Setembro Negro

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.

"September Dawn" (2007) is a powerful and unforgettable film. It details the long covered-up massacre at Mountain Meadows, Utah, on September 7-11, 1857, where a group of Mormons murdered well over a hundred settlers traveling from Arkansas to California. The settlers stopped in southwest Utah to rest and resupply and the Mormons who lived there graciously allowed it. Unfortunately, in the ensuing days the decision was made to slaughter the settlers, likely due to paranoia over the brief "Utah War" that was going on at the time (between the Feds and the Mormon settlers in Utah) and also because of the Mormons' severe persecutions back East in the 1830s-40s, which provoked them to seek sanctuary in Utah in 1847.

Brigham Young was the president of the LDS denomination at the time and the governor of Utah. Was he involved in the decision to slaughter the innocent settlers? Although Mormon leaders deny this to this day it's possible for two reasons: (1.) As the LDS president and Utah governor it's unlikely that something of this magnitude would have been carried out without Young's authorization; and (2.) the leader of the slaughter, John D. Lee - the only man convicted and shot for the massacre - was the adopted son of Brigham Young. The film theorizes that the murderers took an oath of silence and that's why the massacre has been covered-up by LDS officials to this day, although Lee admitted to being the scapegoat before his execution. Chew on that.

The vibe of the film is very realistic, sort of like "Dances With Wolves," although not as compelling. For instance, the Paiute natives -- whom the Mormons hoodwinked into participating in the initial assault -- are very well done. The acting is convincing across the board with only one dubious part. In this regard "September Dawn" stands head & shoulders above roll-your-eyes Westerns of yesteryear.

Perhaps the film has such an authentic vibe because it's based on the historical facts and is fair with them. For one, the film utilizes Juanita Brooks' book and others as sources, and they happen to be devout Mormons. Secondly, the film reveals the valid reasons for the Mormon's paranoia - due to the Feds' harassment presently and also previous persecutions back East, SEVERE persecutions. Thirdly, the film details a peculiar doctrine the Mormons adhered to - "blood atonement" - that gave them the mentality that they were doing the settlers a favor by killing them (that is, the settlers would die to this temporal world but they'd be eternally blessed, or something to this effect).

Some have criticized the film for adding a romantic subplot concerning a Mormon youth and a settler girl, but this is a typical Hollywood technique, e.g. "Pearl Harbor," "Red Baron" and "Titanic." Others object to a Mormon youth cracking up after the massacre - another fictional addition - but it makes sense that an unhardened youth would lose his marbles, so to speak, after such a horrific undertaking and, again, it's portrayed in a convincing manner. Besides, who's to say something like these two subplots didn't happen? It's very possible that they did.

Although the story takes place in Southwest Utah they couldn't shoot there for obvious reasons. So they shot it in central Alberta, near Calgary. Although these locations are an acceptable substitute they lack the more arid look of SW Utah.

Bottom Line: The harsh criticism that has been dished out on this film is ridiculous and not even remotely accurate. Although it's sometimes a hard film to watch for obvious reasons, "September Dawn" is a worthy modern Western that dares to sneer at political correctness and tell the truth, at least as far as can be done by the documented facts. Sure there's some speculation and fictionalization, but all movies based on historical events do this to some extent and, like I said above, these fictionalizations are based on likely possibilities. I guarantee you that "September Dawn" is far more historically accurate than heralded films like "Braveheart."

Since the film is so well done I can only chalk up the ridiculous criticism to intolerant liberal ideology. After all, the film dares to show Christians in a positive light being led to the slaughter literally by wacko religious fanatics. Not that all Mormons back then or today are wacko religious fanatics, not at all, but that group that murdered the innocent settlers definitely were and, more specifically, those who authorized it and led the (otherwise good) men involved to carry it out.

The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes.

GRADE: A-/B+

This movie deserves better than it got. I almost didn't watch it after reading reviews and seeing that it had a '13' on RottenTomatoes. It is far better than that. Yes they tacked on a love story (although that was not badly done), but it follows the true history quite closely. And there is the rub for many of the Mormon faith. Even though the Church has been forced by facts to slowly and reluctantly admit to the truth, it has still tried mightily to suppress the incident. And you can see why. It was truly a sickening slaughter of innocents sanctioned by the highest authorities in the church.

Having read American Massacre, an historical account of the MM massacre, I found this a reasonably accurate depiction of events. A fascinating if disturbing bit of western history.

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.

This is a story that needs telling, and perhaps a bare documentary would have gone unnoticed. I was bothered, however, by the introduction of an unlikely horse-breaking scene, a subsequent act of remarkable generosity, and a love-at-first-sight romance. These run counter to the actual events and distort the nature of the massacre. Apart from that I liked the portrayal very much. It does a good job of portraying the distrust the Mormons had of the rest of the nation, including the government, of their resentment toward Missouri and toward the mob that murdered Joseph Smith in Illinois, and the failure of the government that had him in its custody.

Although the movie was shot in Alberta, the scenery is not unlike that in the Mountain Meadows area, except, of course, for the lake or river in which the young emigrant was able to bathe. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there is one.