Ridiculous rumors about Richard Dutcher
Film, Good stuff, Hackles, Philosophy, Religion September 27th, 2006[I have posted a highly abridged version of this in a Reader Document, which makes all the important points I have to make.]
So, these rumors ([-1-] and this other one [-2-]) have had me in agony. What if Dutcher has turned EVIL? After a few days I’ve started listening to my gut feeling that the rumors really sound very ridiculous, and not in line with the Dutcher I’ve met and also know through his films.
Today I called up Main Street Movie Co. and spoke with Dutcher’s assistant. I introduced myself and asked if the rumors going around about Dutcher’s next film are overblown and ridiculous. She expressed puzzlement and I explained where I’d heard them, and then I out and asked: “Did Dutcher hold a nude audition yesterday?” She replied “Uh, no..” - this was somewhat emphatic, in that tone that says, “Gee, that’s really out there” or “Where did you hear that one?” I laughed and said “Okay then”, then asked, “Is his next film a ‘nudie slasher flick?’” Again she replied no, and seemed very surprised at the idea.
So hearing it from Dutcher’s assistant who would know, the questions are so absurd that they halted and flabbergasted her. They should be blown off as mindless, thoughtless, careless rumors. And look at the format of the source of the rumor - “My brother in law” - yeah, right, and my brother-in-law is MARVIN PAYNE. Um.. so anyway (Marvin actually is, and lately this is reason for me to feel even more regal, or something - visit his web site!), the format of the rumor is second-hand and the “source” doesn’t site his source. And even if he did, in contrast to one who would know, he’s either making it all up or distorting things so extremely as to be totally disreputable (no, the source of the rumor, not Marvin Payne!) Which I knew before I called Dutcher’s production company, and didn’t really need to have that confirmed, though it was nice to have it confirmed.
Maybe Dutcher lost his cool criticizing the LDS film genre as a whole recently (I think his criticisms are appropriate, and only philosophical, not personal), but the blathering nonsense that has been increasingly brought against him personally has been excessively uncool, and that these rumors can now be seriously entertained shows just that. By their fruit ye shall know them. Please don’t think I mean to personally judge or condemn anyone. It’s only about what people say - rubbish! People say rubbish! And it has been getting worse and now it has grown to this!
No, I trust Dutcher to continue to create very artful, skillful, morally responsible films.
I know that Dutcher’s next film FALLING is either in post or finished, and the secretary at Main Street Movie Co. said he’s starting production on a new one (that’s what these fabricated rumors are about). I don’t know the title of this new production, and don’t care - I’ll just wait.
[Update 09/28:]
The one who first posted on the web what I am reacting to contacted me and informed me that his brother-in-law is a real person. Sorry - I didn’t mean to imply he’s not real. Just that he’s spouting rubbish! 
Frankly.
I made a very strange (and hasty) error, but the gist of this holds true. I mistook the receptionist at Main Street Movie Co. for Dutcher’s assistant of the same first name! The receptionist emailed and informed me of this. She invited me to call back and talk to Dutcher’s actual assistant. I called back and the assistant wasn’t there (Dutcher is unavailable as he is very busy prepping his new production), but I got hold of Chris Macey, the Public Relations guy, who knows what’s going on with Dutcher’s projects.
Macey confirmed that these rumors are as ridiculous as I’ve thought they are; totally made up. Good. Like I thought.
I asked him if he could disclose the nature of the now developing project - this will be Dutcher’s film after FALLING comes out, which Dutcher described to me at the LDS Film Festival as “..an artsy suspense film”. He said the next project is a “supernatural thriller”. Macey also said that when it all comes down to it we can expect it to have a P-13 rating. I don’t even care about ratings, and he said Dutcher doesn’t pay attention to them, noted that initially STATES OF GRACE had an R-rating and a violent scene was toned back, and he cited this essay by Orson Scott Card as an excellent article on the topic of ratings. I agree. I’ve linked to that one many times from here.
I asked him if I could ask a loaded question that people actually wonder. I hate this. This is vile reporting. I wouldn’t even wonder about this but for the pressing and depressing rumors. Macey said he thought I was out to be a Mormon National Enquirer. Uugh. No. By the way, I want to mention that the rumors against Dutcher that went through a BYU film class cannot in any way represent any institutional standing about Dutcher. And note that Eric Sameulsen, who recently defended Dutcher in writing (and hit just the right notes I thought) is a playwriting professor at BYU (I thought he now headed the Drama Department?) BYU is full of people with differing opinions just like any institution. Another note (sorry to drag), I took down a joke in this entry which might have come accross wrong; you never now.
