September Dawn

"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+

9/11, but century and a half before the recent one. Back in 1857, in Utah, a group of settlers was killed by local Mormons. This movie tells a story about more than a hundred men, women, and children who lost their lives in the horrifying massacre. It's not a masterpiece of cinema, but it is definitely worth your time.

7/10

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.

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 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.