Day of Defense

I have not seen Day of Defense. It must have not been very widely advertised. I have only seen the trailer via the movie's website. The acting did seem poor. Nevertheless, in the movie makers' defense (no pun intended), I applaud anyone that attempts to make a movie. That is extremely hard work to make a movie of any size, whether it's a short or full-length feature.

I get irritated by the responses of people who are highly critical of other filmmakers' efforts, even beginning filmmakers' efforts, when they themselves, in many cases, have never made a movie themselves, let alone been on a production team for one.

I liken them to people who are highly critical of pro basketball or football players, etc. when they themselves can barely dribble, pass or punt much less score in those respective games. For example, I would value John Stockton's or Jerry Rice's analyses of an athlete's skills before some guy "off the street" who had not been "in the trenches."

But, then again, I guess that is why these people are called movie "critics" and not movie "praisers", right?

I am surprised at some of the other comments about this film and that is why I write one. I saw this with my fiancé (now husband) and I served a mission before in the south and it was exactly how the movie portrays. I noticed that a lot of the comments shown are from people in Utah, which doesn't surprised me as normally such people have blinders on about the rest of the world. Try venturing down to Portland Oregon or the deep south and see the world.

I get away from my point. This movie was a depiction of how religion is sometimes prejudiced in certain parts of the country (yes even in UTAH), and while I didn't think it was a super movie, it was thought provoking and did remind me of my own mission and how I dealt with some people of alternate faiths.

Haven't found it on video yet, but I look forward to seeing it again, unlike the people who are afraid of their own shadows.

I saw this film while on vacation to Las Vegas and I thought it was controversially appealing. Although I wouldn't say it was one of my favorites (some of the scenes lacked closure for me), the concept was so interesting and compelling I enjoyed it. The ending surprised me a bit, since not being a Mormon, I was sure how it would end, and it didn't end how I thought the writer would Beasley make it. There are some weak points but in I found the arguments good enough to keep my attention.

One thing I didn't like was that the relationship between one of the missionaries and the girl didn't go very far. I would have liked to see more of that, maybe.

I normally give passing if not good reviews to the Mormon cinema films, especially those chronicling the development of the church in the 19th century. But Day Of Defense is one frightening film in its concept and story.

Two young Elders one just finishing his two year hitch and another getting started come to a small white bread and I do mean white California town which reeks of red state family values.

This place attributes its Stepford like existence to the fact that they have a religious council acting as an extra legal body which issues license to preach. The Elders John Foss and Allan Groves no sooner start spreading the LDS message than the sheriff demands to know where their license is. They have none so off to the pokey they go and then to court before Judge Joan Peterson. When they demand a jury trial over the issue of licenses. The DA Brooks Utley prosecutes and the judge appoints Public Defender Andrew Lenz to defend the Elders.

The trial turns into a philosophical debate on just what constitutes Christianity. As for the outcome, well let's leave that alone.

I think the Iranians would get this film, but not any American who believes in free speech and freedom of religion. Note there's no synagogue or mosque in this town, I guess they didn't get any license or knew better not to apply for one. You'll look in vain for any Oriental, black, or Hispanic faces the last really interesting when you consider this film is set in California. And I sure wouldn't want to be a gay kid growing up here.

I guess all the citizens here got over their problems with Mormons that they had in 2003. I'm sure Ronald Reagan got 98% of the vote in his two national campaigns. And I'll bet Mitt Romney carried this place overwhelmingly in 2012.

The idea of religious council isn't really attacked, it's just that they're being too strict. Where's the American Civil Liberties Union?

Gentiles like myself will find this one frightening film.

This should stand as a warning to all LDS filmmakers about the perils of crafting films that can logically serve no other purpose than to bolster the belief of those who already believe. I can't imagine a single non-Mormon viewer of this film not coming away as having felt like missionaries had just been in their home. The gaps of logic in this film are so great as to make me question just how faithfully the script writers who adapted the book practice the religion. No missionary would knowingly be sent by the church blindly into this ridiculously perfect little Christian town as some kind of "challenge" if it knew of the strictures on proselytizing, and if the church did know of such a rule, it would never rely on mere missionaries to fight the battle for equal preaching rights. Since the whole point revolves around the missionaries being put on trial to prove they are "Christian" enough to proselytize in the town, it makes me wonder what kind of place has never heard of the First Amendment's freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses? Indeed, where did the two Mormons go to school that they didn't know it.

And all that is to say nothing of the illogic of the actual trial and methods of "defense" itself. But do yourself a favor, don't go there.