So this is the loaded question which it is shaming even to ask (because it has suspicion behind it): Does Dutcher intend to continue holding his films to his LDS audience’s standards? Macey’s reply was that when God’s Army came out, people were calling for Dutcher’s excommunication over the shot of a missionary from the side on a toilet (me: that showed, like, almost nothing and was brief). And that when States of Grace came out people were saying he’d strayed, left the Church. To contemplate that, I say within myself: Wow. How off the target is that? Watch States of Grace and then argue that to me. So that was that, no more questions for him.
Back to my opinions. So people were saying that then, people are saying that now. That implies that people who now ask the question for any reason are really off target. Okay, though I think wondering about the morals of artists is important in a culture desperate for heroes.
(Many of us only read the Book of Mormon for the first time in many years last year, after all)
Looking back I can see the things, some of them absurd, that I think lead to such rumors. I can understand questions when Dutcher sits on a panel at Sunstone with two people who have openly left the Church, but those questions surmise. What if he is simply exploring points of view he might not agree with, for the sake of understanding people? And you know what? Ultimately I don’t give a hoot. I’ll entertain Dutcher’s point of view even if I wouldn’t agree with it, but meanwhile everything this man makes and says sticks with my own LDS core.
I’ve been meaning to respond to Heimerdinger’s article on Dutcher. At first I blew it off as harmless. Then I went back and thought on words that stuck. No, that is a really innapropriate essay. Here’s why.
Heimerdinger says that Dutcher is about “spurning”. That’s too far. I can almost hear the words “challenges”, “ruins”, “destroys” etc. or even the adjective “sinful”; which is itself directly implied in his utterance of “inherently offensive.” So he’s taking a moral stance against Dutcher. Look at this. This makes Heimerdinger a saint and Dutcher a sinner. And the closing lines about “celebrating doctrine” dig in deeper, implying, along with “spurning”, that Dutcher either doesn’t explore religious ideas at all or does sacrelige to them. And Heimerdinger says all this without having even seen STATES OF GRACE. Because, you know, it’s just so dang evil you should dismiss it on moral ground without second notice. Which is all encompassed in the opening of his critique of a film he hasn’t seen: “Like most Latter-day Saints, I haven’t seen this film.” That directly infers that the moral, mainstream, LDS thing to do is to avoid Dutcher’s film. It says that to watch Dutcher’s film is an immoral act. That is low, low slander - and utterly uninformed. Not only has he not watched the film, he hasn’t even mentioned anything he has heard about its contents. At. All.
There is nothing of the sort in the film on which his arguments can be founded. There is everything to the contrary.
If we can surmise that Dutcher is immoral without even batting an eyelash, without even mentioning any questions or principles at stake, the worse rumors are easy. More disturbing to me is that these rumors have surfaced as accepted fact in fairly mainstream internet forums. Utter rubbish about Richard Dutcher has become commonplace, not fringe.
Not on my watch.
Mark me a fan. I think STATES OF GRACE has done more to show God’s individual influence on people than any film in the genre yet made. Macey says their production company recieves hundreds of praising emails daily. In my experience most anyone who sees this latest of Dutcher’s has such sentiments. Watch the film. With these official dismissals of ungodly rumors, and looking at Dutcher’s previous work, I repeat that I continue to trust him to be morally responsible with his films.
[Update 10/01:]
I had an email debate with the fellow who posted the rumor. He holds that his twice-removed source at an entertainment company over which Dutcher is not President (which source he will not disclose) could be just as reliable as the source I directly and openly contacted: the Public Relations guy at the company where Dutcher is President. I commented that he must think the folks at Main Street Movie company just must be lying. He didn’t appreciate that. Okay, maybe it isn’t fair to suggest that, but it is fair to say it’s one of two logical choices. Either 1) Dutcher’s PR guy is outright lying or 2) He’s not really informed about what is going on even though his job is Public Relations for Richard Dutcher and he works day in and day out in the same offices as Dutcher. Look at it logically. I invited him to call up Main Street and ask the PR guy if he knows what’s going on. He declined. Naturally. If there is some logical explanation as to why my info isn’t right, fire away with that explanation (but he has, and he offers nothing logical). I don’t doubt he actually heard what he did, and that the guy that guy heard it from did too, and that person also. But I know he’s got wrong information. I’ve got the facts direct from the offices most “in the know”; Dutcher’s offices.
I got a one-line email from Dutcher’s PR guy:
SAG rules prohibit any type of nude audition. You should feel “silly” and “ashamed” for even asking. Chris
Ha ha! He’s making fun of my fretting questions. He’s also saying the concern is so unnecessary the questions don’t even need to be asked. The logic of the whole situation is against it.
