyway, if it's as one sided as you say, it's a shame because I really think MMM could make a great movie if portrayed accurately.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:That's too bad. I was hoping for a more balanced approach. However, your concern about the portrayal of the native americans actually sounds like they did their research. From what I've read, the Mormons wanted the natives to do the bulk of the killing and raiding, but they were so ineffective the Mormons had to step in and do their own dirty work, which led to the settlers spotting the white men among the raiders, which led the settlers to decide they needed to kill them all. The indians ended up being minor players in the massacre. That's how I understand it at least.

Anyway, if it's as one sided as you say, it's a shame because I really think MMM could make a great movie if portrayed accurately.

I agree, I think it would make a great movie--If done by someone who cared to be objective and accurate. At the end of the movie, my brother drawled sarcastically; "I guess Susan Easton Black lied to us in my Doctrine and Covenants class at BYU...she said we don't really know if Brigham Young was involved". This movie makes it "fact" which is dishonest. In the right hands, a movie about this subject could be very suspensful, heartrending and still accurate. This was none of those things.

Thanks for your impressions, Alter Idem.

This is not the first narrative to have used the MMM as the backdrop for a love story. The most well known would be Amelia Bean's 1958 novel, The Fancher Train.

During the very first scenes when the Mormons ride up to meet the Fancher party I knew we were in trouble--the lines between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were clearly drawn. The Fanchers were portrayed all in light colors, they wore gold crosses and they were portrayed as positively beatific--and extremely naïve.

"Extremely naïve" would be incorrect since Alexander Fancher made at least three trips to California in the 1850's, one of which took the "southern route" where he stayed at Mountain Meadows before. He had had experience dealing with Mormons before, and the emigrant (not immigrant) experience of travel through Utah was well known.

And while there was one minister traveling with the group, this was a party of emigrants composed mostly of extended family groups. While this is no indication of piety, there were a lot of women and children and businessmen like Fancher and Baker were traveling with their families. That suggests a domestic atmosphere that coincides with Jacob Hamblin's description of the group as ordinary homespun frontier folk (in his testimony to Carleton).

they then showed the Mormons calling down curses and hellfire on the fanchers

.

This part is at least semi-accurate if you include the trip George A. Smith had recently made through Southern Utah to "alert" inhabitants about the coming confrontation with the United States and to relay Young's orders not to sell to Gentile merchants or travelers. Notable in Smith's speeches in Southern Utah was the phrase that "as for the cursed mobocrats, I can think of nothing better that they can do than feed a tree a in Zion," i.e., thier bones be used as fertilizer. Smith also met with local Piautes and according to John D. Lee inquired what these "savage looking fellows" might do to an emigrant train. Lee quotes him as also asking, "Suppose an emigrant train should come along through this southern country, making threats against our people and bragging of the part they took in helping to kill our Prophets, what do you think the brethern would do with them? Would they be permitted to go their way or would the brethern pitch into them and give them a good drubbing?"

Later on his return North, Smith actually camped opposite the Fancher Party on Corn Creek (they were headed South). Jacob Hamblin wrote in his diary that Smith spoke to him of the "strange atmosphere" surrounding the emigrants and said that he felt "evil would befall them before they got through."

Especially annoying was the reaction of the Mormons to a woman wearing pants and carrying a gun in the party-who receives special attention in their private cursings

Well, female wagon drovers do appear in some of the "evil-emigrant" propaganda about the Fancher train, and perhaps that was the source for this in the film.

One puzzling inconsistency--the Fanchers have a bunch of very valuable race horses with them--they are going to California to start horse racing for the miners. I wondered about good religious people (as they wer portrayed in the movie) in those days thinking that horse racing was an honorable trade but this was not mentioned.

Both the Fancher and Baker parties had large herds of cattle they were bringing for California sale. One of the other emigrants did have a valuable racing horse. Perhaps these details got blended a bit?

Samuelson meets in person with Brigham Young and gets orders directly from him to kill all the settlers.

