September Dawn

I can appreciate your comments and I believe your comments were constructive and neutral. When I saw the movie I thought it was very interesting, insightful and thought provoking. I also thought about it as a viewer on the outside of the Mormon faith looking in, as obviously biased and based more on butts in the seats, cash in the bank, then the little details of historical accuracy, or fairness. I'm certainly not going to spend hours, days and weeks researching what happened 150 yrs ago, I just don't care in this day and age enough. What I did find in fifteen minutes of searching the "Net" is that this group of Mormon's did not for the most part follow the advice of it's leadership on all matters. They kind of ran their own little rodeo hitting the highlights of the faith. Their main leader Brigham Young, three hundred miles away in Salt Lake City was aware of the problems and contention in the area between these two groups. When my respect for the writers and directors fell through the floor was when I read on multiple web-sites and some historical records, that Young sent a message to the local leaders, to calm down, think rationally and to let the group go in peace. This letter arrived two days late. Someone posted on the web, comments claimed to have come from him (Young) that he made in his later years, saying how much he pained over those events that transpired and that, had they had the telegraph, it wouldn't have happened. Yea, maybe he's lying, maybe he delayed the letter just enough to clear his conscience and avoid responsibility, maybe. Just the simple fact of how they (film makers) portrayed Young and failed to mention this letter would have changed my fillings of the movie and of the production staff. This movie might as well have well been made by Michael Moore. Same one sided story telling. It was a nasty event, shouldn't have happened, the responsible parties should have hanged for it. This move should have been more balanced and not such a one sided "Hatefest" film preying on emotions, and religious hate to fill the seats. Heck, I paid.

I have been hearing many bad reviews for this movie, panning it for a perceived 'blanket condemnation of the Mormon Church.' What so many of these reviews refuse to take into consideration is the actual character of territorial Utah in the 1850s and the rest of the historical evidence.

The plain simple fact is that Utah at the time WAS full of zealous religiosity. Every statement made by Brigham Young in the movie comes from his published sermons. Utah territory was a harsh and repressive society, and the movie portrays this accurately.

This movie is in NO WAY a blanket condemnation of Mormonism, though it IS a condemnation of the Mormon Church *IN THE 1850s.* To say that this movie portrays them like "homesteading Nazis," is completely unfair.

John Voight's performance gives a perfect example of the sort of character found in Mormon authorities in the period, while his sons show us some of the various types of dissension, the outright rejection, and the horrified self-loathing obedience.

The only thing I can see wrong here is that they could have put some hostile people in the wagon company, as undoubtedly there would have been. I can understand why they did not however, in order to drive home just how terrible this massacre was. Whether or not Brigham Young was directly involved in the events is up for debate, but there can be no doubt that the teachings he espoused and the environment they engendered were a significant part of what caused the massacre.

In short, most of the negative reviews come either from Mormons or people who have very little background with regards to the history of Territorial Utah

I find it quite odd that so many folks have slammed this fine film. A masterpiece, no. A hateful 'attack' on Mormons, hardly. I know for a fact the LDS doctrine outlined in the film is what 'the church' holds. Why is this historical film off limits, I don't get it. The actors all did a credible job and Terrance Stamp was wonderful.This is a true Hollywood story. It is based on a real event. The Mormons murdered those folks on the meadow. It is no indictment on every living member of the LDS than a film about the crusades impugns every Catholic.The ending was a little over the top but it was a fine love story. All in all I have seen few films bashed this terribly that were so very good.

I am feeling so much better now that I've seen September Dawn, an "inspired-by-true-events" fiction about the massacre in 1857 of Christian "immigrants" on the Mormon Utah land as they passed through to California. The Mormons did it, with the complicity of Native Americans. But whether Brigham Young ordered it is still arguable.

I feel better because midway through the year I found the year's worst film. This bastard child of Little House on the Prairie and Lifetime Channel is so full of clichés and obvious Mormon baiting that the descriptor "art" should never be uttered about it. "Inspired by" the true events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, in which 122 "gentiles" were exterminated, Almost every scene is larded with clichés, not the least being the shameless ones with the Romeo and Juliet knockoffs who exclaim more than once never to have "met anyone like you" before, or the progressive woman who wears pants and a gun who doesn't like the current rest on Mormon land and is the clear choice for hatred by the mad Mormon, Jacob Samuelson, played with scene hunger by Jon Voight (his bad-guy goatee is hilarious).

That the massacre occurred is not in doubt. That it happened on September 11 seems to enchant the producers as if this tepid melodrama could in any way be spoken of in the same breath as 9/11. Why this film was made at all is beyond belief. Perhaps I should ask Mitt Romney why.

I honestly can't say why this film doesn't rate higher than a 5.6 because it is certainly better than this score indicates. Now, I realize that it doesn't paint a pretty picture of the Mormon movement during this time period. But the fact is that this terrible event actually happened and pretending that the Paiute Indians were the only culprits involved simply doesn't wash. Likewise, the fact is that we may never know what Brigham Young knew--or when he knew it. God knows. And that's what is ultimately most important anyway. Be that as it may, while this film does capture some historical facts the director (Christopher Cain) and the writers also added some fictional scenarios quite liberally as well. For example, there is a love scene thrown in that clearly never happened. But it makes for good viewing and that's what typically matters most to Hollywood. That said, although I certainly don't wish to diminish the horrible crimes committed at Mountain Meadow, I also don't want to tarnish everyone belonging to the Mormon faith either. So for the sake of brevity I will just say that this was a very good movie with good acting which managed to keep my attention throughout the entire story. But this isn't an historical documentary and so it shouldn't be confused for one. In short, this is definitely worth a watch for those who can appreciate a film of this nature. I'll leave it at that.