Marketing newsletters from Dutcher’s company say that the first 22 minutes of STATES OF GRACE will be made available online, and that it will be selling at Deseret Book. Halleluhah!
Also, he told me official statements about FALLING and the next film would soon appear at richarddutcher.com, and those are up now. Confirmed title: EVIL ANGEL.
However I originally erred in reporting the word “spiritual” in the discription. But if it’s about a dark angel, and Dutcher is writing and directiong, there could easily be a spiritual aspect.
The reason I confused that term is because this IMDB bio on Dutcher contains the term “supernatural/spritual thriller” for a future project entitled RESURRECTION. Same thing renamed? Who knows.
I’ve got to say the whole situation disheartens me; not because I believe Dutcher’s films will be, like, evil, but because I fear that too many Mormons who don’t already think they are will. I like Gwen’s words in the statement about a variety of interests. Also, read the Bible. It is chock full of glory and horror. It’s only a matter of how you approach the material.
But I like best what Eric Snider said at the AML-list. He mocks all of these worries that a lot of people have:
I thought we’d reached the pinnacle when people were despairing over movies they haven’t seen. Now we’re wringing our hands over movies that haven’t even been MADE yet?!
[I suggest you skip the next paragraph if you are very young and/or you are sick of content debates.]
With “movies they haven’t seen”, he’s referring to people avoiding films based on content descriptions. There have been raucus debates about that this year in Utah-related message boards. Personally, I will sometimes avoid a film for just those reasons. My personal thinking on it (re the comments in this post after my last update): If I know a film too closely portrays Mommy and Daddy, or people who ought to be mommy and daddy, making babies (or doing things that ordinarily would make babies but with no such intent), I will avoid it (I know a content descriptor that would save some people a lot of time searching: “R - RESTRICTED - baby making”). It induces a wish to make babies with actresses to whom I am not wed (and not a polygamist either, since we’re talking in the plural). No, thank you. To people who aren’t bothered by it I suggest some redifining, but I also respect their view.
Anyway, comparing Dutcher’s work to anything even near anything of the sort is laughable. His work has very notably taken exactly the opposite approach (and I am NOT saying that Richard Dutcher doesn’t like babies). Nothing of the sort as would make you sympathetic to, like, evil.
Double anyway, on Snider’s main point, I agree. However, hand-wringing is itself strangely compelling..
I’m turning this one in.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:39 am
You sure put in a lot of effort to defend someone who is determined to push the line all for the sake of his “art.” Just so you know, the OFFICIAL breakdown that was submitted by Dutcher himself and came out officially through [AH: a breakdown company stated] “There is nudity in this project.” It is classified as a “Sci Fi/Horror film.” If you can show me where horror films and nudity fit in with the kind of entertainment we are to seek after as described in the For The Strength of Youth pamphlet, I’ll watch it. Here is the official breakdown on this project.
[I’m snipping that - is someone breaching confidentiality contract? It does indeed say what she says it does.]
September 29th, 2006 at 10:54 am
As fantastically titillating as that is, why should I be concerned with it? Nudity of what? Naked babies? Someone’s back? What kind and how? And do you have a named contact? I link to a .pdf nobody meant to leave somewhere? I am not concerned at all.
I can’t imagine why you think I would defend anybody “determined to push the line.” That implies that I am in line with an agenda that goes against morals. You implicitly condemn me on that ground. I don’t appreciate that.
I think you focus too much on content. Focus on message and effect. Orson Scott Card takes a very direct, correct, and logical look at what our prophets actually say about entertainment. Go to the source on which our For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet is made. And let’s look at the Pamphlet itself. It says:
The clear goal is to deter us from entertainments that would induce us to violence or immorality. I think that means I will not show THE INCREDIBLES to an infant. Fairly violent film. But does it mean you should necessarily avoid a movie which portrays the tarring and feathering of the Prophet of the Last Dispensation? Personally, I think not. (unless you’ve heard it’s a little odd and boring, if sometimes moving). That act is done by villains for whom we have no sympathy. It fills us with revulsion. After watching that movie, I said to myself, “I will never tar and feather the Prophet of the Last Dispensation, and probably not anyone else, either.” The Prophets and the Strength of Youth Pamphlet leaves it up to our conscience under our own moral discernment or guidance of the Spirit to determine whether anything is innapropriate for us, as individuals. This means that people may make different judgments based on their individual sensitivities, which also means, as difficulat as this is for some Mormons, that it is not appropriate for any one Mormon to condemn other Mormons over watching or anticipating films on any supposed universal moral ground. There is individual variance in what is right or wrong entertainment for people based on sensitivities. I can assure you from what I was told that there will be nothing pornographic about this film.