I don't think Young ever gave any direct orders for anything like this. He was a master of plausible deniabilty and when he had sensitive orders to give he gave them in an indirect manner to those who could be trusted to know his intent. A good example would be the destruction of the Carleton cairn erected at the massacre site.

There is a lot of talk of blood atonement and people being able to save themselves by spilling their own blood.

Well there certianly was a lot of this at the time--its nearly the main theme of the "Reformation." Its not hard to imagine that this could be used as an argument to persuade someone who was a reluctant participant in the massacre.

At this point in the movie when temple rites were depicted (even if they bear no resemblance to LDS temple experiences today)

How much of the temple rite is depicted (if you can say)? Are there parts that are inaccurate or is it just that there are parts which have been dropped from the most current rites?

John D. Lee has hardly any lines in the movie--he is portrayed as a reluctant participant, forced into carrying out Bishop Samuelson's and Brigham Young's demonic, evil designs

.

Given that Bishop Samuelson is a fictional creation, did you think he was mostly based on Lee? Although, it would be kind of strange given that Lee is also included, it does sound like a kind of Lee-ish figure. Or do you feel he is modeled on Haight, Higbee, Dame or none of the above?

Even the Indians are depicted sympathetically--they are sick of the carnage and drop out, leaving the Mormons to do the bulk of the killing.

The Mormons did do the bulk of the killing. This was even admitted by several participants. Also, most of the recruited Indians apparently did not stay too long after the first day. They had no interest in a long seige; they had been promised a quick "score"--which they usually accomplished just by scaring off horses and cattle, not by killing emigrants--and that they would be protected from harm. When neither thing came true, most left.

I think the one depiction the filmmakers got right was John D. Lee's execution scene.

Interesting. I'm curious what the cairn looks like at the site of his execution (I'm curious what was left of it when Lee was executed historically as well, but also how the filmmakers attended to that detail.)

Thanks again for your comments. I don't expect a lot from this film, myself. That the filmmakers felt it necessary to include a romantic storyline tells me about the level of seriousness with which the topic was addressed. Even though that's not an uncommon way to "add interest," I would still hope for something less conventional and mainstream in presenting a narrative about an interesting and still very much alive historical episode.

So long as it keeps the "moron" in Mormon, I say good job!

So what if they stretch the truth a little, the Mormons have been doing it for years for financial gain. Its time for them to put the shoe on the other foot and kick some ass.

Thanks for your comments Blixa. While watching the movie I kept wishing I'd read Juanita Brooks' book on MMM so that I would have had the details fresh in my mind. As it is, I haven't read up on the subject for quite some time and your comments have renewed my interest once again to read up, thanks.

How much of the temple rite is depicted (if you can say)? Are there parts that are inaccurate or is it just that there are parts which have been dropped from the most current rites?

It was a short scene--the participants were nude(I think there were males and females together in the room also but can't remember exactly). There is no nudity in the temple today and I for one would be very surprised if my prudish ancestors did anything like this in times past! They then showed the people in temple clothing and reciting-not completely correct, but close enough to be uncomfortable, however, it was a part which has been removed so younger LDS will not recognize it at all.

Given that Bishop Samuelson is a fictional creation, did you think he was mostly based on Lee? Although, it would be kind of strange given that Lee is also included, it does sound like a kind of Lee-ish figure. Or do you feel he is modeled on Haight, Higbee, Dame or none of the above?

I don't think he was modeled on any of them--more the creation based on the stereotypical tyrannical, corrupt, authoritarian church leader. If anyone, he might have been inspired by the horrible Bishop who emasculated a young man in Southern Utah (can't remember more details than that). They used that in the Danite atrocity flashbacks, so I wondered if that Bishop might have been closest to their "Bishop Samuelson".

Interesting. I'm curious what the cairn looks like at the site of his execution (I'm curious what was left of it when Lee was executed historically as well, but also how the filmmakers attended to that detail.)

I'm sorry, I mislead you in my comments. I was talking about some of the details of the execution scene--the army bringing the casket out and Lee standing next to it (I seem to recall a photo from the execution). The scene was depicted on a grassy hill.

