Review of Six Days In August
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 5:22 pm
*SPOILER WARNING*
I saw this movie last night at the Sandy Cinemark. The movie was at its best when there were drone shots of the scenery. It was beautiful camera work. Unfortunately, there were only a few drone shots. The music was top notch.
Now the bad. The plot was a jumbled mess and confusing beyond belief. A non-member will not know what in the heck is going on and most members will be confused as well. The film jumps back and forth in time so often that at some point most people will just give up trying to follow along.
There is no character development and everyone in the film is very one dimensional. More important, this film is not likely to inspire serious thought on the Mormon faith or even the Succession Crisis. There is no description or discussions about doctrine, faith or the nature of belief. You can watch this film and not learn one thing that is unique or compelling about the Mormon faith. This film was a mile wide and an inch deep, just like the film Witnesses.
Predictably, the film avoids many of the uncomfortable historical issues. What follows is my stream of conscious thoughts about the film:
- The long anticipated transfiguration scene was a complete letdown. Brigham Young is speaking to all the Saints (actually only about 35 of them) and the camera slowly pans to the audience as they gasp with astonishment. As the camera slowly pans back to BY, we see that it's not BY anymore, but it's now Joseph Smith talking (the actual actor portraying Joseph Smith). The camera pans back to the audience and a blind man asks out loud, "Is that Joseph talking? Yes, it is Joseph!" Then the camera slowly pans back to Joseph Smith, except Joseph Smith is gone and now it's BY. So, it's not really a transfiguration scene, but a switching of actors. I was anticipating some cool CGI or even old school claymation. Really disappointed.
- I was very surprised at how many scenes there were of BY speaking in tongues. The first scene happens when we are first introduced to BY as he is trying to help some oxen pull a wagon out of the mud. In a scene straight out of Crocodile Dundee or Doctor Dolittle, BY approaches the oxen and starts speaking in tongues and the oxen immediately pull the wagon out of the mud.
- There is another bizarre scene where BY is asked to say a dinner prayer and he prays in tongues for a couple of minutes, while the audience is forced to sit there and endure a long dinner prayer in tongues.
- The most bizarre scene is when BY starts singing in tongues in front of Joseph Smith for a good 3 minutes. It was a strange spectacle, to say the least.
- There is a scene where Joseph Smith is in a room with a couple of the apostles and their wives. Joseph instructs the apostles to ask their wives if they consent to polygamy. The wives are ecstatic and consent with utter joy. I think the Executive Producer felt it necessary to portray the women as largely being happy and excited about polygamy. Strange.
- There is a scene between Emma and Joseph sitting on a lush, green lawn where Emma tells Joseph she was tested by the practice of polygamy. Joseph tells Emma that he never chose the polygamy life, but the polygamy life chose him. Emma then asks Joseph if he would choose her and he replies that he already has. Strange scene and like much of the film, didn't make any sense. I think the Executive Producer put the scene in only to be able to say that the film discusses polygamy.
- The Thomas Sharp character is just plain silly. Although, he is the best actor in the film, by far. I imagine that after playing a role in a crappy movie like this, the actor will sit down with his agent and have a long, heart-to-heart talk. Thomas Sharp is portrayed as being the mastermind behind everything bad that happens to the Saints. From paying people to throw tomatoes at BY while he is campaigning for Joseph Smith's presidential candidacy, to being responsible for tar and feathering Joseph and organizing the mob that killed Joseph.
- The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor is very quick and it is only mentioned that it's publishing lies about the Saints.
- The film portrays the Succession Crisis as only being between Brigham Young and Sydney Rigdon. The film does mention briefly there were "others" who made claims, but the film doesn't show any of these "others."
- Anachronism galore! I could write an article just on the anachronisms. Lawns, two lane paved gravel roads, lots of airplane contrails in many different scenes, etc. It's shocking the Executive Producer didn't have someone review the film for anachronisms. 2 million dollars spent and they couldn't even go over the film once for anachronisms? Strange.
I can't in good conscience recommend this film. It's very uneven and confusing. The acting was really bad and the directing was amateurish. I would give this film 1.5 stars out of 4. I am hoping the film does well enough that the Interpreter Foundation will be able to make another movie.
Someday an accurate and historically correct film will be made of these people and the events. It's unfortunate that this is not that film.