The prophets say nothing to the effect of your focus. Seek the source and interpret it by the Spirit of revelation. I have, and I have no such concerns. If you do, I wouldn’t presume to coerce or condemn you into thinking otherwise.
Of course it would be described as a sci-fi horror film. Does Los Angeles file anything under “spiritual thriller”? [Ed.: As noted in the post update this could easily be an aspect of it, though I confused it with something at IMDB.] All nine panelists at the LA Film Festival turned away STATES OF GRACE, even though the head of the festival is Mormon, because it was “Too Jesusey”. And I have that word from Dutcher himself.
If we should be upset about anything, we should be upset about that. Being dismissed by folks apparently not sympathetic to religion because we are a little too much like Jesus.
Except for when we condemn others over works of art that we have entirely prejudged over a mote that does not exist.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:59 am
Trackback: http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=279
[this post was cited in that article, and Rhapsidiomite is pointing it out. I haven’t read it yet.]
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Reality is so very hard to swallow, that some members take refuge in a make-believe idealistic world, and they think that anything in the media that portrays members of the Church should be squeaky clean and shiny new. That’s ok when your purpose is to present the ideal, like in a Church produced movie that is designed to show the Lord’s programs and doctrines in purity. But if Latter-day Saints go to a movie that is designed to give you a realistic slice of life, and be entertaining and meaningful at the same time, they ought not to expect the producers to use Lysol in every shot. That’s not the way the real world is. Mr. Dutcher has said on a number of occasions that he creates films “that comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted.” I fear these “comforted” saints, the very ones Richard is trying to “afflict” into waking up, are the very ones who are taking ‘offense for a word’ and are upset that someone dare rouse them from their deep sleep. They are trying to blame the producers for showing the Church “in a bad light”, when just the opposite is the effect on non-members. States of Grace is the most celebrated LDS film among non-members. What’s happening is these members are seeing fictional portrayals of members the Church, in a realistic light, and this reflection of reality allows us to examine our deepest motives, desires, habits and conditioning and challenge our possibly less-than-Christian attitudes and mores. But rather than welcome such an experience and praise those who have courageously provided it, they take aim at, for instance, the brief glimpses of bikini clad girls ( a rather common sight in Venice, CA … something their boys will have to deal with, like it or not, if they serve a mission there) and they proceed to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’ by condemning a movie which movingly sends the message of true charity over pharisaical posturing; of forgiveness and tolerance over pride and holier-than-thou attitudes; of the power and example of Christ’s love and mercy over judgment and condemnation. I’m sure that if the States of Grace critics saw a live video feed of the Savior’s treatment of the ‘woman caught in adultery’, they would complain that this was only condoning bad behaviour and giving license for others to sin and break the rules, etc.
Just thought you all needed to read this…
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:11 am
[Ed.: I believe I may have gone overboard as I usually do when I think my position has been challenged beyond reason :p I think I owe an apology to “an originator of this rumor”
and have pulled back a bit and rephrased.]
I just noticed a comment at the FAIR thread by a perpetuator of this rumor: he says according to these comments at my blog there is apparently a .pdf floating around of the breakdown for EVIL ANGEL. That really alarms me. My comments never said that, the person I was responding to never said that and didn’t give any such link, no one said that. My whole point was that they didn’t provide any link, not any hard evidence or named contact; they could have made up the whole “text” of it which they sent me. The question was a challenge meant to imply the frailty of the information - it is a loosely identified second party, a breakdown service without a named contact. This is in contrast to my named contact at Dutcher’s company, a first party which plans the whole thing and has ultimate control over it.
Suppose it is the actual breakdown. I know the agencies that were sent it were told the film would be rated R. Even if it was the breakdown, as pointed out the rumors didn’t match it, and further, breakdowns are created by a second party that cannot control the production. Dutcher’s company controls that. STATES OF GRACE was initially rated R for violence and Dutcher toned it back. But as I have also taken pain to say, the rating isn’t the thing.
And I repeat that I’m alarmed that the idea that there is a link was taken from this. I asked a visitor if they had a link to the breakdown, and this other fellow concludes this means there is a link to it out there? The purpose of my rhetoric may as well have been to ask if there was a flying purple banana out there - and now apparently there might be a flying purple banana out there. What does that sound like? Does that sound like someone hearing one thing and then reporting it as something totally different? Isn’t that how unreliable rumors get started?
But in the end, and even though I am certain this whole situation will pan out, like, totally all right and virtuous and stuff, I must throw my hands up in the air and say, in that all wise motto of Rhapsidiomite: “This is my United States of Whatever.”
October 4th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
HA!
Thanks for the compliment.