Polygamy Porter wrote:So long as it keeps the "moron" in Mormon, I say good job!

So what if they stretch the truth a little, the Mormons have been doing it for years for financial gain. Its time for them to put the shoe on the other foot and kick some ass.

Then I'm sure you would have given it "two thumbs up".

Alter Idem wrote:I'm sorry, I mislead you in my comments. I was talking about some of the details of the execution scene--the army bringing the casket out and Lee standing next to it (I seem to recall a photo from the execution). The scene was depicted on a grassy hill.

Oh, no misleading. I was just wondering about "accuracy." I don't think much of the Carleton cairn remained by the time he was shot (though it had apparently been torn down, rebuilt, and then torn down again from what I can tell), but the filmmakers could have included it.

Lee did indeed sit on his own coffin, and posed for photos for his wives (or at least asked the photographer to send copies to them) and was shot to fall back into it. You can easily Google two photos: one taken from a distance of Lee perched on the coffin side, another of a very foreshortened and dead Lee in the coffin.

As for the "grassy hill" perhaps that too is filmmaker license: Mountain Meadows was once a very lush valley, but overgrazing and flash flooding had altered it considerably in the twenty years between the massacre and Lee's execution. Much more geologic devastation has occured since and I think it is very hard to tell at this point how much of the original area is still there. Will Bagley once told me that he thought we may one be looking at a third of the land that once existed, which is why its often been hard to accurately pinpoint the various locations of specific actions and grave sites (outside of the largest of the mass graves dug by U. S. soldiers---the one marked by what I've been calling "the Carleton cairn" which is more or less where the LDS Church MMM memorial stands today).

By the way, Bagley points out the exact location of Lee's execution is somewhere in what is now the parking lot near the memorial. I would emphatically suggest starting with his book if you're interested in reading about the event. His bibliography also provides a wealth of interesting further reading.

Alter Idem wrote:Thanks for your comments Blixa. While watching the movie I kept wishing I'd read Juanita Brooks' book on MMM so that I would have had the details fresh in my mind. As it is, I haven't read up on the subject for quite some time and your comments have renewed my interest once again to read up, thanks.

How much of the temple rite is depicted (if you can say)? Are there parts that are inaccurate or is it just that there are parts which have been dropped from the most current rites?

It was a short scene--the participants were nude(I think there were males and females together in the room also but can't remember exactly). There is no nudity in the temple today and I for one would be very surprised if my prudish ancestors did anything like this in times past! They then showed the people in temple clothing and reciting-not completely correct, but close enough to be uncomfortable, however, it was a part which has been removed so younger LDS will not recognize it at all.

I have read the biography by Ann Eliza Webb Young "Wife #19"(one of Brigham Young's polygamist x-wives) and I recall her description of the temple washing/annointings being done in the nude. (not with other men) The women or woman would pour oil over the entire body in a tub. I don't have the book anymore to verify the exact details, but wanted to point out that the washings/annointings have significantly changed over the years. So this part of the movie may not be that off. Could you describe in more detail what was shown without revealing anything that could violate covenants?

Blixa wrote:
By the way, Bagley points out the exact location of Lee's execution is somewhere in what is now the parking lot near the memorial. I would emphatically suggest starting with his book if you're interested in reading about the event. His bibliography also provides a wealth of interesting further reading.

Thanks Blixa, It sounds like you, yourself are a wealth of knowledge on this subject. I'll be sure to remember that.

I'd like to start with Juanita Brooks' book because it was written first, however I will read Bagley's book as well as the other one written on it--I also will read John D. Lee's biography and I look forward to reading the book the LDS scholars are working on.

I dated a young man (he was young then--I'm sure he's in his 50's by now, that's how old I am!) who was a descendent of John D. Lee and since then the story has interested me. I visited him and his family down in Panguitch and asked him questions but he did not like to talk about it. He was the one who told me that Lee's blessings had been restored; I guess this is common knowledge now, though. I remember at the time thinking that there was a lot of mystery surrounding the events and I would have loved to know the real story.