I saw this movie last night at the Sandy Cinemark. The movie was at its best when there were drone shots of the scenery. It was beautiful camera work. Unfortunately, there were only a few drone shots. The music was top notch.
Now the bad. The plot was a jumbled mess and confusing beyond belief. A non-member will not know what in the heck is going on and most members will be confused as well. The film jumps back and forth in time so often that at some point most people will just give up trying to follow along.
There is no character development and everyone in the film is very one dimensional. More important, this film is not likely to inspire serious thought on the Mormon faith or even the Succession Crisis. There is no description or discussions about doctrine, faith or the nature of belief. You can watch this film and not learn one thing that is unique or compelling about the Mormon faith. This film was a mile wide and an inch deep, just like the film Witnesses.
Predictably, the film avoids many of the uncomfortable historical issues. What follows is my stream of conscious thoughts about the film:
- The long anticipated transfiguration scene was a complete letdown. Brigham Young is speaking to all the Saints (actually only about 35 of them) and the camera slowly pans to the audience as they gasp with astonishment. As the camera slowly pans back to BY, we see that it's not BY anymore, but it's now Joseph Smith talking (the actual actor portraying Joseph Smith). The camera pans back to the audience and a blind man asks out loud, "Is that Joseph talking? Yes, it is Joseph!" Then the camera slowly pans back to Joseph Smith, except Joseph Smith is gone and now it's BY. So, it's not really a transfiguration scene, but a switching of actors. I was anticipating some cool CGI or even old school claymation. Really disappointed.
- I was very surprised at how many scenes there were of BY speaking in tongues. The first scene happens when we are first introduced to BY as he is trying to help some oxen pull a wagon out of the mud. In a scene straight out of Crocodile Dundee or Doctor Dolittle, BY approaches the oxen and starts speaking in tongues and the oxen immediately pull the wagon out of the mud.
- There is another bizarre scene where BY is asked to say a dinner prayer and he prays in tongues for a couple of minutes, while the audience is forced to sit there and endure a long dinner prayer in tongues.
- The most bizarre scene is when BY starts singing in tongues in front of Joseph Smith for a good 3 minutes. It was a strange spectacle, to say the least.
- There is a scene where Joseph Smith is in a room with a couple of the apostles and their wives. Joseph instructs the apostles to ask their wives if they consent to polygamy. The wives are ecstatic and consent with utter joy. I think the Executive Producer felt it necessary to portray the women as largely being happy and excited about polygamy. Strange.
- There is a scene between Emma and Joseph sitting on a lush, green lawn where Emma tells Joseph she was tested by the practice of polygamy. Joseph tells Emma that he never chose the polygamy life, but the polygamy life chose him. Emma then asks Joseph if he would choose her and he replies that he already has. Strange scene and like much of the film, didn't make any sense. I think the Executive Producer put the scene in only to be able to say that the film discusses polygamy.
- The Thomas Sharp character is just plain silly. Although, he is the best actor in the film, by far. I imagine that after playing a role in a crappy movie like this, the actor will sit down with his agent and have a long, heart-to-heart talk. Thomas Sharp is portrayed as being the mastermind behind everything bad that happens to the Saints. From paying people to throw tomatoes at BY while he is campaigning for Joseph Smith's presidential candidacy, to being responsible for tar and feathering Joseph and organizing the mob that killed Joseph.
- The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor is very quick and it is only mentioned that it's publishing lies about the Saints.
- The film portrays the Succession Crisis as only being between Brigham Young and Sydney Rigdon. The film does mention briefly there were "others" who made claims, but the film doesn't show any of these "others."
- Anachronism galore! I could write an article just on the anachronisms. Lawns, two lane paved gravel roads, lots of airplane contrails in many different scenes, etc. It's shocking the Executive Producer didn't have someone review the film for anachronisms. 2 million dollars spent and they couldn't even go over the film once for anachronisms? Strange.
I can't in good conscience recommend this film. It's very uneven and confusing. The acting was really bad and the directing was amateurish. I would give this film 1.5 stars out of 4. I am hoping the film does well enough that the Interpreter Foundation will be able to make another movie.
Someday an accurate and historically correct film will be made of these people and the events. It's unfortunate that this is not that film.